Exceptional video log of a tension-filled city council meeting touching on gun ownership

Snowstorm

Baby plot bunneh sniffs out a clue
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 26, 2008
Messages
13,722
Reaction score
1,121
Location
Wyoming mountain cabin
If you don't understand this entire culture then please admit that you just don't understand it. I have seen so many comments in this thread along the lines of "I just can't see that" and "I don't see the logic" and "That makes no sense to me," And all of those sentiments translate into "I have no true grasp of Amerinca gun culture." A huge portion of this cuture is heavilly focused upon leaving other people the frick alone and just minding your own business.

Second bolded sentence mine. Best comment yet. I have no problem with folks who don't understand having guns. I've had guests from back east terrified just being in our region because the wilderness is so vast, then they're terrified because there's a gun dealer up the road! I don't understand their fear, but then I know none of this is what they're used to. I don't sneer at them for not understanding where and how I live anymore than I don't understand them for choosing to live in huge cities.

I think a lot of the fear is not understanding or being used to the exposure--to any other culture. I took a gun class when I was stationed in Oklahoma. A gal in the class was terrified of guns. Her husband encouraged her to take the class. By the time the one-night-a-week-for-four-weeks class was over, this chick was Annie Oakley.

I have no problem with cities or states taking a look at the gun laws and having a dialogue. Perhaps then both sides might get a better understanding.

For the record, I have a CCL. The only time I carry is hiking in the wilderness--and that's for the four-legged creatures that could eat me. ETA: I forgot to add that Wyoming changed the law last year. A CCL is not required to carry concealed in this state. I do have one to have it when I travel to other states.
 
Last edited:

Don

All Living is Local
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 28, 2008
Messages
24,567
Reaction score
4,007
Location
Agorism FTW!
Which matters not for what the discussion is about. If he wants to carry guns to do things he needs to do, that's great. If one of those things includes using his gun to do what he deems as protecting others, not so much. It's not his duty (on-duty) so he shouldn't be simply assuming it.

If it's his family that he wants to protect, he likely has permission. But strangers?
So if a deranged madman attacks the mall, he should just keep his gun in his pants as long as the madman's not currently targeting him or his family? Even if you're next in line to look down the madman's sights?

Should he just jump up on a ledge where everyone can see him, explain the situation, and ask for a vote as to whether he should act or not?

As PD said, this guy is not running around like Batman, looking for opportunities to dispense vigilante justice. Actually, her whole post about gun culture was spot-on.
 

thebloodfiend

Cory
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 2, 2011
Messages
3,771
Reaction score
630
Age
30
Location
New York
Website
www.thebooklantern.com
I think it's possible to a) understand gun culture and b) not like some aspects of it. Do we need gun culture passes to discuss this? Like ghetto passes? Really?

I'm not a fan of citizens walking around with concealed weapon to protect me. Nor am I a fan of concealed weapons being carried without licenses. Or weapons being carried without licenses, period. You don't need a license to simply carry in NM. I think your handgun belongs in your house under lock and key if you're trying to protect me. And this is from growing up in Alabama with a vet father and a vet grandfather who both owned guns and going to school with kids who hunted on the weekend and brought paintballs to school and talked about the rifles they'd get when they grew up.

It's not a matter of being afraid of guns. I think fear of guns is irrational. I trust, to a certain extent, policemen to carry guns and do their job. I don't trust or need Citizen Joe, regardless of his service, to walk around town with his gun concealed to protect me.

Like it or not, guns are not contacts, and guns are not knives. They are guns. There's really no equivalent. I'd expect responsible gun owners to be more serious about the power they're carrying around on their hips to not equate it with something harmless and inane. I think that's where most people aren't seeing the "logic."
 

Xelebes

Delerium ex Ennui
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 8, 2009
Messages
14,205
Reaction score
884
Location
Edmonton, Canada
So if a deranged madman attacks the mall, he should just keep his gun in his pants as long as the madman's not currently targeting him or his family? Even if you're next in line to look down the madman's sights?

Should he just jump up on a ledge where everyone can see him, explain the situation, and ask for a vote as to whether he should act or not?

As PD said, this guy is not running around like Batman, looking for opportunities to dispense vigilante justice. Actually, her whole post about gun culture was spot-on.

