Bartholomew Roberts
Moderator
DNS said:
Not that Tulsa PD would have fired her anyway.
22yr Police Veteran Tells Congress “I Will Not Comply.”
- Thread starter Bartholomew Roberts
- Start date
Not that Tulsa PD would have fired her anyway.
Bartholomew Roberts
Moderator
A perfect example of how that works is where we’re at now with the Second. Trump is free to propose red flag laws, background checks, and bunpstock bans because what are you going to do? Vote for the party screaming “Hell yes, we’re going to take your AR15?”
It’s like the commies. You can vote for who you want to lead you but your pre-selected choices are communist or super-communist. The current Dem party has made it impossible for anyone who doesn’t embrace lunatic gun control to advance to the national level.
That leaves a lot of room for the GOP to move left.
When I see that someone retired from a PD, I always assume that they have some other employment because most retirees from their first career are still fairly young.
I work in a technical field, and a good portion of my coworkers throughout the years have been retired LEO.
Even though it I am not nor have I ever been in law enforcement or anything related, I would assume that if I had publicly refused to follow any law, present or future, in this day and age... I’d expect to loose my job.
I work in a technical field, and a good portion of my coworkers throughout the years have been retired LEO.
Even though it I am not nor have I ever been in law enforcement or anything related, I would assume that if I had publicly refused to follow any law, present or future, in this day and age... I’d expect to loose my job.
Double Naught Spy
New member
But since she isn't a police officer, it really isn't relevant.
She apparently is making plenty of money via competitions and the firearms industry which she is supporting and who is supporting her.
With that said, it seems to be gaining in popularity for various law enforcement folks to proclaim that they will not enforce various laws. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...te-county-sheriffs-refuse-to-enforce-gun-laws
Of COURSE it's 'relevant', If she was Jane Q Public and said she wouldn't 'comply' with a law for her to turn in her AR..nobody would care. She was invited BECAUSE she was a former LEO..
So, she is essentially being 'bribed', just like the congress people who were listening to her...
We'll see, future, proposed laws that probably will never see the light of day..I think it's a reaction to the TV moments, campaign rhetoric, from both sides..I doubt ANYTHING will come of this until Jan 2021 and probably not even then. Barr directing the ATF to say the bump stop ban was an overreach is an indication of the current mindset of the Senate and POTUS..
TV moments do not legislation make.
Yep, that is why Bloomberg was planning on running as an independent up until January. His poll numbers were too soft though so he threw in the towel for fear of throwing the election to Trump. The Republican turned Dem, turned Ind, likes to criticize everyone not like himself but he sure hates guns of every kind.
Armed_Chicagoan
New member
Bloomberg was never a Republican, he only ran for mayor as one to avoid a crowded Democrat primary field.
USNRet93 said:
Nothing anyone has asserted here or elsewhere supports responsible use of the word "bribe" to describe her testimony. She hasn't been offered money to act dishonestly or illegally.
That a person has an interest in legal activity remaining legal doesn't in any way suggest that testimony to that effect is the result of a bribe.
USNRet93 said:
Emphasis added. Nothing that follows your "BUT" contradicts the observation of the orthodoxy at the national level, so the use of "BUT" isn't apt.
Trump used to be a democrat, just for info. And trump has embraced the AR ban in the past
...just for info.Criticize, what an all encompassing word...
Last edited:
She was ‘bribed’ like all of Congress is being ‘bribed’...receive YUGE money, either thru sponsorship of campaign contributions.
My point is the entire Dem field and Dems in general ALL DON’T embrace the point of view of Beto, Bloomberg as a high profile example.
The public hears almost nothing but anti-gun stories and skewed statistics.
From what I am reading, the general tone here is that was bad for a variety of reasons. I viewed it as a positive. (Maybe I missed too much dialogue but I have blocked those who are anti-gun here or just like to debate for the sake of debate. )
Here was an example of a person, who could be anyone's neighbor, standing up for her right to own a rifle of her choice. My hope is that those on the fence might look at that a realize that maybe there is another side to the story.
From what I am reading, the general tone here is that was bad for a variety of reasons. I viewed it as a positive. (Maybe I missed too much dialogue but I have blocked those who are anti-gun here or just like to debate for the sake of debate. )
Here was an example of a person, who could be anyone's neighbor, standing up for her right to own a rifle of her choice. My hope is that those on the fence might look at that a realize that maybe there is another side to the story.
Bartholomew Roberts
Moderator
Beto decides to take his donkey show on the road and argue that government should have a monopoly on the use of force at Kent State University.
Beto has got to be a Second Amendment agent-provocateur. Nobody is that tone-deaf.
https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/b...gue-that-only-the-government-should-be-armed/
Beto has got to be a Second Amendment agent-provocateur. Nobody is that tone-deaf.
https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/b...gue-that-only-the-government-should-be-armed/
They don't do so publicly, but the entire agenda is built around the eventual disarmament of the populace. All of the major Presidential candidates support "buybacks," federal licensing, repeal of the PLCAA, overturning Heller, using executive power to ban guns, and red-flag laws.
All O'Rourke did was jump the gun a bit on the rhetoric.
Well, they did have a school shooting there, which was perpetrated by...oh. Right. Silly me.
I don't think Muller thinks arm's bans are wrong, obviously. Her present vocation, where she is sponsored by Benelli(others?), it's in her best interest to oppose these things because it has an adverse effect on her livelihood..pretty simple..she's not a Jane Q Public, as I mentioned.
silvermane_1
New member
^About the bolded part if said "convicted felon" repaid their "debt to society" yes, but we don't have a "justice system" anymore, instead we have a "legal system" with a Prison Industrial Complex to boot, also if a "convicted felon" is too "dangerous" to be trusted to possess/carry a firearm, then said "convicted felon" is too "dangerous" to be released in to society.
Except that Bloomberg is not actually a Dem, not running for President and generally anti-gun in every possible way.
If you are pointing to Bloomberg as an example of democratic moderation on gun control then I don't think you understand the issue at all. Kind of like Bloomberg. Let's go ahead and finish up The Firing Line Interview you brought up:
So his plan to get rid of the AK-47 is to stop the manufacturers? I can only assume he intends to invade the countries where the manufacturers of the AK-47s are located because they won't give a toot about US Law. Invading or cruise missile is about the only way to stop them.
The only reason the plan is impractical is because gun owners have a lot of guns? So, if people owned less guns it would be ok?
Yeah, these are completely common sense and moderate positions supported by 96% of Republicans in the last Bloomberg and Politico Polls. I think Vice magazine had them at 99%.
Last edited: