69 Replies to “The Citizens Of Oak Harbor”

  2. Individuals exercising their inalienable right to self defence are naturally perceived as a direct threat to the supremacy of the state.

  3. “Sandy Peterson spoke out against the ordinance. “If the city council members are intimidated by people exercising their Second Amendment rights to bear arms, perhaps they need to examine what it is about that that makes them uncomfortable,” she said.”
    Er… perhaps people who bring murder sticks to a civil meeting?
    A question… let’s say things get heated and people start yelling? Would you yell back at a guy with a gun when you don’t have one? You’d be kind of stupid. So that means everybody has to pack heat.
    The whole idea of civilization is that we don’t need to pack heat. There is supposed to be trust. This is failing in the US due to the perverse fetish around gun culture. So called “gun rights” extremists are very slowly building the kind of dog-eat-dog world where you actually need weapons to walk down the street.
    That’s F-ed up.

  5. I should add… the gun nuts should commission some new paintings of the Founding Fathers drawing up the Constitution. None of the old ones have any guns in the room at all. Problem, that, since clearly they must have been armed to the teeth.

  6. Imagine the bricks you guys would s#!t if the occupy kids showed up with guns? Don’t you usually poop your pants talking about how violent they are when somebody walks in with a can of spray paint?
    Not sure what kind of meds you guys are on that allow two parts of your brain to not communicate, but they must be good!

  7. John
    Project much?
    Who is doing the yelling?…shouting others down?
    Answer……your heros the lefty gun grabbers….rude people like Piers Morgan….

  9. “An armed society is a polite society. A man chooses his words carefully when he knows he may have to back them up with his life.” ~ Robert A. Heinlein

  10. What if the conversation becomes “heated” and people start yelling John?
    In Canada, all the government offices I’ve been to as of late have signs posted that instruct the subjects that if we become disrespectful or raise our voices, that we won’t be tolerated. I haven’t pushed the issue, not wanting to step out of line with our all seeing, all knowing governors / overseers. I’d guess the police would be called, and we’d be carted away for speaking out. Charged with causing a disturbance, possibly given a fine or minimal jail time to think about our crimes, and certainly banned from owning or possessing any firearms, sharp objects, knives on our person outside of work tools necessary to conduct our work at work or to prepare food at home.
    That’s what happens in Canada. Civilized? certainly as long as you comply with the orders being given. But your right to self preservation and liberty are compromised.
    In Canada, the Constitution that declares our rights isn’t worth the paper it’s written on. In the US, it’s just barely above that status.

  11. Its worth watching the video here showing the wimp councillor getting outvoted on his motion to remove the soldier’s holstered firearm by a majority of women councillors plus one other omega male like John.
    If this happened in Canada, the councillors would start crying and the police in swat gear would demolish the soldier.
    If this happened in Britain the councillors and police would start crying.
    Such is the silly fear of inanimate objects.
    video: http://mynorthwest.com/?sid=2186281&nid=646

  12. (sorry make that that the councillor and another omega male councillor getting outvoted by a majority of women councillors who obviously have no fear of a soldier who legally carrys a firearm which is currently holstered and hidden away from scared little eyes.)

  13. “The answer, of course, is that the political class doesn’t want citizens. It wants subjects.”
    Yep.

  14. Now I’ll have to call my uncle and see if he was at the meeting. I love the people of Oak Harbor, even the Hippies pack heat and you’ll never feel safer walking the streets at night, even if you’re a Canadian and not allowed to carry a pointy toothpick. Always someone ready to watch your back.

  15. From the story:
    ” William Frail had an M-1 rifle on his shoulder as he testified. “Sir, my mother was Jew,” he said. “My family went to the chambers. I will not go into the night quietly while these two ask me to board the train.”
    If these people follow up this confrontation by voting out the city sh!theads at the next election, they will find they are treated with a strange new respect by the new council members.
    As Reagan said, elected officials don’t need to see the light, just feel the heat.

  16. I’m sure I’m troll-feeding here, but the guns are not for disagreements at meetings; the guns are for personal protection inside and outside the meeting. One could make a similarly retarded statement such as “Er… perhaps people who bring murder sticks to a MOVIE?”, and it would still be retarded.
    Someone who chooses not to carry a gun(to a civil meeting) has nothing to fear from a law abiding citizen who chooses to carry; and, that person should not expect that a criminal will respect the retarded rule(s) that you’d support. Period! Whether at a “civil meeting”, a movie, or at a wedding; I’ll repeat, ” Someone who chooses not to carry a gun has nothing to fear from a law abiding citizen who chooses to carry “, regardless of disagreements or not. So ‘yes’, “If the city council members are intimidated by people exercising their Second Amendment rights to bear arms, perhaps they need to examine what it is about that that makes them uncomfortable,”. I’ll give you a hint… it’s called ‘projection’.