Oh, I'm sure he is going to hold an impromptu vote and make sure he tallies everyone's vote, make sure there is no one to badger the voters either which way. . .

No, he carries his own gun for his own protection if he so deems it as useful and necessary, as currently is law in the US. What he mustn't do is decide to carry his gun so that he can protect people who have not asked or agreed. As is shown in the video, the place clears along with the councillor because the people agree that they did not agree to be protected by this person.

If a situation breaks out and he displays the gun he personally uses for his personal protection and through verbal or non-verbal cues comes to agreement with others trying to seek safety that he might have enough power to quell the problem. . .
 

Williebee

Capeless, wingless, & yet I fly.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 11, 2007
Messages
20,569
Reaction score
4,814
Location
youtu.be/QRruBVFXjnY
Website
www.ifoundaknife.com
Actually, her whole post about gun culture was spot-on.

You really think so, don't you? (Apologies for the directed post, but bear with me please.)

See, I was raised, for the most part, in West Texas. Took my first hunting trip when I was five (for bear, in Washington State.) Deer hunting most every season after that. I was raised with guns in the house -- both houses, my parents were divorced. My dad was Air Force, I was Navy. Wife was Army, cousins in various services. Extend the immediate family to an uncle and we even had a Texas Ranger. I've also spent years in law enforcement. So, yeah, I "get" gun culture. And can't agree with you.

Gun owners are not all one thing. Maybe "gun culture" isn't either.
 

Celia Cyanide

Joker Groupie
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 1, 2005
Messages
15,479
Reaction score
2,295
Location
probably watching DARK KNIGHT
So if a deranged madman attacks the mall, he should just keep his gun in his pants as long as the madman's not currently targeting him or his family? Even if you're next in line to look down the madman's sights?

Should he just jump up on a ledge where everyone can see him, explain the situation, and ask for a vote as to whether he should act or not?

I'm not trying to tell him what he "should" do. I'm saying that when a total stranger tells me he would defend me with his life, and it's not his job, I'm not inclined to take his word for it, or to wait around to test that statement.

As PD said, this guy is not running around like Batman, looking for opportunities to dispense vigilante justice. Actually, her whole post about gun culture was spot-on.

So I don't understand gun culture. So what? Why is it my responsibility to try and understand it? If I don't feel comfortable around someone who carries a gun around, and I don't believe it when he says it's for my protection too, that's my right. I think there are probably a lot of people here who don't understand BDSM culture, drug culture, underground music culture, and many other cultures I've been a part of. They don't have to.
 

Al Stevens

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 4, 2011
Messages
2,537
Reaction score
214
Yeah, I noticed the crowd seemed a lot smaller after the guy revealed he was carrying, too. You kind of wonder if there's a local nuance going on here that we outsiders aren't privy to.
I got the impression that it was video of two different sessions, with the second one having been convened so the mayor could air his opinion and his opposition to the two councilpersons who didn't want guns in the room.

The main clue is the absense of chairs. I've been to many such meetings. Spectators never had to take the chairs with them when they left.
 
Last edited:

Al Stevens

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 4, 2011
Messages
2,537
Reaction score
214
Like I said, the guy seems sincere. But it's not his job to protect me or anyone else.
But if you found yourself in need of protection, and he was there and protected you, would you challenge his right to do so? This is an issue with many facets. It's best to consider them all.
 

muravyets

Old revolutionary
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 21, 2011
Messages
7,212
Reaction score
974
Location
Massachusetts, USA
Website
www.facebook.com
That's all admirable, but he's a civilian now. I'd like him to act like one. Also, I'm not sure who he thinks he's protecting the good citizens of Oak Harbor from - according to this, there hasn't been a murder there since 2004.

http://www.city-data.com/crime/crime-Oak-Harbor-Washington.html
This.

Also, a lot has been made of it being his job to protect people. Maybe I missed it, but I didn't hear him say what his job is. He was a trained professional when he was in the military. What does he do now? I heard him say that he was a trained professional with weapons, and I heard him say he carries to protect people. I did not hear him say he currently works in security or law enforcement.

Except he didn't bring the gun to a discussion about gun ownership rights. He brought the gun to what he thought was going to be a discussion on city parks. Does that make it seem less excessive to you?
It makes it seem more excessive to me.

