Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: You Are Being Watched

  1. #1
    Regular Member Interceptor_Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,839

    Post imported post

    During tonights' meeting of the Green Bay City Council, it was made clear by one of the 3 Aldermen(alderwomen) who were working to ban guns at City Parks that our thread was followed when we were planning the Green Bay OC picnic which was held on August 8th. Similar comments have been made in the past by the GB City Attorney. The fact that county parks which currently have OC restrictions in place werediscussed as possible locationsfor our picnic was stated during the General Council meeting this evening. It was suggested that we held the picnic in order to incite the public and that we should not be suprised that members of the City Council would wish to ban guns from City Parks as a direct result of the picnic. At last week's Park Committee meeting there were comments that there needs to be more public education and acceptance BEFORE OC should be allowed at parks, yet this week the same person(s) comment on the order that putting OC out for publicview is inviting a ban.

    It was suggested that if we were trying to address 2nd Amendment rights that we should choose a place where OC is prohibitedsince we feel strongly that the Constitution supports our right to bear arms. Thankfully another Aldermanpointed out that the reason we chose a GB City Park was the fact that we are law abiding citizens and that we were having a responsible eventatwhich we did notplan to violate any laws.

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    Yes, it is tough being open and honest. On one hand it does give conniving opponents forewarning but on the other hand it is essential to open honesty.

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chilton, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    3,481

    Post imported post

    Interceptor_Knight wrote:
    It was suggested that if we were trying to address 2nd Amendment rights that we should choose a place where OC is prohibitedsince we feel strongly that the Constitution supports our right to bear arms. Thankfully another Aldermanpointed out that the reason we chose a GB City Park was the fact that we are law abiding citizens and that we were having a responsible eventatwhich we did notplan to violate any laws.
    No wonder they wanted a gun ban, the GB city council clearly supports crime!!!

    They are suggesting we should violate the laws instead of having peaceful assembly.

    What's wrong with this picture?

    Maybe it was the fact that we mentioned block party's! Something they really couldn't do anything about!!

    Because, even if they deny you the permit to close the street, if you organize with your neighbors you can use the front lawns and sidewalks legally as long as your not in a school zone.

    That's better that way anyway. Let the cars roll through and the people in them see you OCing.

    We will exercise our rights legally no matter what.

    I hope they read that!

  4. #4
    Regular Member Interceptor_Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,839

    Post imported post

    J.Gleason wrote:
    No wonder they wanted a gun ban, the GB city council clearly supports crime!!!

    They are suggesting we should violate the laws instead of having peaceful assembly.
    To be fair, it was one extreme voice speaking who suggested such an outrageous thing.. The majority of the members (over 3/4 majority) were more reasonable and did a nice job of presenting a more rational point of view. Their votessent a strong signal that the Council as a whole supports our and their right to bear arms.

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chilton, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    3,481

    Post imported post

    Interceptor_Knight wrote:
    To be fair, it was one extreme voice speaking who suggested such an outrageous thing.. The majority of the members (over 3/4 majority) were more reasonable and did a nice job of presenting a more rational point of view. Their votessent a strong signal that the Council as a whole supports our and their right to bear arms.
    Who was this one extreme voice? Let people know so they can vote this person out next election.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •