Ar15 style weapon brought into council meeting. And no, it did not jump up and kill anybody.

[Audie]

Find a single example of a gun control debate on this forum where those strawmen don't come up.


I really hadn't. Making an observation about the tendency people on one side of a debate have of using the same strawmen says nothing about me being an "extremist", and for you to imply it does is absurd.

"

"ALWAYS SKEW EVERYTHING" is not an accurate
observation about a tendenvy.

 

[Thief]

you can be arrested and charged for carry of a monkey fist
as you would a firearm

go figure

 

[ImmortalFlame]

"

"ALWAYS SKEW EVERYTHING" is not an accurate
observation about a tendenvy.

Three words is not an accurate representation of a person's actual statement.

The argument is that those specific strawmen ALWAYS come up.

That should be obvious from context, and please stop mistaking pedantry for fairness. I'm not a fan of tone policing.

 

[Audie]

Three words is not an accurate representation of a person's actual statement.

The argument is that those specific strawmen ALWAYS come up.

That should be obvious from context, and please stop mistaking pedantry for fairness. I'm not a fan of tone policing.

"Always skew everything" is blatantly false. The claim in
full context is false, made, untrue, and if you dont know
that and cannot admit it?

"These specific strawmen ALWAYS come up"
is likewise false. Anyone can see that cannot possibly
be true.

I dont care for falsehoods, still less for trying to
evade responsinility for same.

By all means though, kerp it up, I wont "police"
your "tone" or credibility further. Kind of too bad
Amerca's gun laws no longer concrrn me, i'd otherwise
enjoy observing you discredit yourself.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Now that is the clincher statement as far as I'm concerned.

No response to my post (post #21)? You think it's fine to display a weapon - any weapon, but in this case a powerful one - at a council meeting without letting colleagues know in advance?

 

[MonkeyFire]

Violence is a paradox.

 

[Twilight Hue]

No response to my post (post #21)? You think it's fine to display a weapon - any weapon, but in this case a powerful one - at a council meeting without letting colleagues know in advance?

Okay I'll answer it now.

First by asking a question should police officers always let colleagues know if they're carrying a weapon? Just for perspective.

Now more on point....

The meeting was at that particular point,
considering making the city a “Second Amendment Constitutional City” .

The councilman then walked in with an AR-15 style rifle* slinged in a non-threatening position creatively driving home the point of the second amendment whereas he exercised his, among others, right to own and bear arms.

The councilman was a deputy sheriff prior to his position.

Nobody was intimidated with him carrying the weapon**.

Nobody died.

That's pretty much everything in a nutshell.


in conclusion, that's what the second amendment is for in the first place so people can enjoy the right to own and bear arms and most apparently caught on in jist of the topic that was being discussed with the obvious exceptions here.

*Arguably not a powerful one comparatively with a 5.56 caliber weapon.

**Aside from only 2 people who blew it all out of proportion.

( EDIT:Omitted race of councilman. Had previously indicated he was a black man in error. His race is white.)

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Okay I'll answer it now.

First by asking a question should police officers always let colleagues know if they're carrying a weapon? Just for perspective.

Generally, I would say that is unnecessary because most people are accustomed to seeing armed police officers and it would not reasonably cause alarm to see that. And it would be burdensome and likely impractical for a police officer, who is often armed, to warn everyone present everywhere they go ahead of time that they will be armed. Note, neither of those reasons apply in this case.

I have a question of my own, just for perspective: should an employee walk into their place of work, where weapons are not normally (perhaps never) seen, displaying a weapon, without at least giving their fellow employees a heads up? Why or why not?

The meeting was at that particular point,
considering making the city a “Second Amendment Constitutional City” .

Yep. But this is irrelevant. [sarcasm\] As we all know, if you are unarmed and someone walks into a packed city council meeting for the first time, carrying a weapon capable of committing a mass shooting ... that person cannot be an active shooter. [/sarcasm]

The councilman then walked in with an AR-15 style rifle* slinged in a non-threatening position creatively driving home the point of the second amendment whereas he exercised his, among others, right to own and bear arms.

Yes. As is his right (in that state, I assume). But no one knew he wasn't an active shooter the first instant they saw him, until the moment passed, and no shooting occurred. Any excuses you come up with about his right to display the weapon are outweighed by the right of his colleagues to feel safe. It would have cost him nothing to simply tell his colleagues this was going to happen - for the first time - in advance. There were 417 mass shootings in the US in one year, 2019 alone. A reasonable person might be alarmed at seeing a weapon for the first time at their place of work - even if, and perhaps especially if, their place of work is a crowded council meeting about firearms. He could have done his colleagues the simple, common-sense courtesy of giving them a heads up. It would have cost him nothing. But he chose not to. How is that not petty, and thoughtless?

The councilman was a deputy sheriff prior to his position.

So why would a former deputy sheriff not consider the safety and well being of his colleagues by letting them know he is a former deputy sheriff, and he would be displaying a weapon? Do former deputy sheriffs not have email? Or do they just not care about their colleagues?

Nobody was intimidated with him carrying the weapon**.

Most of the council was "blindsided" by him doing this without telling them in advance. According to the article. Not the Faux News article - I mean the actual, local news article. Source: The AR-15 a Portsmouth councilman wore to a meeting this week stunned two of his peers. One wants an apology.

Oh, and if it matters any for some people,
He is also a black man.

I do not know why that would matter, but for the record, he is a white man. At least two of the council members who asked him to apologize are black.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I do not know why that would matter, but for the record, he is a white man. At least two of the council members who asked him to apologize are black.

View attachment 36460

You are correct. I think it was due to the lighting from one of the photos that led me to think otherwise. I corrected my post to reflect that.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

"Always skew everything" is blatantly false. The claim in
full context is false, made, untrue, and if you dont know
that and cannot admit it?

Then find an example of a debate on gun control on this forum where those arguments are not used.

"These specific strawmen ALWAYS come up"
is likewise false. Anyone can see that cannot possibly
be true.

Once again, stop mistaking pedantry for fairness.

I dont care for falsehoods, still less for trying to
evade responsinility for same.

I don't care for people who can't respond to an actual point and mask their inability with meaningless diversions.

By all means though, kerp it up, I wont "police"
your "tone" or credibility further. Kind of too bad
Amerca's gun laws no longer concrrn me, i'd otherwise
enjoy observing you discredit yourself.

You're not qualified to judge any kind of credit. It's pretty obvious that this is a double-standard, since you seem utterly unconcerned with the tone or false statements of the anti-gun control side, and you have no interest in honest debate.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Nobody was intimidated with him carrying the weapon**.


**Aside from only 2 people who blew it all out of proportion.

How could you know that?

I see that the gun-toting Councillor claimed that nobody was intimidated, but I'm not sure why you would trust his judgment.

 

[tytlyf]

I see that the gun-toting Councillor claimed that nobody was intimidated, but I'm not sure why you would trust his judgment.

Remember, it's not the gun that kills but the person behind it.
I'd be intimidated just on the basis of the mental judgement of this person, not the weapon.
I usually don't trust people who lack common sense.