I'm wondering what will happen after all this, I fear that a lot of cities will pass more antigun laws to prevent the evil guns from taking over in a disaster.
I also think a lot more people will start to realize just how little the .gov can do and begin to start to accept more responsibilty for themselves and start to keep proper defense guns in their homes.

That is the most bizarre piece of video I have ever seen. I don't know whether to thank you or not.

After watching the news for the past week we have decided to get more firepower and supplies. We are trying to decide between the mini 14 or the M14. I like them both, I want the M14 but it doesn't matter, tired of the Ak47 but they are cheap.

I've always wondered if anyone has ever fought those laws and won. This would be a big what if, but say you were in visiting a place that made it not legal to have any means to defend yourself and you were attacked and hurt/killed. Could your family make a court case that if you were able to carry your chosen defense weapon that you could have defended yourself and lived? Sure it would take a lot to proove that but I think it would be possible.
I was reminded of this because I was watching the discover channel last night and they played ads for their show about the people who fought back on the one plane on 9/11. Basically on all the other planes everyone sat still like they have been told, but what if they weren't told to sit still? What if it had been a policy of the airlines to always fight back no matter what, maybe another one or more planes crashing into the towers could have been prevented? It seems quite a libality to prevent people from having any means to defend themselves when its well known that the police can't be everywhere at once.

No. The states enjoy soveriegn immunity for police powers.

First, some (probably most) states have laws that prohibit suits againts the state for damages due to such things.

Also, there have been court cases where a person asked for police assistance, assistance did not show up or came very late and bad things happened. Courts have held that the government or its agents have no obligation to protect an individual. If I understand the concept right, a government agency's function is to provide for the general welfare of citizens, not to garentee the saftey of every individual.

At leat that is the way I understand it. I could be wrong.

I know in at least one court case the police lost due to not responding in a timely mannor and it turned out that it was due to differences in the clocks. This was the reason the company I worked for at the time incorporated time synching into all their e911 products because after that it became a requirement. So I know someone has won against the .gov in thet respect.
I could see not being able to make a case against a resturant or business which has posted a no waepons sign on the door or even against the airlines since you could choose to not enter the building or get on the plane. But in the case where the government forces an evacuation and then forces you to become defenseless you don't have that choice.

Hi all

Firstly I'd like to say that this would have to be one of the most interesting threads Ive read here.
Im usually a spectator in these forums for 2 reasons, firstly I have a very pitiful internet connection that doesn't allow me to do much, secondly I dont usually have much time, so I end up quickly scanning threads of interest but not much time to put back.
Down here at the bottom of Australia we dont usually get the full story in the media, and this is the first place I thought to turn to find out some of what is really going on.
I have to say that we are watching things in total amazement.
But I also have to admit a lot of ignorance on my part, because I dont really know a lot about the US.
I really dont understand exactly how your disaster response is supposed to work, or who has the responsibility to cover any particular aspect of a disaster that may happen.
But I do have 1 point that might be worth discussion from a cyclone (Aust. version of a Hurricane) that happen here.

When Cyclone 'Tracey' hit Darwin on Chistmas Eve. Darwin being the Capital City of the Northern Teritory. The Federal Government sent in the Army and gave a General total control.(not sure of exact rank so dont pull me up on details) Darwin is in a remote area of Australia, and a hard area to provide support.
The mandate given to the General was its your operation, coordinate everything. So in goes the Army and starts the rescue effort and provides total support and coordination across all military and civil authorities, until they could take over for them selves.
I cant give exact details of how this worked and what did exactly happen.
I am also the first to admit that I dont know if something like this would work in the US. It does seem logical to me that countries like the US, and Australia etc should have a response system inplace to put into action reguardless of the disaster or location or which of its citizens where involved.

One of my other thoughts in all this points back to the present government in Australia. I really dont have the confidence that I would be in any better situation if a disaster hit here now, because a lot has changed since Cyclone Tracey hit 30 years ago, hence I have been slowly trying to make some preparations for myself.
So I would like to also thank everyone for their posts on numerous threads I have read.
I started by thinking that this site had excellent info, them when I started reading these forums I realised that one of its biggest assets was the info and experience expressed here.

Thanks Wayne

The REAL QUESTION is what would have folks done to the President had he enforced mandatory evacuation from NO by the federal government, rather than leaving it up to the state and municipal govt's as he did...

Especially if the dikes hadn't failed....

It has been partially tested. I don't remeber very many details but IIRC a woman or her family sued the local police because they didn't protect her from her ex. The decision was that police protection was to the community, not a specific individual. It would be interesting to see the results of the means for self defense argument.