  17. John says “The whole idea of civilization is that we don’t need to pack heat. There is supposed to be trust.”
    He then says ” None of the old ones have any guns in the room at all. Problem, that, since clearly they must have been armed to the teeth.”
    The difference is that the founding fathers trusted each other, whereas there are many Americans who do not trust their leaders who are so intent on violating their constitutional rights.

  18. That’s what I admire so much about Americans, that so many of them have a deep seated distrust of those who rule them, and believe they may someday have to use firearms to win back their freedom.

  19. Next election? The assembly should have demanded the resignations of all the councillors involved in this farce effective immediately, with guns quite literally pointed at their heads. At most, one warning shot would have been sufficient to make the gutless little ponces make messes of their nappies and sign anything put in front of them.
    Eventually Barack Hussein Obama must be put on notice that even his lackeys don’t think he or his cronies are worth anybody else’s life. Given a choice between the tyrant’s firing squad and a patriotic one, anybody who ever had the wits God gave a goose invariably recovers them in an instant.
    That’s a riot? The Romanians blow bigger things out of their noses.

  20. “Yes. Why are you afraid of the Constitution? The answer, of course, is that the political class doesn’t want citizens. It wants subjects.”
    That is a very powerful statement. Will be showing that to my kids tonight.

  21. John says “The whole idea of civilization is that we don’t need to pack heat. There is supposed to be trust.” “This is failing in the US due to the perverse fetish around gun culture”
    Wrong. This is failing in the US due to a gov’t breaking the trust of the people. Breaking the very Constitution that gave it power.
    US citizens trust the gov’t to accept the Constitution of The United States Of America including the Amendment that states if the gov’t attempts to thwart the Constitution the citizens have the right to have the means necessary to protect themselves from the gov’t by means of an armed uprising.
    You are now seeing that right displayed.

  22. That’s just insulting but given the tenor of your usual posts, it’s not surprising that you would reduce everyone to your level of emotional immaturity. I imagine some people would “pack heat” for protection and some did it to prove a point.

  23. “Er… perhaps people who bring murder sticks to a civil meeting?
    Riigghhtt. If it was me,I would start to think that maybe the people who HIRED me may be right. Fear it???? Not on your life. 99.9999% of all domestic gun violence is done by criminals,with illegal HAND guns.And BTW,a”murder stick” is an inanimate object which cannot do diddly squat by itself. And a “civil meeting” Bwahahahahaha. You have obviously not been politico mtgs.

  24. Dude… 40, 50, 60 years ago, nobody brought their guns to townhalls. Nobody. It wasn’t done. Go look at a Norman Rockwell’s “Free Speech”. See any guns? As I pointed out earlier, go look at the paintings of the Founding Fathers. See any guns? Swords? Throwing stars? Nun-chucks?
    The answer is no. No you don’t. Because the whole idea of going to meetings like that was because people weren’t supposed to be scared of each other, or try to intimidate one and other. It was about trust, and peace and good government.
    Americans have always had guns, but gun nut fever is new. Fuelled in part by the NRA which underwent a coup in the 70’s (more on that in a minute), and film, and video games, and the fear mongering that America is becoming more dangerous, when in fact stats prove otherwise.
    Back to the NRA… the funny thing is that the NRA actually once fought FOR more laws restricting the carrying of fire arms:
    http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/article/NRA-took-hard-right-after-leadership-coup-3741640.php
    But hey… don’t let me get in the way of polishing each other’s pistols. I’ll let you guys get back to your rightwing circle j3rk.

  25. 99.9% of all shootings were by criminals???!!! Not quite.
    In 2008 there were 680 accidental shooting deaths in the United States, with more than 15,500 shooting injuries.
    If that’s just .1% of the shootings in the US, that’s going to be a helluva pile of bodies in a few years.

  26. The left has become comfortable in the knowledge that conservatives rarely demonstrate or make a huge public fuss. Progressives can do whatever they wish, and the biggest backlash will be a few angry emails and maybe some rantings on Fox news.
    As Kate says, a failed policy.