When you are a CCW holder, carrying your weapon upon you at all times is the same as wearing your contact lenses at all times. It's just something that you do because it's unthinkable that you wouldn't.
Why? What are they afraid of?

There is no intimidation factor in carrying one's weapon concealed anymore than there is in wearing one's contacts.
To them, maybe. Not to that councilman and possibly other people in the room. Not to me. I don't experience it as a neutral condition to find out that someone I don't know from Adam and who I have no reason to assume is reliable and okay, is secretly carrying a gun into a public meeting.

The only CCW people who would deliberately make the wearing of their gun into a tool of intimidation are people who are emotionally imbalanced and in need of having their permit revoked. And such CCW people will likely have that happen sooner than later.
Would that be before or after the mental or emotional breakdown, tragic accident, tragic misunderstanding, or revelation of violent anti-government sentiment complete with assassination threats, or other evidence that they should have their permit revoked?

I think it's possible to a) understand gun culture and b) not like some aspects of it. Do we need gun culture passes to discuss this? Like ghetto passes? Really?

I'm not a fan of citizens walking around with concealed weapon to protect me. Nor am I a fan of concealed weapons being carried without licenses. Or weapons being carried without licenses, period. You don't need a license to simply carry in NM. I think your handgun belongs in your house under lock and key if you're trying to protect me. And this is from growing up in Alabama with a vet father and a vet grandfather who both owned guns and going to school with kids who hunted on the weekend and brought paintballs to school and talked about the rifles they'd get when they grew up.

It's not a matter of being afraid of guns. I think fear of guns is irrational. I trust, to a certain extent, policemen to carry guns and do their job. I don't trust or need Citizen Joe, regardless of his service, to walk around town with his gun concealed to protect me.

Like it or not, guns are not contacts, and guns are not knives. They are guns. There's really no equivalent. I'd expect responsible gun owners to be more serious about the power they're carrying around on their hips to not equate it with something harmless and inane. I think that's where most people aren't seeing the "logic."
Quoted for complete agreement.

But if you found yourself in need of protection, and he was there and protected you, would you challenge his right to do so? This is an issue with many facets. It's best to consider them all.
I think this is another point on which some of us don't see the logic. What I see in this question is the proposition of an entirely fictitious and undefined scenario occurring, after the fact of which I find that this random stranger made himself useful to me in the course of said utterly fantastical "it could happen" scenario. And on the basis of that pretty cavalier speculation, am I supposed to be comfortable with the idea of Mr. Random Someone carrying a concealed firearm into a city council meeting on parks?

To me, it's far more logical to look at situations that happen often. It often happens that random strangers who should not be carrying guns for a variety of reasons, do carry guns. And when they do, there is a statistical likelihood that rather than make themselves useful, they will make themselves a problem.

I am always reminded of the Gabby Giffords shooting and of hearing a news statement from a witness who had a concealed carry permit and who was carrying when the shooting happened. He told reporters that he had been inside a nearby store. He didn't see the shooting, but he heard it, and he immediately drew his weapon and rushed to help and protect. He said he saw a man holding a gun, and he was about to take aim to shoot that man -- except that he heard others yelling at him that the man he saw with the gun was one of the bystanders who had just disarmed the real shooter.

That witness also stated that he was a military veteran, recently returned from active duty -- a trained professional with guns. But if he had not heard those shouts or those other people had not seen him coming, he would have shot an innocent man who actually was helping. He said to the reporter at the time that it was a close call and that he was shaken by it.

It is foolish in the extreme, in my opinion, to assume that most people are as cool under pressure as that man at the scene of the Giffords shooting, who came out ready to shoot but stopped himself when he heard new information. The history of gun violence in the US tells us that, for each one like him, there may be a hundred or so like George Zimmerman. I saw nothing in that video to make me assume the man with concealed weapon would be more like the former example than the latter.

ETA: I should point out, by the way, that in the scenario as outlined it is not in the least bit unlikely that his right to protect me would be challenged after the fact. People challenge the right of others to protect them all the time, especially if they are not professionals but also even if they are. There are common lawsuits about it.
 
Last edited:

Celia Cyanide

Joker Groupie
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 1, 2005
Messages
15,479
Reaction score
2,295
Location
probably watching DARK KNIGHT
But if you found yourself in need of protection, and he was there and protected you, would you challenge his right to do so?

