Apparently you think it better to jump to conclusions, have knee jerk reactions, not wait and see, make the worst scenario of the fabric of your imagination. A least you are consistent in your rants and insulting remarks, and castigating the Chief for being a LEO and an employee at will. Might be a good time to stop.
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
D.C. police chief to the public
- Thread starter Grapeshot
- Start date
WalkingWolf
Regular Member
From my understanding she has complete control of who does, and does not get a permit. Have we seen a huge flux of issued permits? I think not. For me, her words are hollow. IOW they do not mean jack without some action on her part.
BB62
Accomplished Advocate
Would that it were so simple.
The Chief is an employee at will and as such must follow the dictates of the hiring authority.
Still I agree that there is much that can/should be done. Just don't agree that it should be the sole responsibility of the Chief to shoulder that burden.
BB62
Accomplished Advocate
Agreed, but I think the Chief would have great credibility if she suddenly became a supporter of broader carry laws - and the politicians might well take note. After all, they were "smart enough" to hire her. On the other hand, they might just boot her out of town!
She's spoken up in a manner that's intellectually unsustainable, so it wouldn't take much of a leap for her to change her stripes, should she choose to.
Agreed, but I think the Chief would have great credibility if she suddenly became a supporter of broader carry laws - and the politicians might well take note. After all, they were "smart enough" to hire her. On the other hand, they might just boot her out of town!
She's spoken up in a manner that's intellectually unsustainable, so it wouldn't take much of a leap for her to change her stripes, should she choose to.
alas if she doesn't carry the party line, those that hired her might terminate her employment contract...
ipse
WalkingWolf
Regular Member
But it is her responsibility, she can either step up to the plate, or continue to help suppress the people of DC. I personally would rather get fired than give up my morality.
rightwinglibertarian
Regular Member
No I think it's better to actually act like Americans and not run in fear at a little bit of opposition and to avoid self-censorship and compromise but that will never happen. But yea i'll stop. Talking to walls is generally pointless. Moving on.
since9
Campaign Veteran
Emphasis mine, for a purpose: This is precisely what the Constitution prohibits in the Second's, "shall not be infringed" clause. The definition of the word "infringe" in place when our Bill of Rights was penned is "defeat, frustrate." (Source: Merriam-Webster).
Entities such as the D.C. politburo need not prohibit people from keeping (owning/possessing) and bearing (carrying) arms in order to meet the definition of the word, "infringe." Merely making it even mildly difficult for the average citizen constitutes an infringement and violation of our U.S. Constitution.
Someone needs to take D.C. to the Supreme Court AGAIN! I can't afford the $2.5 million, but I'll bet if the NRA spent less money on advertising and more on actionable items, they could.
OC for ME
Regular Member
1. Where does she urge citizens to defend themselves with a gun?
2. The "can of corn" ref is appropriate.
3. She is a manifestation of liberal elites and will not support restoring rights and respecting liberty.
Nothing to see here...move along...move along...
2. The "can of corn" ref is appropriate.
3. She is a manifestation of liberal elites and will not support restoring rights and respecting liberty.
Nothing to see here...move along...move along...
CharleyMarbles
Regular Member
That is only because some people don't understand the Oath they take. AND that for some reason the Constitution is no longer taught to our successors. Admittedly I am no scholar on the matter but I do at least try and find the right answer before I make a judgment.
Edit sorry missed the last paragraph but you are smart fellows I think you can figure it out.
Last edited:
rightwinglibertarian
Regular Member
Now comrade the law is what we are told. Such talk is almost doubleplus ridiculous, verging crime-speak. The penalty for continuing is increasing censorship until one accepts they must bow to what the establishment has decreed
That has been done.
Please note rule #15 which says in part, "Even if you feel that a law is unconstitutional we do not break it, we repeal it or defeat it in the courts."
Every perceived ill is not an opportunity to rant the same sarcastic diatribe.
The RKBA and OC particularly has made great positive strides in recent years.
davidmcbeth
Banned
(15) WE ADVOCATE FOR THE 'LAW-ABIDING' ONLY: Posts advocating illegal acts of any kind are NOT welcome here. Even if you feel that a law is unconstitutional we do not break it, we repeal it or defeat it in the courts.
Rule 15 in its entirety.
I don't think its a pledge wherein individual members pledge to follow illegal laws ... just that the forum will not advocate for breaking such laws or support such postings advocating such.
Just like individual members do not actually pledge to file lawsuits regarding illegal laws but that the forum supports the discussion in respect to furthering the understanding related to possible (or ongoing) litigation ideas and viewpoints.
Correction or clarification always welcome.
Rule 15 in its entirety.
I don't think its a pledge wherein individual members pledge to follow illegal laws ... just that the forum will not advocate for breaking such laws or support such postings advocating such.
Just like individual members do not actually pledge to file lawsuits regarding illegal laws but that the forum supports the discussion in respect to furthering the understanding related to possible (or ongoing) litigation ideas and viewpoints.
Correction or clarification always welcome.
Called decisions are based on this which is also in the Forum Rules:
"We reserve the ABSOLUTE right to contact our members via PM or email regarding moderation issues. Contact for non-moderation activities is governed by forum rules."
It is a short step from that to the on line moderation of posts detrimental to OCDO.
Being a publicly read form, we must be aware of the perception of endorsing illegal acts.
What part of "NOT welcome here" is unclear?
Brakes must have failed.
Now as to "moving on" - THAT caught my attention. We used to have a poster that favored that expression. Wonder if you know him?