War on science?
-
Where you and I might differ, wizardzz, is that some sort of blowback should happen for those careless scientists who like to bandy about as 'facts' those things that are only best 'guesses'. I know the power is enticing, but they need to resist or face the consequences. Where did the people get the idea that the local scientists could predict an earthquake or call an all clear? Nobody can do that with 100% accuracy. As someone who has watched many of our freedoms errode because a board of unelected scientists have decided what is good for me or what is not good for me - well, I'm glad to see some blowback for the arrogance. That said, I don't see what these guys could have done to avoid jail. People are dangerous to lead.
MehGerbil wrote:
As someone who has watched many of our freedoms errode because a board of unelected scientists have decided what is good for me or what is not good for me - well, I'm glad to see some blowback for the arrogance.
Exactly what country do you live in? Certainly isn't the US since all such decisions are via politians, political appointees and/or via businessmen. Also curious about the "many" and "freedoms" part. Both at the general term definition level and the specific leval. Do you have an example of say three specific ones? And could you insure that the examples explains exactly what freedom no longer exists?
-
I agree with your point. It is, however, FEMA's job to deal with whatever happens, people listening or not, and dealing with lawlessness by confiscating guns is IMO criminal.
wizardzz wrote:
It is, however, FEMA's job to deal with whatever happens, people listening or not, and dealing with lawlessness by confiscating guns is IMO
First, it is not the governments job, any part of the government to do deal individually with every idiotic choice of every single citizen. Second rights, including the explict ones in the bill of rights, are not absolute and that fact has been upheld by the Supreme Court. There are situations in which the government is allowed to infringe on rights which is is not allowed to do generally. (Many examples of that even during normal situations.) And the first point applies to that too.
-
wizardzz wrote:
It is, however, FEMA's job to deal with whatever happens, people listening or not, and dealing with lawlessness by confiscating guns is IMO
First, it is not the governments job, any part of the government to do deal individually with every idiotic choice of every single citizen. Second rights, including the explict ones in the bill of rights, are not absolute and that fact has been upheld by the Supreme Court. There are situations in which the government is allowed to infringe on rights which is is not allowed to do generally. (Many examples of that even during normal situations.) And the first point applies to that too.
Isn't FEMA supposed to have a plan for emergencies? They are an entire agency, it's their job to plan for this stuff. And isn't people not cooperating with instructions part of a comprehensive plan? If it's not the government's job, then maybe FEMA shouldn't exist. I'd be fine with that.
-
Isn't FEMA supposed to have a plan for emergencies? They are an entire agency, it's their job to plan for this stuff. And isn't people not cooperating with instructions part of a comprehensive plan? If it's not the government's job, then maybe FEMA shouldn't exist. I'd be fine with that.
wizardzz wrote:
And isn't people not cooperating with instructions part of a comprehensive plan?
Could be. For example one plan could be - let them die. Or shoot them depending on the type and situation for non-cooperation. Just like disaster medicial triage planning specifically allows for that option. As does controlling looting.
-
wizardzz wrote:
And isn't people not cooperating with instructions part of a comprehensive plan?
Could be. For example one plan could be - let them die. Or shoot them depending on the type and situation for non-cooperation. Just like disaster medicial triage planning specifically allows for that option. As does controlling looting.
-
I'm fine with that, it would stop them from going in and disarming law abiding citizens that decided to take care of themselves.
wizardzz wrote:
from going in and disarming law abiding citizens that decided to take care of themselves
That of course is a loaded statement since it presumes that individuals are in fact law abiding and in fact that the only reason for the arms is for taking care of themselves. Not to mention of course the implicit assumption that to "take care of themselves" for example does not just mean shooting everyone that they see.
-
wizardzz wrote:
from going in and disarming law abiding citizens that decided to take care of themselves
That of course is a loaded statement since it presumes that individuals are in fact law abiding and in fact that the only reason for the arms is for taking care of themselves. Not to mention of course the implicit assumption that to "take care of themselves" for example does not just mean shooting everyone that they see.
