• 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.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • 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.

Interest discourse[s] out here but..

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
8,668
Location
here nc
With one august member pushing themes of equating our current society to one which existed 400BC [give a BC or two] [who's history was 'translated' by those guessing what the symbols/language means into today's "modern" context] to the one that ceased to exist long long ago; coupled to pushing rhetoric from newspeek/internet/social media interpretation; or pushing studies even the most inept first year grad school student can interpret as being non-viable, non-repeatable, and completely bogus; and i promised myself i would not mention his childish & elementary taunts towards other forum member, but lost in my discussion with myself!

that stated...I can not begin to solve the society from 400BC's possibly mistranslated problems, nor concerned with poorly study[ies] written by biased wantta be scholars, nor can i fix narcissistic play ground taunts, but...

I am truly concerned with the here and now, especially with the high newspeek/social media rhetoric coupled w/unrestrained grandiose political re-election pandering so found it quite to read about a interesting discussion which occur in a recent congressional House Judiciary Committee about Protecting America From Assault Weapons with what appears to be a highly selected, but apparently biased, group of speakers.

One in particular...a Ms RaShall Brackney, PhD/, Chief of Charlottesville VA PD who when asked by the panel if she would support a ban on hunting rifles responded...

“I believe any weapon that can be used to hunt individuals should be banned!”

Committee members attempted to get Ms Brackney to quantify/clarify as her response seemed to perpetuate the notion she is advocating the banning of citizens' having any type of firearm!

At one point a committee member asked her 'any type of weapon ~ that can be used to kill people should be banned?' Ms Brackney responded "you're adding the word 'type'. I said 'any weapons' so that is my answer. thank you."
cite: https://www.lawenforcementtoday.com/police-chief-speaking-to-congress-calls-for-ban-on-all-weapons/

Guess the extreme political pandering is getting carried away at the highest levels of our established government and yet not one iota mention out here on the nation's premier OC'g forum...W H Y ?
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
8,668
Location
here nc
Alas they are espousing those sentiments publicly to high level biased political movers & shakers already bent on this all or none agenda...plus antis are given even more ammo & those JQPublic citizens sitting on the wall are hearing and heeding...

my email to my congressional delegates has already been sent...[sorry can’t afford the paper or printer ink nor stampage to snail mail my letter!]
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,295
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
It is political pandering. Violations of oath is perfectly acceptable these days. From what Ive been reading is that there are enough three percenters that have established the line in the sand. It's not the major gun organizations that will be coming to the rescue. They usually are part of the problem. It seems it is the grass roots, from what I read, that will solve the problem.

The Code Federal Regulations at Title 5, Section 2635.101(a) states that “Public service is a public trust.”

In Buffum v. Peter Barceloux Co. United States Supreme Court 289 U.S. 227, 237 (1933) stated that:

“The standard of duty is no different whether the trust to be enforced is actual or constructive. * * * The implication of a trust is the implication of every duty proper to a trust. * * * Whoever is a fiduciary or in conscience chargeable as a fiduciary is expected to live up to them.”

Dr. RaShall Brackney, Chief of the Charlottesville, Virginia Police Department, violated her oath, period.
 
Top