No. Why would I? I just wouldn't hold my breath and wait for it to happen.

I know that when he says he carries a gun so he can protect everyone around him, whether he knows them or not, it makes him sound like some wonderful, selfless person. I just don't necessarily believe people when they say that.
 

benbradley

It's a doggy dog world
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Dec 5, 2006
Messages
20,322
Reaction score
3,513
Location
Transcending Canines
I watched the vidoe 2 times in a row to check for that crowd-diminishemnt thing.

We saw a bird's eye view of THREE rows of folding chairs for citizen/spectators, all of them almost entirely full. And we saw our former-infantryman-turned-private-security-guard sitting in the fronnt row.

Then ...

We saw another bird's eye view of just ONE row of foplding chairs for citrizens/spectators. And again we saw the former sodlier sitting there.

What happened to the other two rows of folding chairs?? Not sure what was up with that.
I see three times the camera was on the chairs. First is at the start , the first four seconds. Next is after he finishes speaking at 1:59 to 2:08. I see the same number of people, and the same people, at both of these times. At 3:42 to 3:46, just after he says he's carrying and the councilman is making a motion, a woman in the back row is standing, perhaps preparing to leave.

The next scene of the "crowd" is at 6:01 while the mayor is apologizing. This was taken from a different angle, from a different camera, I'm thinking the one that was showing the podium where he was standing and speaking earlier. There are 8 chairs on the front row and four people, including the speaker, in the front row. There are two chairs behind them, and one is occupied by a large man in a white shirt. He was also in the earlier shots, but on the back row. The guy in the rightmost seat at 6:01 (two seats over from where the former speaker was sitting) was standing in the back at 2:07. There are two women at 6:01, sitting on the left, one in a black shirt, one in a light green (?) shirt. They were there in earlier shots, with someone (another woman?) in between them wearing a white shirt.

Could it be he sat in a DIFFERENT set of chairs after his gun-toting confession at the microphone?? Such as ...... maybe we originally saw him (before the confessed to conceal carrying) sitting amid a triple row of chairs on the NORTH side of the room. But then after he had his second go at the microphone when he said "Yes, I be packin' heat," perhaps he then sat himself in a single row of chairs on the WEST side of the room.
Nope, not unless the four other people got up and moved there, AND it just happened to have the same background.

About ten or twelve people left, and most of the chairs they were sitting in got put away as well. I suppose the councilman leaving gave others permission to "leave in protest" as well. I'd be surprised if most of the earlier crowd were reporters, as someone else suggested.
That's all admirable, but he's a civilian now. I'd like him to act like one. Also, I'm not sure who he thinks he's protecting the good citizens of Oak Harbor from - according to this, there hasn't been a murder there since 2004.

http://www.city-data.com/crime/crime-Oak-Harbor-Washington.html
I wonder what the concealed carry statistics are there. There might be a lot more guys like this one, and the criminals know it.
Sing a long, folks. Most all of us know the words:

"I did not have sexual relations with that woman." -- President Bill Clinton

:).
The man who spoke has NO CHANCE of being President, whether like Clinton or like Nixon. This man is much, much too honest.
PD, do you mind linking to some examples of the testing in place that ensures a CCW's mental stability? I'm not familiar with them, and I really want to know how the screening could warrant a comparison between carrying a weapon to wearing contacts. Based on my personal experience with a single CCW holder, I definitely don't share your confidence.
I see you've got a universe of one data point, though I suppose it's human to have strong emotional reaction in a highly charged issue and extrapolate from it.
I got the impression that it was video of two different sessions, with the second one having been convened so the mayor could air his opinion and his opposition to the two councilpersons who didn't want guns in the room.

The main clue is the absense of chairs. I've been to many such meetings. Spectators never had to take the chairs with them when they left.
The large man in the white shirt may be the "bailiff" or similar official, and removed the chairs after people left, during the minutes the mayor was interrogating the attorney and otherwise speaking. It would have been interesting to have the camera on them as they were leaving.

With all the flipcams (I'm old fashioned, I still have one) and smart phones to record these things, it's surprising there aren't even MORE videos and camera angles of these things. The count shows 1,998 comments (and counting), it's too much (for me) to look through to see if anyone who was actually there commented.
 

clintl

Represent.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
7,611
Reaction score
603
Location
Davis, CA
I wonder what the concealed carry statistics are there. There might be a lot more guys like this one, and the criminals know it.

