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

reply to post by xedocodex


It's hard to get through your rambling scare tactics/non-sense but I will clear something up for you:

ANY type of gun control is unconstitutional.

What is it about the 2nd amendment that some people just dont understand?

"the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

It's pretty clear to me but I guess after the lying scum-bag politicians twist and "interperate" the meaning I could see how some ignorant but well meaning people could get confused.

Originally posted by xedocodex
*snip*

People have the right to demand that people not carry guns in certain places if they choose to. If this guy has a paranoia issue, a ego issue, or just feels like his penis is too small...I'm sorry, but it doesn't give you the right to bring a gun into a place where it makes the majority of people feel uncomfortable.

BBBBZZZZZZZZZZZZZ!!!!!!!!!! Wrong! You could not be more wrong if you tried. People have a right to carry a weapon wherever they please, according to the Constitution. Those that don't like it do NOT have a right to take that right from those that do. They can choose to not carry a weapon, but they cannot choose for everyone around them. That isn't how rights work. I guess you think freedom of speech doesn't apply, either, if there are people around that don't like what you are saying? Plus, your vulgar insinuations are flat out childish, and a pathetic attempt at argument. People carry weapons for protection, to insure that those with no respect for the rights of others (Like that wimpy councilman and his pal) do not try to take their rights away by force. That isn't about paranoia, or ego, or some sort of compensation. It's about common sense, and Constitutionally protected rights. We do not lose our rights every time some idiot "feels uncomfortable".

Originally posted by xedocodex
If you don't like that people want gun free zones, tough, deal with it. Your "2nd amendment right" doesn't give you a free pass to trample other peoples rights to dictate what they will and won't allow. You want your gun, fine, stay at home with it and carry it around all you want.

You do not have a right to not be uncomfortable. If you are that afraid of citizens carrying guns, then stay home. You being afraid of someone that is legally exercising their rights doesn't mean they lose those rights. You and people like that councilman do not get to dictate the rights of others, simply because you don't agree that they should have said rights. People that want to steal freedom from others are the problem here, not citizens with guns. People like that don't know what rights are, and don't deserve them.

Originally posted by xedocodex
*snip*
If you see that as "dangerous", then yes, we are very dangerous because we are much better armed in the gun control debate, and all gun owners have is catch 22 with their solutions of "let's shoot them" in response to gun control. Think about it.

Oh, the irony. You are "better armed" in the debate? What interesting word choice! As for that last comment, it was liberal anti-gun-ownership people that stated gun owners should be shot, not the other way around. You should think about that.

link to that story

Nice fail there.

Originally posted by XXX777
That Veteran sustained damaged in the struggle for freedom and the Leftist coward wants to disarm him?!!!

Unfreakin' believable.

The Left is really trying hard to fundamentally alter this country.

Both sides are infested with progressives.....Romney=Obama.




Progressives are parasites and could care less who they use to gain and keep power. We have fallen asleep at the wheel and now both parties are controlled by them. Every choice they give us is a progressive nut job. Romney is a progressive and so was Bush. It is controlled at almost every level including local government.




Progressives will do anything to keep power away from the people. We are all idiots for letting them fool us into the two party system. Until this changes kiss your freedoms goodbye.

reply to post by TrueAmerican


Thanks for the vid. !! Seen the link on yahoo news...Best yet!,
Right up there with the Battle of Athens!!.
Hubby said that if The Battle of Athens happened today, they would be considered terrorists by gov. standards.
What I wonder is what will happen when the gov. yanks federal funding from the states based on the actions/speech of the sherriffs?
Seriously, they have done it before and won't hesitate to do this again.
New York might be the battleground for now, but there are other states that are proposing legislation that contradicts the sherriff statements. Missouri for example....
Will the sherriffs still stand in opposition to the state legislators...AND the Gov.

Forgive my spelling....I stink at it and am nearly blind, so it takes FOREVER to post anything and I am new.

