City Council Member Despot Gets Owned! - Tries Throwing Out War Vet With CCW Permit

S&F. Excellent find on the video. The only one who would be afraid of that soldier after his talk is someone who is deceiving others or a threat to righteousness. I like the Mayors comment.

Originally posted by Afterthought
reply to post by xedocodex

 

What made him a threat to the Constitution?

Was he going to take that mans gun away from him?

He was requesting that a licensed gun owner should be disarmed

And?

That isn't "unconstitutional", in fact, the Constitution doesn't even apply here because this councilman isn't representing the Federal Goverment and wasn't "disarming" him.

You don't have the right to carry your gun anywhere you please...if you think you do, go ahead and stroll into an airport with your gun, or a court, or the whitehouse....go ahead...and complain about how "unconstitutional" it is when they tell you that you can't carry your gun there.

Originally posted by Golf66

Originally posted by AfterthoughtWhen you are near someone getting into their vehicle and hear them crank up the motor, do you automatically assume that they're going to try to run you over?

I am curious as well - does he live in utter fear of "bad people" with dangerous things (of which there are many)... or just any person with a firearm?

Seems there might be a phobia at work if so...

I actually don't live in much fear at all.

In fact, I don't even have to carry a gun around with me everywhere I go. I think you have it a bit backwards...it's gun owners that have the fear and paranoia. Can't go to the grocery store without carrying...you know...bad guys and stuff.

It's cute how you don't see it.

reply to post by xedocodex


I'm not saying that I want to take one into the White House or a courthouse. If I knew I was going to be entering either of these buildings, I'd leave it safely at home.
This was a council meeting. An event that is supposed to involve those capable of mature discussion and responsible debate. Why should someone not be allowed to carry a gun into this type of environment?
Are you worried that the man licensed to carry may have been under the influence?
Do you believe that he had ill intent when he decided to carry his piece into the meeting like he carries his piece into the grocery store and while driving his vehicle on the streets?
You actually believe that this man is a potential threat and doesn't have the sense to know that he can't have it on him at an airport? You're going to assume that this man doesn't have enough common sense to know how to store his weapon in the event that he has to fly? You know this is all covered during CCW training, right?

Edit to Add: Yes, if his constituents had agreed to make it illegal to carry a concealed weapon during a meeting, they would've tried to disarm him. It would've been interesting to see had this transpired. Although, I have a feeling the Mayor would've stepped in at this point and prevented this from happening or intervened in some way.

Originally posted by xedocodex

And?

That isn't "unconstitutional", in fact, the Constitution doesn't even apply here because this councilman isn't representing the Federal Goverment and wasn't "disarming" him.

So, since it wasn't the Govt asking him to disarm, then there is no issue, as the councilman, in your world, is an individual, and he has about as much right to have him disarm as telling him to remove his shoes.

Nice try. You fail.

But, since the Councilman was acting within the Council meeting, as a Council member, he was representing the Govt and thus acting on behalf of the respective Govt.

Nice try. You fail again.

Originally posted by xedocodex
You don't have the right to carry your gun anywhere you please...if you think you do, go ahead and stroll into an airport with your gun, or a court, or the whitehouse....go ahead...and complain about how "unconstitutional" it is when they tell you that you can't carry your gun there.

Actually, you can carry just about anywhere, with the exception of some Govt buildings and Private Property.
Since there are no laws restricting US Citizens from lawfully carrying a firearm within the building there, in that meeting, then the Vet DOES have the right.

Nice try again. You failed......again.


But, aren't you a NON-US Citizen???
I don't see where YOUR incorrect opinion is relevant in this matter.
I suppose your retort will be the tired and old "This is an International Forum" and blah blah bah.

You can add your incorrect opinion all you like, but..................It doesn't matter to anything, as you are not a US Citizen and really have no say in the matter.

reply to post by xedocodex


So you probably don't have smoke detectors in your house? And you shouldn't need to wear a seat belt or have any type of insurance, right? I mean, with you having no fear of anything and all. Must be nice to live in a world with no fires and car accidents.

Those trying to make the 2nd Amendment thing into a Republican vs Democrat or left vs right issue could not be more wrong. My views go so far to the left they wrap around to the right and touch. And I could not be more in favor of the 2nd Amendment. All my left-leaning mainstream friends could not be more pro-2nd Amendment. Yet my grandmother, the hardest of the hardcore republicans who thinks George W. Bush is one of the greatest men who have ever lived could not be more ANTI gun. Not everything applies to a partisan hate fest.

reply to post by Afterthought

Getting back to your question, are you licensed to drive a vehicle?
If you are licensed, how do I know that you're a responsible driver?
I don't. Which is why I have to wait until you screw up behind the wheel to a certain degree to scream that you should have your car taken away. It would be irresponsible of me to think that you aren't a responsible driver just because I hate cars and I believe the people who drive them are dangerous and not right in the head.

Which is why we have School Zone speed limits, and why we don't allow cars to drive anywhere people want to drive them.

There are rules, regulations, and restrictions. In fact, cars have more regulations on them then guns do.

So no, it's not ridiculous at all, I wish guns were as regulated as cars are.

You really aren't doing a great job arguing your point.

Kudos to Mayor Scott Dudley!

He handled the situation very well!

reply to post by TrueAmerican


We should absolutely worry about people who fear a gun when they have not been threatened with it. When they do that, it means that they are PLANNING to do something at some later time where that gun could potentially BECOME a threat to them - and that's never a good thing.