  27. “The difference is that the founding fathers trusted each other, whereas there are many Americans who do not trust their leaders who are so intent on violating their constitutional rights.”
    What? Are you serious?
    The founding of the US took place during a revolution. There were loyalists everywhere. You can’t honestly claim those people should have felt safer trusting each other then than now. That’s insane.
    No, they trusted each other because they were civilized men, NOT paranoid gun nuts. They were men of the age of reason, and even though many of their ideas are now outdated, they were, i’m sorry to tell you, liberals for their time period.
    As has been said over and over and over. Nobody is going to take away your little guns. You can sit in a room rubbing them all over yourselves for all anybody cares.
    What is being proposed is simple. Background checks to make sure that paranoid schitophrenics are not able to purchase guns, nor convicted criminals. Likewise, there are limits proposed on the types of weapons you can own. No big deal, since you shouldn’t be permitted nukes or nerve gas either, and they are, after all, “Arms”, as per the wording in the 2nd Amendment.
    So relax guys. Take off the tinfoil hats. If the US government really wanted to rule you like tyrants, your PussMaster 5000 wouldn’t save your fat @ss. They’d just bomb you from orbit.

  28. “Dude… 40, 50, 60 years ago, nobody brought their guns to townhalls” … “It was about trust, and peace and good government.”
    And I’m sure there must have been at least one old cranky ex-sergeant who did carry a side-arm. And if some political hack had tried to eject him,(that is not “good government”) more people would have showed up with guns, in support.
    And the gov’t wasn’t actively trying to disarm them. Your own argument brings it back to the gov’t. Elected officials trampling all over the system that allowed them to get elected.
    (Hope this doesn’t post twice)

  29. John, none of the Founding Fathers were trying to suppress the rights of the citizenry.
    John how would you feel if a group of people were trying to strip voting rights from women, or stop blacks from owning property or force you to sell your home because a corporation wanted the property?

  30. “Progressives can do whatever they wish”
    Except they never, never bring guns with them. If they did, pants would be pooped. You guys get angry when they show up with a picket sign.

  31. Decades ago the people in the US were not concerned about a significant part of the political class wanting to fundamentally change the US be stealth and increments and did not have to fight back. Even, as we have seen in english.pravda.ru editorials lately, the editors have recognized that the US is going in the direction that the Russians left. No doubt the Marxists will get it right this time.
    marc in calgary says it well by saying, “In Canada, the Constitution that declares our rights isn’t worth the paper it’s written on.” Think Caledonia.

  34. John, your Quotes from the San-Francisco rag are gibberish…(they should know better, guns and meetings)
    If all of the USA, all 48, adopt the same gun Laws as Newtown why should anyone think they would be safer than those in Newtown. It is a fatal flaw in logic
    Gun Laws are a fatal attraction to the mentally impaired, but how do we control someone when the mental Health industry can’t quantify a diagnosis. Soft Science indeed
    I am an NRA member and have always considered the Second Amendment as an Constitutional right…The NRA advise all members to follow gun laws, it is law enforcement that has failed to do their job.

  35. Slap shot. If you deny the claims from the “SF rag”, then prove they’re wrong. You won’t, because you can’t. They’re true, but that doesn’t matter to you. What matters is that it appears in a paper you have decided to ignore because it doesn’t tell you what you want to hear.
    Gun laws work and the proof is in the pudding. The US has an outrageous homicide rate for a first world country, most of those from gun wounds. It’s an ongoing catastrophe.
    What you, and the rest of the nutty magoo’s fail to understand, is that the 2nd Amendment has limits, and you yourself very clearly agree with them. Should you be able to purchase a nuke? Why not? It’s an “Arm”, and the Constitution of the US says “Arms”. The fact of the matter is that the founders never dreamed that some drunk clown with a day’s pay could purchase that kind of fire power, be it a nuke or a Bushmaster500, or whatever.

  37. Oh, please, John, tell me all about the “firepower” of a Bushmaster pushing .223’s. I mean, they must be SUPER-POWERFUL and SUPER-DEADLY those .223 calibre rounds, which are mainly used for hunting varmints.
    After all, the founding fathers only had the French Model 1774, with the puny .69 calibre ball.
    Learn something before piping up next time.

  38. Poor Old John, some say good old John, others say F old John. The John’s of the world would have us all reduced to tooth and claw in the face of our well armed criminal elements. What poor Old John doesn’t get is that the SCOC ruled in the majority in 2004, that all Canadians have the right to self defense, even with illegal concealed weapons. Our self defense rights in Canada are much stronger than many Canadians even know. And get this they cited the original Treaty of all Indian Treaty’s The Hoary Old Magna Carta still entrenched firmly in our laws here in Canada. Now John get all lathered up and foamed up again……..

