Uechi-Ryu.com

Here Ya Are, right from my E-mail from the NRA

www.GiveThemBack.com


Later We'll Talk.

Why is this something the democrats don't want you to see? Isn't this just more examples of how badly Katrina was handled? It seems like the police were at a loss for what to do, and so they started stomping on people's constitutional rights during the emergency. That's nothing new for this administration. Certainly I don't think the situation would be any different under democrat control. Still, I wouldn't really say that these videos show anything that makes the democrats look bad. I only watched a few of them though, so maybe the part that is bad for democrats is in one of the ones I didn't see.

Valkenar wrote: That's nothing new for this administration.

By "this administration" I assume you mean Mayor Nagin's, or perhaps the governor of Louisiana (democrats both).

mhosea wrote:

Valkenar wrote: That's nothing new for this administration.

By "this administration" I assume you mean Mayor Nagin's, or perhaps the governor of Louisiana (democrats both).

Oops, that's what I get for making assumptions. I should've spent the two seconds it would've taken to look up Louisiana's local officials. Given that they're democracts, this news might be slightly damaging. Although at most you'll get something that's half apology half excuse along the lines of "we regret any mistakes that were made in the midst of that terrible crisis" and then they'll pass the buck back to FEMA for failing to help enough.I think that to some extent the NRA is preaching to the choir in this case, and that very few people will be less likely to vote democratic in their own state because of this.

Well, scratch the word Dems if you like.

Bush signed a bill into law prevention any further such confiscations.

I suppose it is too much to have expected that the Mayor of New Orleans and the administrators of affected parishes, the State Police and National Guard to have reached the conclusion NOT to do this on their own.

So, Bush is for a broad interpretation of the Second Amendment in this case. Since it was he who signed the law against Confiscations, I thiiiink it's safe to assume he didn't ok the operation.

The NRA is ALWAYS for an interpretation of the Amendment which contrues it broadly,ie: to protect the individual.

Court cases have lately construed it narrowly.



JT