Originally posted by xedocodex
There are rules, regulations, and restrictions. In fact, cars have more regulations on them then guns do.

So no, it's not ridiculous at all, I wish guns were as regulated as cars are.

Granted, you aren't the one who first brought up the car analogy here, yet you couldn't help yourself.

In every state I've lived in, driving is a privilege, not a Right. At least, it is, if I'm to believe that judge staring over his glasses at me some 25 years ago.

You really aren't doing a great job arguing your point.

No, that's pretty much you...

reply to post by mnkydad

I am currently living out of state but still own property near you in Mt Vernon so I know a little about Oak Harbor. I just want to say that I was surprised that this man left the meeting and seemed afraid of the fact that this man was statign that he was carrying at that moment. With Whidbey NAS right there and all of the military prowler flights going on, I would like to think he has a better idea of who his constitutents really are. There are plenty of military folks (active, ex, retired) living around there and to act like that probably won't get him re-elected there.

To the OP, I was wondering if there was anything cut from this video as when the camera pans back to the seated guests, the chairs are almost empty. I listened to the audio a few times to see if I coudl hear the other folks leaving or discussing leaving but no luck. Just wondering if they all left when they heard this man was carrying as well, maybe in fear of things escalating or something. Any ideas?

The ignorance of xedocodex is alarming. He thinks everyone who carries concealed is a fearmongering psychopath. I'll put this into perspective for him.

Legally carrying a firearm is a lot like having a car, home, or life insurance policy. You have it in case you need it. You don't have home insurance because you live in fear every single day thinking that your house may catch on fire or that a small propeller airplane may crash into your master bedroom. You have it for the most remote possibility that you may need it. The same exact reasoning can be applied to the millions of Americans who legally carry a firearm every single day.

I don't know how else to simplify this idea any further so that it can fit into xedocodex's head.

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
reply to post by Screwed

 

HA!

I don't see why we just don't split the country down the middle, and each side go to the one they want to be on. They could even have their own separate governments. I mean I keep hearing how the country "is so divided". Then fine. Let's divide the damn thing physically and be DONE with this BS.

I swear.

And right in the middle there could be the Demilitarized Zone, too.

The democrats can tax themselves to death and have a massive government handing out what they don't have, and come crying and screaming over the boarder when the money runs out. Except this time we'd tell them to go straight to hell.

Let the Dems take the cold north and us Republicans take the south. Give California to the Green party and lets call it a day lol.

The vet didn't come across as being a threat to the councilman. I find it rather odd this councilman would consider this vet a threat. I could understand if this vet was irrational and throwing out threats at the councilmen, but this vet was calm and handled himself honorably. He was legally allowed to carry a fire arm.

I have to side with the mayor on this, I would feel safer knowing this vet was armed in my presence.

Originally posted by Screwed
Are we willing to live in freedom, even if it means freedom for people who YOU think don't deserve it?

and it aint going to be mine!

edit on 25-1-2013 by Screwed because: (no reason given)

edit on 25-1-2013 by Screwed because: (no reason given)

A well written post, I quoted the above line, because as a moderate, this is where I feel that many are failing. The "I want my rights, but I want to take yours away" seems to run rampant. For the somewhat more moderate among us, this is a conversation killer.

i posted this in the other thread about this but thought id post here as well..

.did anybody notice how many chairs there are at the 3:45 mark when the guy returns to the podium to answer the councilmans question and then when the vid cuts to the audience at 6:01 how many chairs are left ..it is .....im gunna use the word 'obvious' that the vid has been edited but not the audio......did a bunch of people come in and remove all those chairs??? i think the vid was edited on purpose................any links to the whole city council meeting.....the ccw guy did say he thought that were gunna talk about parks and rec...AAAAND did anybody hear the mayor saying that the same 2 council people wanted the ccw guy to remove his hat at the begining???

was the vid edited on purpose?? or was it edited..seems weird to me.....

reply to post by clearmind


The video has been edited, the original can be found here www.oakharbor.org...

reply to post by xedocodex


You have enough people jumping all over your posts so I will make this short:

1. It does not matter if the guy represents the Federal government or any other level. That is not how the Constitution works. The government does not grant anybody anything. The Constitution states we have rights and outlines how the government safeguards those rights. The government has a a defined lane. The citizen owns the rest.

2. While it is true there have been "laws" established as of late expanding the government's domain and reducing the citizen's lane (e.g. Patriot Act), that does not make it good or right. Matter of fact, that expansion is arguably unconstitutional. This example just captures that set of circumstances very well.

...and as one of those whacked out war vets myself, I take no offense to your opinion of me. I feel strongly you have a right to voice your opinion and I am glad you have a forum to do so.

Originally posted by MJZoo
reply to post by xedocodex

 

So you probably don't have smoke detectors in your house? And you shouldn't need to wear a seat belt or have any type of insurance, right? I mean, with you having no fear of anything and all. Must be nice to live in a world with no fires and car accidents.

haha THIS! Looks like mr. excode fell silent, just like any hypocrite who got put in their place would. Let me ask you excode, Do you wear a seatbelt in your vehicle? Do you have insurance of any kind? If so, please elaborate on why you do such things and you will have your reason as to why we need weapons on our person as much as we are allowed.