  40. @Yukon Gold, The Bush Master .223 was used to kill 20 children and six adults in Newport, 12 people (and 58 wounded) in Aurora, and 10 people by the Beltway sniper, so yeah… that lil’ varmint gun is a killer, and considerably more dangerous than a musket that could at best fire about 3 rounds per minute with an accuracy of about 150 – 200 feet. (Who is it needs to do a little readin’?)
    @RFB As for our self defence rights and gun laws in Canada… I’m totally good with them. Because they are sane, unlike the US. I might even be gettin’ my licence in the next year or so. Like most people who want to see stronger gun laws in the US, I don’t oppose gun ownership at all. I just don’t think you should be able to drunkenly wander down to a gun show and purchase the Killomatic 5000 without so much as a background check. And I don’t think people openly carrying around guns is good for public safety or communities.

  41. Umm, they have restrictive gun laws already, that were supposed to, you know, end the violence.
    “Section 922(g) of the Brady Act prohibits certain persons from shipping or transporting any firearm in interstate or foreign commerce, or receiving any firearm which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, or possessing any firearm in or affecting commerce. These prohibitions apply to any person who:
    Has been convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
    Is a fugitive from justice;
    Is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance;
    Has been adjudicated as a mental defective or committed to a mental institution;
    Is an alien illegally or unlawfully in the United States;
    Has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;
    Having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced U.S. citizenship;
    Is subject to a court order that restrains the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of such intimate partner, or;
    Has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.
    Has a record of being a felon”
    As was pointed out yesterday, President O’s self-admitted marijuana and cocaine use would make his use of the shotgun a criminal act.
    But that law’s only for us peons, not for those in charge.

  42. John –
    You say that 40, 50, 60 years ago people did not openly carry firearms in US town halls. How about further back in US history?
    How do you know this? You really can not be serious about Norman Rockwell paintings as proof of your position.
    I have beentold by an elderly American that men commonly wore sidearms into town when he was a boy.
    Sorry to provide the exception which disproves your laughable rule.
    Dick Slater is right, the people should demand the resignation of that panel of fools posing as public servants.

  43. John, when you fill out your PAL form, make sure to accurately type all the men and women’s phone numbers of those you have had sex with for the last five years, don’t worry, it’s confidential.

  44. @Mitchel44…
    Ok, cool. That’s part of the way there. So then basically you agree that nobody should be able to purchase guns at gun shows and background checks?
    Because that seems to be a major, major concern with gun rights advocates and there is no way to enforce these laws without background checks.
    And you must then agree with giving law enforcement the tools, power, and staff to enforce these laws?
    (And yeah, Obama might not be allowed to own a gun, but neither would GWB. And hey… at least Obama never drunkenly shot anybody, unlike the former VP)

  45. John, how exactly do you think that statements such as “I just don’t think you should be able to drunkenly wander down to a gun show and purchase the Killomatic 5000…” or “The fact of the matter is that the founders never dreamed that some drunk clown with a day’s pay could purchase that kind of fire power…” make anyone think you are serious about debate?
    The Founding Fathers were quite serious that the 2nd amendment was about the citizenry possessing military arms.

  46. John (as in toilet), you’re full of shit, the bushmaster was in the truck of the car, and hand guns were used in the killing. There is even news film of the cops removing the bushmaster from the car. This lack of knowledge just about sum up all your billshit ranting, UNINFORMED. Just because rectums like you can’t be trusted with a gun, don’t project your shot-comings on everyone else. Most gun violence is committed by criminals who are arleady breaking the law and will break any subsequent laws enacted.

  48. @Small C – No… i’m not using the “Free Speech” painting as a firm example, but I am for the painting of the US Founders. The Norman Rockwell painting however DOES symbolize the very core of American democracy and has been held in high esteem by both liberals and conservatives for decades, and as you can see… no guns.
    And guy… while in some places, people may have worn side arms, they NEVER did in large cities or towns in the past century or so. And even in the wild west, there were limits. Some of the most notorious towns had laws where you had to check your guns with the sherif upon arriving in town.
    The point here is that you just don’t carry guns to town hall. It’s just not done in the civilized world because the message it sends is totally counter to what civilization is all about. Civilization is about trust. It’s about checkin’ your weapons at the door. It’s about trusting that your fellow citizens have got your back.
    @Cam… I’m okay with those personal questions. If you want to buy a kill stick, you should expect law enforcement to wonder why you want it. This system we have might partially explain why we have considerably less gun violence up here, though that is just part of our generally more civil society. And I guess this means I’ll need your phone number again Cam, since I seem to have lost it. I can probably whip down to the truck stop and see if it’s still posted on the washroom wall. ZING!

  49. John is at an major disadvantage here.
    Denied his most powerful debating tactic….by the medium.
    He is unable to yell and shout down everybody else….like Piers Morgoon……
    He made the freudian slip of projecting yelling at the meeting….

Proudly powered by WordPress & Skyrocket Themes

MENU

Navigation