Title: Cop Says “Open Carry” Advocates Should Be Shot Source:
[None] URL Source:http://republicbroadcasting.org/?p=6759 Published:Feb 13, 2010 Author:KTVU Post Date:2010-02-13 20:36:29 by christine Keywords:None Views:404 Comments:29
A controversy was brewing in East Palo Alto Tuesday night after a police detective made apparently joking comments through his Facebook account saying open carry advocates who visibly carry guns in public should be shot.
Now East Palo Alto has become a reluctant testing ground for a battle of constitutional amendments: one police officers freedom of speech versus a groups right to bear arms.
Area resident Adnan Shahab is an open carry advocate who frequently goes out in public displaying an unloaded gun on his belt. Such activity is legal in California with certain restrictions, such as staying clear of schools.
Shahab said he was offended by Facebook remarks posted by East Palo Alto detective Rod Tuason. Tuason published a comment that said he agreed with a friend that open carry advocates should come to Oakland, Richmond and East Palo Alto and in an apparent joke said officers should shoot the advocates.
the russian people endured this kind of treatment for hundreds of years, and i'm wondering if americans will be any different.
the situation is gonna be radically different, especially if peak oil turns out to be the real thing...
i guess, if it does turn out to be the real thing, then we can expect gas rationing, at gunpoint, as oil is reserved for use by the elite and their protectors.
maybe you can explain what the oil companies were doing up in the arctic islands in the 1960s, looking for oil and gas when there was no way of getting the stuff to market.
was that just another tax writeoff?
does that mean that the global peak oil conspiracy has been going on for fifty or sixty years?
why did american oil production peak?
why, when the price of oil went up to nearly $150 per barrel, did production remain flat?
why are oil companies spending hundreds of millions of dollars to drill wells 200 miles offshore, in two miles of water, and two or three miles of dirt under that, so distant from pipelines that they'll have to spend more hundreds of millions on plumbing, and then crow about discoveries that will only last the world a month?
none of it makes sense if the world is "awash in oil".
i'm really really sorry, but it doesnt make any sense.
the really pitiful thing about it is: the only people peak oil denial makes sense to are the people who were motivated by peak oil to commit 9/11.
if you deny your motive exists, you've eliminated one of the key parameters that investigators use to compile a suspect list, that parameter being "motive".
then you got the prime denier of peak oil, exxon, allied with the AEI, which spawned PNAC, which admitted they needed a new pearl harbor as a pretext to occupy the middle east/caspian/central asian oil patch.
let's keep our reserves untapped, while making war to drill and pump the rest of the world's reserves.
there's probably a certain amount of validity to that argument, if that's what's happening.
but it doesnt explain why big oil is drilling holes 30,000 feet deep in american waters in the gulf of mexico.
it doesnt explain why existing oilfields' production continued to fall, including fields in texas, alaska, california, oklahoma, etc, when the price of oil rose to nearly $150 a barrel.
it doesnt explain why exxon and CERA, allied with the israeli american warmongers, are the prime deniers of peak oil.
exxon's warmonger allies lied us into iraq, and probably staged 9/11, and have been lying ever since about the "war on terror", yet you believe exxon's and CERA's lies about peak oil.