-
It's not an assumption. They confiscated law abiding citizens' firearms from their private property.
wizardzz wrote:
They confiscated law abiding citizens' firearms from their private property.
It isn't even close to being proven that all of the guns confiscated were from law abiding citizens. And little evidence that most seizures involved your implicit statement that police forces invaded property to do so. Versus merely seizing them from individuals on the street. Further although the legality of the original act might be questionable (it certainly hasn't been decided) the police at the time were acting with good intentions following directions that seemed to be legal. And since state and federal laws have been generated after Katrina to prevent this in the future it seems likely that lawmakers concede that there is a significant chance that the act at the time was legal. Further one can note that 1. Protecting property with lethal force by private citizens is NOT a right in the US. There are limited circumstances where it is allowed but in many cases individuals risk being prosecuted. It is often the discretion of the prosecutor whether to prosecute. This is not the same as protecting life. 2. If the individuals were concerned about their life, not property, then the best and most rational way to do that would have been to leave the hurricane zone. 3. A response plan can certainly take into account that in emergency situations that those that do not follow rational orders are in fact irrational in some way and thus extreme measures are justified.
-
wizardzz wrote:
They confiscated law abiding citizens' firearms from their private property.
It isn't even close to being proven that all of the guns confiscated were from law abiding citizens. And little evidence that most seizures involved your implicit statement that police forces invaded property to do so. Versus merely seizing them from individuals on the street. Further although the legality of the original act might be questionable (it certainly hasn't been decided) the police at the time were acting with good intentions following directions that seemed to be legal. And since state and federal laws have been generated after Katrina to prevent this in the future it seems likely that lawmakers concede that there is a significant chance that the act at the time was legal. Further one can note that 1. Protecting property with lethal force by private citizens is NOT a right in the US. There are limited circumstances where it is allowed but in many cases individuals risk being prosecuted. It is often the discretion of the prosecutor whether to prosecute. This is not the same as protecting life. 2. If the individuals were concerned about their life, not property, then the best and most rational way to do that would have been to leave the hurricane zone. 3. A response plan can certainly take into account that in emergency situations that those that do not follow rational orders are in fact irrational in some way and thus extreme measures are justified.
jschell wrote:
It isn't even close to being proven that all of the guns confiscated were from law abiding citizens.
None should be taken from law abiders.
jschell wrote:
And little evidence that most seizures involved your implicit statement that police forces invaded property to do so. Versus merely seizing them from individuals on the street.
They entered houses illegally and took guns from law abiding individuals. You are allowed to transport guns, legally, in cars, while evacuating, so that is not exactly "on the street" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8X9JkSudCX4&feature=related
-
jschell wrote:
It isn't even close to being proven that all of the guns confiscated were from law abiding citizens.
None should be taken from law abiders.
jschell wrote:
And little evidence that most seizures involved your implicit statement that police forces invaded property to do so. Versus merely seizing them from individuals on the street.
They entered houses illegally and took guns from law abiding individuals. You are allowed to transport guns, legally, in cars, while evacuating, so that is not exactly "on the street" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8X9JkSudCX4&feature=related
wizardzz wrote:
None should be taken from law abiders.
As I already said... First, it is not the governments job, any part of the government to do deal individually with every idiotic choice of every single citizen. Second rights, including the explicit ones in the bill of rights, are not absolute and that fact has been upheld by the Supreme Court. There are situations in which the government is allowed to infringe on rights which is is not allowed to do generally. (Many examples of that even during normal situations.) And the first point applies to that too.
wizardzz wrote:
They entered houses illegally and took guns from law abiding individuals.
If you have a link that demonstrates both of the following please post it. It will need to have something that represents a court ruling about this specific situation. 1. That the action itself (seizure)was in fact deemed illegal by a court. 2. That the individuals were in fact law abiding. Myself I suspect that in regards to 2 that every single individual was in fact a law breaker because the reason the officers entered the houses was to remove people who refused to follow a mandatory evacuation order.