Gun-rights advocates stage protest at Norfolk council meeting

imported post

Since when does a gov't official get to "protest" against a constituency/public? Another reason why this a-hole needs to get another job. Just because he didn't WANT to hear what was going to be said, doesn't release him from the RESPONSIBILITY from doing his job.



I wonder when someone in the local press down there is going to highlight that fact. Public officials CANNOT protest against the people they are responsible to. To me, that smacks of dereliction of duty...and should be corrected/punished/forced accordingly.

imported post

That's exactly what I said in an earlier post: This is equivalent to my 3 year old son running out of the room because he doesn't want to hear what I have to say... and that ends up with him getting a timeout...

Riddick needs a timeout

imported post

Actually, I think this moron needs a good ole fashioned whoopin'--because he isn't a child who is misbehaving (granted, my boys get spanked--but only when warranted--which is once in a blue moon), but this moron neglected his duty.



He needs a reminder as to who he works for...and be taken down a notch.

imported post

SIGguy229 wrote:

Actually, I think this moron needs a good ole fashioned whoopin'--because he isn't a child who is misbehaving (granted, my boys get spanked--but only when warranted--which is once in a blue moon), but this moron neglected his duty.

Click to expand...

Wow. Whata great idea. Proposing physicality against an elected official on a public forum because you disagee with his actions. Soooooo impressive.


To add to what the Virginian-Pilot said a few days ago:

"How can anyone think it is a good idea to allow someone with a serious grievance to argue with a sidearm strapped at his hip" when thatsomeone has publicly stated that the public official needs a good ole fashioned whoopin'?



SIGguy229 wrote:

He needs a reminder as to who he works for...and be taken down a notch.

Click to expand...

That's for sure. But maybe there is a way to do that other than with a whoopin'.

imported post

Hank...

Against my better judgement, I'm going to respond to your post...



1 - I disagree with his actions because he is a public official who abdicated his responsibilities because he didn't like what he was going to hear from the public. I object to his "protest"--as if he, as a public official,has the "right" to protest. In his position, he does not have that right, but the responsibility to listen to grievances from the public and act accordingly.



2 - My "needs a whuppin'" comment signifies my frustration with public officials like him who believe they can lord over people, and act without accountability. He acts like a spoiled child (who probably was never punished or forgot what it is like to be punished)--and has to be re-taught conseqences for his actions. Removal from office or civil litigation would suffice.



Thank for your interest in self-defense.

imported post

For a councilman to leave as a protest against Virginia citizens who have taken time out of their day to come & voice concerns is appauling. Doesn't he know that he is supposed to represent the interests of the public that elected him? I hope he gets sent a loud & clear message of exactly what the citizens think of that by not being re-elected.

imported post

SIGguy229 wrote:

Hank...

Against my better judgement, I'm going to respond to your post...



1 - I disagree with his actions because he is a public official who abdicated his responsibilities because he didn't like what he was going to hear from the public. I object to his "protest"--as if he, as a public official,has the "right" to protest. In his position, he does not have that right, but the responsibility to listen to grievances from the public and act accordingly.

Click to expand...

You state this as if you need to explain it, the concept, to me. There's no argument here. Check the 7th post on page 1 of this thread where I said, "Riddick should be removced from office immediately."

Your point 1 is not news....


SIGguy229 wrote:

2 - My "needs a whuppin'" comment signifies my frustration with public officials like him who believe they can lord over people, and act without accountability. He acts like a spoiled child (who probably was never punished or forgot what it is like to be punished)--and has to be re-taught conseqences for his actions. Removal from office or civil litigation would suffice.

Click to expand...

Yes, I can see that "frustration." But you still haven't responded to my post above:

Wow. Whata great idea. Proposing physicality against an elected official on a public forum because you disagee with his actions. Soooooo impressive.


To add to what the Virginian-Pilot said a few days ago:

"How can anyone think it is a good idea to allow someone with a serious grievance to argue with a sidearm strapped at his hip" when thatsomeone has publicly stated that the public official needs a good ole fashioned whoopin'?


Funny you should mention spoiled child....isn't beating up or whoopin' someone for doing something you don't like kind of a childish way to deal with the problem?

Andproposing it on a public forum is hardly a good tactic. If you and Riddick ever meet up and you decide to give him his deserved whoopin' you will hardly be able to deny premeditation.

And what abut the public perception of your comment, even if you don't go and whoop Riddick?Doesn't it kind of slipneatly into the point that thePilot was making? </shakes head>



SIGguy229 wrote:

Thank for your interest in self-defense.

Click to expand...

This thread wasn't about self-defense and as such I didn't and don't comment about yours. However, you have brought up the issue of self-defense--Councilman Riddick's.

Thank youso much for doing that...