Reply
Mon 22 May, 2006 06:44 am
Congressman Jindal Introduces The "Disaster Recovery Personal Protection Act Of 2006"
Friday, March 31, 2006
On March 28, U.S. Congressman Bobby Jindal (R-La.) introduced H.R. 5013, the "Disaster Recovery Personal Protection Act of 2006." This NRA-supported bill would amend federal emergency statute laws to prohibit local authorities from confiscating lawfully owned firearms during times of disaster.
Representative Jindal stated: "The Second Amendment is a cornerstone of our country's freedom and independence. Particularly during emergencies like those surrounding Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, when incidences of looting, violence and lawlessness were broadcast around the country, we must ensure that law-abiding gun owners are not deprived of their Constitutionally protected right to bear arms. I am proud to offer this legislation to protect law-abiding citizens' Constitutional right to bear arms and to defend their lives, families and property against lawless criminals."
ILA's Executive Director Chris W. Cox said, "Hurricane Katrina taught us that lawful citizens need the Second Amendment most during disaster and crisis. New Orleans residents legally armed themselves to protect their lives and property from civil disorder."
Thirty three states have "emergency powers" laws that give the government permission to suspend or limit gun sales, and to prohibit or restrict citizens from transporting or carrying firearms--something NRA-ILA is working to change. In some states, authorities can seize guns outright from citizens who have committed no crime--and who would then be defenseless against disorder.
Cox added, "This bill to amend the federal disaster laws is vital for the future of America. Legislative bodies can, and should, act to protect the self-defense rights of citizens at the times when those rights are most important.
"We would like to thank Representative Jindal for introducing this bill, and we look forward to the time when the government will never have the power to confiscate firearms from law-abiding citizens," he concluded.
Please be sure to contact your U.S. Representative at (202) 225-3121, and urge him or her to cosponsor and support H.R. 5013, the "Disaster Recovery Personal Protection Act of 2006!"
Re: Support H.R. 5013
cjhsa wrote:In some states, authorities can seize guns outright from citizens who have committed no crime--and who would then be defenseless against disorder.
Far better to have them armed, so that they can fully participate in the disorder.
You mean protect themselves from the disorderly. C'mon Joe, ya wimp.
I think FEMA should pass out firearms, along with water and blankets, to victims of a natural disaster. The next time maybe the Red Cross can set up a table in the Superdome.
I thought the UN was going to confiscate all the guns. At least, that was the last tizzy fit you were having, anyway.
But yes, arming oneself is probably the most useful response to any disaster. If only the folks at the Superdome had been able to fire a few rounds at the rising waters, that surely would've saved the day! Here in California, we're often in need of a good firefight to staunch a winter mudslide. And of course, as any fireman knows, popping some caps is the surest way to get the best of any wildfire.
I shoulda gone to the Chicago A2K gathering. I could have robbed everyone with just my finger.
blacksmithn wrote:I thought the UN was going to confiscate all the guns. At least, that was the last tizzy fit you were having, anyway.
But yes, arming oneself is probably the most useful response to any disaster. If only the folks at the Superdome had been able to fire a few rounds at the rising waters, that surely would've saved the day! Here in California, we're often in need of a good firefight to staunch a winter mudslide. And of course, as any fireman knows, popping some caps is the surest way to get the best of any wildfire.
Were you purposefully demonstrating your complete lack of understanding, or was that accidental?
cjhsa wrote:I shoulda gone to the Chicago A2K gathering. I could have robbed everyone with just my finger.
I feel certain that in the real world cj, where people don't judge the size of their balls by their firearms, had you attempted to rob the group with your finger you'd have gotten the **** kicked out of you.
Did you see that group???
McGentrix wrote:blacksmithn wrote:I thought the UN was going to confiscate all the guns. At least, that was the last tizzy fit you were having, anyway.
But yes, arming oneself is probably the most useful response to any disaster. If only the folks at the Superdome had been able to fire a few rounds at the rising waters, that surely would've saved the day! Here in California, we're often in need of a good firefight to staunch a winter mudslide. And of course, as any fireman knows, popping some caps is the surest way to get the best of any wildfire.
Were you purposefully demonstrating your complete lack of understanding, or was that accidental?
Are you purposefully unaware of the use of sarcasm or just terminally obtuse?
Never mind, thanks to your incessant demonstrations, we all know the answer.
I somehow guessed (it wasn't hard) that bill we were asked to support, despite its innocent title, would have to do with guns. After all, consider who started this thread.
Another legislator that the NRA has in its pocket. Is there any problem in this country that doesn't somehow threaten gun nuts? Such whining...
cjhsa wrote:Did you see that group???

OBill could have probably taken you but he most likely would have let one of the women handle the light work.
D'artagnan wrote:I somehow guessed (it wasn't hard) that bill we were asked to support, despite its innocent title, would have to do with guns. After all, consider who started this thread.
Another legislator that the NRA has in its pocket. Is there any problem in this country that doesn't somehow threaten gun nuts? Such whining...
So, you support the decision to disarm law abiding citizens who were simply trying to protect their property after Katrina?
That's what this is about. You can choose to believe in the 2nd amendment or not, but choosing not to doesn't mean it isn't the law. What it means is that you prefer to be a subject, instead of a citizen. I believe every law abiding citizen should have to own at least one gun. It should be your duty.
cjhsa wrote:You mean protect themselves from the disorderly. C'mon Joe, ya wimp.
In a disaster situation, the lines between orderly and disorderly can be blurry. Someone taking food from a grocery store may be an opportunistic looter or it may be someone who hasn't eaten in three days. Disasters are dangerous and complicated enough without the citizenry being panicked, stupid, and armed.
cjhsa wrote:I shoulda gone to the Chicago A2K gathering. I could have robbed everyone with just my finger.
That depends. I don't know where your finger has been.
joefromchicago wrote:Disasters are dangerous and complicated enough without the citizenry being panicked, stupid, and armed.
Are you a politician? Ever work for Ray Nagin?
cjhsa wrote:Are you a politician?
Good god, no. My political views are far too profound and nuanced ever to attract anything more than a small, cultish following.
cjhsa wrote:Ever work for Ray Nagin?
Not that I'm aware of.
Any more inane questions that I can answer for you?
Well, the fact that you consider the populace "stupid" makes you an ideal fit for public service.
cjhsa wrote:Well, the fact that you consider the populace "stupid" makes you an ideal fit for public service.
Quite the contrary. I'm confident that most politicians think far more highly of the general population than I do. They're the ones, after all, who thought that a fully armed citizenry was a good idea in the first place.
What?! You don't think it's a good idea that, in the event of a disaster, we all grab guns and race in a panic to the local 7/11 to duel to the death for the remaining Big Gulps and bad hot dogs?
I think gun ownership is for criminals or cowards...
If you are not doing anything wrong, what are you afraid of?