I don't know about Oak Harbor, but I did notice the crime statistics were strikingly similar to the city where I live. And I can guarantee that the reason we have a low crime rate here is not because of CCW, because that's not even on the cultural radar here.

Overall, I'm extremely skeptical about the arguments that CCW deters crime. I just don't think criminals think that way.
 

muravyets

Old revolutionary
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 21, 2011
Messages
7,212
Reaction score
974
Location
Massachusetts, USA
Website
www.facebook.com
I'd be interested to know the crime statistics in areas dominated by a violent criminal element, such as gang-dominated urban areas. Most of those violent offenders walk around carrying concealed weapons, and the criminals around them know it. I wonder if such communities are particularly safe, with violence being deterred by the presence of guns. In other words, I'm not convinced that the possibility of someone carrying a gun is much of a deterrent, since it seems the absolute certainty that guns are being carried and will be used is no deterrent at all.
 

Gale Haut

waxing digital artistic
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 1, 2010
Messages
3,057
Reaction score
574
Location
The Swamplands
Website
www.galehaut.com
I see you've got a universe of one data point, though I suppose it's human to have strong emotional reaction in a highly charged issue and extrapolate from it.

Actually I live in a universe where I forget to refresh the page before posting some times. I really hope this conversation is not going to focus on my ineptitude with using the forum. We could start another thread I guess.

And honestly, I didn't even know what you were talking about at first. At least my post did request a reference to help me better understand the esotericism of "gun culture" in a satisfactory way, unlike the other posts. By the way, still waiting on that reference. ;)
 

kuwisdelu

Revolutionize the World
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 18, 2007
Messages
38,197
Reaction score
4,544
Location
The End of the World
I think it's possible to a) understand gun culture and b) not like some aspects of it. Do we need gun culture passes to discuss this? Like ghetto passes? Really?

Gun owners are not all one thing. Maybe "gun culture" isn't either.

Definitely this. On the rez, just about everyone has a gun. When I grew up, all my uncles had guns. Climb into any of their pickup trucks, and there'll be a shotgun or a rifle on the seat or behind it.

But I can't really reconcile that with the kind of CCW gun culture that gets loud at times like this. The gun culture I grew up with used them against wildlife. Having a gun or bow in the wilderness makes perfect sense to me. It's what I grew up around.

But I have trouble wrapping my head around the idea of carrying a gun around populated areas.

Nor can I wrap my head around the idea of hiding the fact that you're carrying it.

But if you found yourself in need of protection, and he was there and protected you, would you challenge his right to do so? This is an issue with many facets. It's best to consider them all.

But a gun can't protect anything. You can't hide behind it and expect it to deflect bullets. It's not a good defense against anything. It's an offensive weapon.

The guy in the example didn't protect anyone. He just shot someone. Protecting someone would be diving to take the bullet for someone else.
 

muravyets

Old revolutionary
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 21, 2011
Messages
7,212
Reaction score
974
Location
Massachusetts, USA
Website
www.facebook.com
Definitely this. On the rez, just about everyone has a gun. When I grew up, all my uncles had guns. Climb into any of their pickup trucks, and there'll be a shotgun or a rifle on the seat or behind it.

But I can't really reconcile that with the kind of CCW gun culture that gets loud at times like this. The gun culture I grew up with used them against wildlife. Having a gun or bow in the wilderness makes perfect sense to me. It's what I grew up around.

But I have trouble wrapping my head around the idea of carrying a gun around populated areas.

Nor can I wrap my head around the idea of hiding the fact that you're carrying it.
Same here. It's hard for me to articulate things like this so well. I think of myself as someone who didn't grow up around guns, except for my grandfather's hunting rifles. But in fact, I did grow up surrounded by guns all the time. Most of them were concealed, and most of those were not being carried to protect anyone. They were being carried to kill people, by the kinds of people who are prone to killing other people and getting killed by other people.

Gun culture is absolutely different things in different places. Where you grew up, guns were an ordinary tool, and there was no reason to be secretive about them because they were there for a perfectly ordinary and positive purpose that everyone understood and most people participated in.