As much as i do not agree with the second amendment, i agree more in the rights of people to affirm their lawful rights as their country has written them.

It is your right at the moment to bear arms, and if that man had as i believe he did lawful right i would have been disgusted if he had been made accountable for that. I am wondering if this was personal though as the previous motion some time ago suggested the same councilor asked him to remove his hat.

Which amendment allows the wearing of hats ?

Well done mayor

reply to post by Gooseygander


It really does not matter if its personal, the council member was elected and has to uphold the laws of the city, county, state and federal/constitution. Its a tough road because not all that are elected understand the rules and procedures that govern a city and believe me, there are MANY that they don't tell you about when you are elected. [or even when you run for office.] Learn as you go along, and sometimes you make a fool of yourself in the process.
I'm not making many excuses for the baldy guy, except for why he didn't vet with the city attorney BEFORE he made the motion.
YES, very much so in a small town, feeelings can and do sometimes trump law. [not saying this is a small town, but where I came from it was downright brutal at times ]

Edited to add.......I totally agree with what the mayor said and even how the city attrny resonded...Well Done !!

Interesting to see some members grasping at straws saying people aren't allowed to carry guns if others are uncomfortable.

Nobody was uncomfortable except for the one city councilman, these people live in Washington for goodness sake.


The mayor explained it extremely well and so did the attorney. Why are there still party loyalists trolling this topic? I just don't get it, you need to think for yourselves and not just be a mouthpiece for your party's rhetoric.

And I'm talking to you xecodecxaexcex, you were making up wild accusations in another thread of mine as well, when is enough, enough?

I came on JUST to star and flag this. This really should go viral and most likely will. Ha, Ha, Ha.....the councilman has taken his ball and has gone home because he didn't get his way. What a dork. Sad thing is, now that the elites has seen which side he has chosen and just how much he will debase himself to get rid of guns...he's most likely going to be the new Mayor.

reply to post by eLPresidente


They don't care about logic, or constitutional rights - they are only concerned in pressing their agenda.

Glad that people will call them out on it.

Really happy to see that pompous ass got owned.
Don't ever lose the right to bear arms bcos of the likes of that baldy pompous ass coming back one day to shoot you with government's issued arms.


Kudos to the mayor, the veteran and those that are still sane enough to see through that the Constitution gives the people the right to bear arms against supposed future's bully like that baldy pompous ass !!!

Originally posted by Tuttle
I dont understand what the problem is, this is the very definition of democracy.

The baldy man is not comfortable with someone being armed whilst in that room, thats fair enough isnt it?

He makes his discomfort be known, and proposes a motion, which is then voted on in a democratic fashion.

I do not see anything wrong about this, even if it went the other way, it would be democracy. And thats something many people cannot comprehend about true democracy, even if the vote does not go your way, you have to live it, and thats that.

My major problem with the video however was the former soldier saying he was injured whilst defending his second amendment right. He may have miss-spoke, but if he believes he was fighting in Afghanistan in order to defend and uphold his second amendment rights, then I too like the baldy man would not be comfortable with an unbalanced psychopath like that in the same room with me, especialy knowing he is armed.

The United States is, indeed, a republic, not a democracy. Accurately defined, a democracy is a form of government in which the people decide policy matters directly--through town hall meetings or by voting on ballot initiatives and referendums. A republic, on the other hand, is a system in which the people choose representatives who, in turn, make policy decisions on their behalf. The Framers of the Constitution were altogether fearful of pure democracy. Everything they read and studied taught them that pure democracies "have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths"

Okay, two things:

1) left the room, fuming? He calmly dismissed himself and walked out - this was a non-event. Good on the Mayor for saying what he did. And, good on the young vet for being honest (when he didn't have to) and hell, the guy made ME feel safer, but...