Where I grew up, conversely, guns were tools for committing violence, and they were carried concealed precisely to get the drop on the targets and to avoid coming to police attention by seeking a license. It was definitely a gun culture, for sure, but it wasn't about protection. People didn't feel safe around it. The gun culture I grew up with said there was only one reason to carry a gun -- to kill someone with it.

Two completely different experiences of gun culture, but it's interesting to me that we have one thing in common. We both learned from our experiences to be uncomfortable with the idea of carrying concealed guns. I don't get it, either. People who are so dedicated to carrying concealed guns are not hunting with them and they're not criminals or cops on duty. So what are they doing then? Why do they want to have that gun ready to hand all the time? I just don't get it.

But a gun can't protect anything. You can't hide behind it and expect it to deflect bullets. It's not a good defense against anything. It's an offensive weapon.

The guy in the example didn't protect anyone. He just shot someone. Protecting someone would be diving to take the bullet for someone else.
Or at least knocking a person down to keep them from taking a bullet. But yeah, a gun is not a shield. It's not an escape route, either.
 

kuwisdelu

Revolutionize the World
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 18, 2007
Messages
38,197
Reaction score
4,544
Location
The End of the World
Same here. It's hard for me to articulate things like this so well. I think of myself as someone who didn't grow up around guns, except for my grandfather's hunting rifles. But in fact, I did grow up surrounded by guns all the time. Most of them were concealed, and most of those were not being carried to protect anyone. They were being carried to kill people, by the kinds of people who are prone to killing other people and getting killed by other people.

Gun culture is absolutely different things in different places. Where you grew up, guns were an ordinary tool, and there was no reason to be secretive about them because they were there for a perfectly ordinary and positive purpose that everyone understood and most people participated in.

Where I grew up, conversely, guns were tools for committing violence, and they were carried concealed precisely to get the drop on the targets and to avoid coming to police attention by seeking a license. It was definitely a gun culture, for sure, but it wasn't about protection. People didn't feel safe around it. The gun culture I grew up with said there was only one reason to carry a gun -- to kill someone with it.

Two completely different experiences of gun culture, but it's interesting to me that we have one thing in common. We both learned from our experiences to be uncomfortable with the idea of carrying concealed guns. I don't get it, either. People who are so dedicated to carrying concealed guns are not hunting with them and they're not criminals or cops on duty. So what are they doing then? Why do they want to have that gun ready to hand all the time? I just don't get it.

Well, I kind of ignored the growing problem of gangs on reservations in that post. So there's definitely that kind of gun culture there, too. I had and still have cousins in gangs. They were the ones with handguns, and they hid them when they carried them, too. So it's also for the same reason as you that I associate hiding a gun with wanting to use it for less-than-positives purposes.
 

LOG

Lagrangian
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Nov 10, 2008
Messages
7,714
Reaction score
354
Location
Between there and there
But a gun can't protect anything. You can't hide behind it and expect it to deflect bullets. It's not a good defense against anything. It's an offensive weapon.

The guy in the example didn't protect anyone. He just shot someone. Protecting someone would be diving to take the bullet for someone else.
I'm reminded of Ruroni Kenshin.

Reference gun culture, from Time. pictures... thousand words...

And then this, from Businessweek
I think the Businessweek article hits all the right notes.
 

Don

All Living is Local
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 28, 2008
Messages
24,567
Reaction score
4,007
Location
Agorism FTW!
They're baaaaaaack...

Crowd packs guns, packs City Hall in Oak Harbor

It was not a sight seen before at the City Council meeting in this town of 22,000: guns, lots of them.

At least a dozen people, mostly men, came openly carrying pistols strapped to their belts.

An unknown number had concealed weapons, as an overflow crowd of 160 filled three rooms at City Hall on Tuesday night.

They saw the City Council unanimously repeal an ordinance that bans guns from city parks and the marina.
Apparently Councilman Almberg's gun-grabbing attitude didn't go over very well with the people of Oak Harbor.
 

Zoombie

Dragon of the Multiverse
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Dec 24, 2006
Messages
40,775
Reaction score
5,947
Location
Some personalized demiplane
They're baaaaaaack...

Crowd packs guns, packs City Hall in Oak Harbor


Apparently Councilman Almberg's gun-grabbing attitude didn't go over very well with the people of Oak Harbor.

Maybe this is just me, but...this seems a lot more like bullying and intimidation than political discourse.