2) anyone *else* notice the REST of the room cleared out, too?! At the beginning of the video there are at least 20 citizens sitting in front of the council members - zoom to 6:05... There are 5 (FIVE) - where'd everyone go so fast?! Was there a cutaway we missed?

wtg Mayor Scot Dudley - you could run for potus - ya got my vote.

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.

The big problem with that is most Republicans don't realize that their party would ruin them. While they stand firm on certain freedoms, while blocking freedoms for certain groups, they would absolutely destroy the working class given the chance. And the Democrats would over-regulate and tax into non-functionality, while stripping freedome (like guns) but granting others (like gay marriage.)

The Red states would be completely dysfunctional without the blue states propping them up. On average, "red states" receive nearly $2 in federal money for every tax dollar paid. The blue states, no longer burdened with propping up the red, would have plenty of revenue in comparison to expenditures - until they found a way to inefficiently spend that money too.

No, the balance bbetween the two opposing dysfunctional forces is better than splitting the extremes into two easily-destroyed halves. A better solution would be to take the 70% of Americans who are capable of thinking, and allow them to stay, while sending the 30% to Mexico. (I know, not gonna happen) - the thing is, very few people agree with everything either party stands for. Those who do are anti-American scum, no better than the terrorist politicians in DC. A true American would support the 2nd Amendment and "marriage equality." a smart American would want corporations reigned in, to have less rights than citizens, not more. A wise American would want capitalism, but in a form which doesn't continue to make the "bottom 99.8%" less wealthy every year while the top 0.2% continue to hoard more and more.

Extremists, both left and right, are simply idiots, and are harming the US more than al Queda could ever hope to. Lemmings believe in keeping certain rights while keeping other rights away from certain people. Lemmings also believe we should give continuously to prop up those who don't deserve help (ex, people living out their entire lives on disability because they're "too fat" to work), rather than helping people get back on their feet temporarily to become productive again. I'm so sick of people who side with "right" or "left" as though more than a small fraction of either party's ideals are of any use.

i'm very happy how this turned out, HOWEVER: would it have gone differently if the person with the concealed carry weapon wasn't a vet?


how many people here are aware that returning military veterans are classified as "potential terrorists" by the DHS?

reply to post by Bob Sholtz


Heck, believing in the constitution / smaller government / being a member of a militia will make you a domestic terrorist in the eyes of some.

Citizens of the city of Washington, here you have witnessed two Traitors in your midst.

And to the Mayor of the city of Washington, I say WELL SAID Mayor!

The citizens need to keep an eye on those two Traitors though, and throw them out of office as soon as possible.

reply to post by Golf66

Just so you are aware - the legislatures make law. A group of citizens can't just vote an armed man out of their meeting if he is doing nothing illegal because they have fear issues.... Just like a group can't vote someone to sit outside because of the color of their tie or their hair style...the fear of the majority in that case doesn’t trump the law.

Sure they can. If he makes it known he is armed, people can perceive that as a threat and as disruptive. Maybe people don't want to disagree with him now because they know he is armed. If the fact that he is armed is being disruptive to the meeting, sure as hell they can vote to have him removed.

And lawfully, there are many places gun owners can't carry their guns...all it takes is for enough private citizens to demand it of their legislatures to pass the law.

I mean what gives blacks the privilege of making other people be in a situation in which they are afraid or uncomfortable?

Funny how it comes back to race with you. I'm sorry that you are scared of black people...that is an issue with you. Someone being black doesn't give them the potential to kill you very easily, carrying a gun does.

reply to post by Nicks87

ANY type of gun control is unconstitutional.

What is it about the 2nd amendment that some people just dont understand?

"the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

You seemed to have left out an important part of the 2nd.

Not surprising, since that is the part that the SCOTUS can very easily interpret to drastically change gun rights in America. And with Obama being able to replace at least one if not two in the next 4 years (and then Clinton replacing probably 3 in the next 8 years after that)...I can see why you want to ignore that first part of the 2nd amendment.