Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Armed Citizens of Oak Harbor Washington Force Officials to "Back Down"

page: 1
18
<<   2 >>

log in

join
+4 more 
posted on Feb, 8 2013 @ 01:43 PM
link   


A group of 160 citizens, many if not most of whom were armed, confronted government officials Tuesday who had attempted to have a wounded Army veteran kicked out of a meeting due to the fact that he carried a gun.


LINK

This is great news and it seems like it should be repeated throughout the US. I watched the original video of Lucas Yonkman Vs. the city council and never expected this amazing followup.



+24 more 
posted on Feb, 8 2013 @ 01:54 PM
link   
be a little more fair here. They did not force "officials" to back down at all. The mayor and the majority of the city council were in favor of these armed citizens and voted a motion to ban guns in city council meetings down during the previous council meeting. During that first city council meeting ONE council member made a motion to ban guns and only one other council member voted with him. The motion was soundly defeated AND the Mayor apologized to the citizen who happened to be armed at that meeting. It was more or less an accident that anyone found out he was armed in the first place.

It was in THAT context that people showed up at the SECOND meeting where the idea was AGAIN voted down--and would have been had no one at all showed up. In other words, the City Council as a whole was NEVER in favor of any such regulation. It was just a couple of city council members who had an issue with it.

So to say "armed citizens" "forced officials to back down" is simply not the truth at all. There was nothing to "back down" from. It would be more fair to say "Armed citizens back city council action"
edit on 2/8/2013 by schuyler because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 8 2013 @ 02:00 PM
link   
reply to post by schuyler
 


Mostly people need to show they are capable of logic and reason. The weapons were symbolic. I am sure they were shouldered and not pointed at anyone.

Like you said the city council was in favor of this.

still though, the thread title made me click on it with the quickness....lol

people need to lose the fear they have now to voice their minds calmly before they turn angry later and lose the control necessary to speak and reason for the things they need/ want.

all in all, its a good thing that these citizens took the auto pilot off of the democratic process and did things the right way.

They are an example.

edit on 8-2-2013 by zedVSzardoz because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 8 2013 @ 02:08 PM
link   
I saw oak harbor wa, and I thought what??? I grew up there. I lived there as an adult, my family is there. These people make me proud of those facts. from down here in ga, all the way up to a little island in the upper left corner or Washington. Im proud to be associated with that place with those people. way to go. dunno how to star, but if I did, I would, and flag( I got that part).



posted on Feb, 8 2013 @ 02:15 PM
link   
I hope this type of response is imitated across the whole country. Our supposed leaders and law enforcement are seriously pushing for some kind of agenda, the divide between citizen, law enforcement and government leaders is growing every day.
Just look at how they are arming themselves for civil unrest, they are willing to kill every one of us, many here on ATS say that the government won't kill its own citizens, I say rubbish, just look at how easy police officers oppress people and kill innocent people. Get enough bullies into a group and you have a nasty oppressive army on your hands.



posted on Feb, 8 2013 @ 02:18 PM
link   
Makes me proud to be formerly from that area. New York resident now but lived in the Puget Sound for 15 years and the people there stuck together like no other place i've been. Miss that!

Good for them!!!



posted on Feb, 8 2013 @ 02:24 PM
link   
What strikes me as odd is how did they know he had a concealed weapon if it was concealed?

Was he trying to intimidate the council members by waving it around or something?



posted on Feb, 8 2013 @ 02:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Spookycolt
What strikes me as odd is how did they know he had a concealed weapon if it was concealed?

Was he trying to intimidate the council members by waving it around or something?


the guy mentioned that he conceal carries a lot of the time.. Then the council member who didn't like that idea asked him.. "Are you carrying now?" The main guy (mayor?) said "you don't have to answer that if you don't want to." The guy answered. "Yes I am carrying right now." then the guy who asked the question made a motion to ban the weapon or the man if he refused to check his weapon with a cop. The it didn't pass, and the mayor made a nice speech about the law of the land, and unenforceable actions. then the guy who doesn't like guns walked out.

That's how it all went down.


Good on the mayor.

edit on 2/8/2013 by Dustytoad because: (no reason given)
edit on 2/8/2013 by Dustytoad because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 8 2013 @ 02:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Spookycolt
What strikes me as odd is how did they know he had a concealed weapon if it was concealed?

Was he trying to intimidate the council members by waving it around or something?


Not at all. He was actually at the council meeting in support of city parks. Somehow the discussion got around to the second amendment, which he spoke in favor of. At that point the City Council member asked if he were armed. There was discussion and the City Attorney said he did not have to answer the question as this was a "question the council" segment of the meeting, but he could answer voluntarily, which he did. Then the Council Member made his motion and did his little grandstanding schtick, arguing with the mayor as he did so. One other council member voted woth him. The motion was defeated.

At no time would you have even known this guy was armed. he was not being intimidated, but he was intimidated by this council member, who walked out of the meeting when his motion was defeated. Here is a video of the FIRST council meeting (not the one where hundreds showed up)

Edit to remove vid. Dusty beat me to it as I was writing this!
edit on 2/8/2013 by schuyler because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 8 2013 @ 02:38 PM
link   
I watched the original video, and what disturbed me most was the "offended" official's petulant attitude. I felt that he acted rather childish, leaving the room because he didn't get his way. Kudos to the rest of the council AND the lawyer for not twisting the law or constitutional rights.

As we all know, personal agenda's will always be at the forefront of many local government officials.

This elected official displayed to me that he does not support the constitutional rights of all Americans.

That bothers me. How did he get voted in?

For those who haven't seen it, I placed a link to the video below.



Oak Harbor City Council

Going to have to work on my skills as I wanted to embed the video.

I also agree that the headline was misleading. Media stirring the pot...
edit on 2/8/2013 by SassyGranny because: You tube link didn't work...



posted on Feb, 8 2013 @ 06:46 PM
link   
ok, so I watched the video. I said I lived in oak harbor. I was at this guys going away party, and R&R party. we were a group. He is a good man. I am proud of oak harbors mayor, and proud to say I lived in a town with some backbone. Now who wants to nominate this mayor for president? cmon, whos with me? just kidding mods.



posted on Feb, 8 2013 @ 07:46 PM
link   

"I come to you tonight with a heavy heart," Yonkman said. "I see a beautiful country divided and conflicted. I see a constitution being eroded, and the rights so many have fought and died for totally lost. I see men and woman who are elected leaders pushing personal agendas."


Aint that the damn truth much respect to that guy and those who stood with him.

What good are rights if you do not know them or exercise them



posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 06:18 AM
link   
I just seen the video on youtube of that council meeting with the veteran the other day. Didn't know it was this new. The veteran started talking about how he had a licenses to carry and an official asked if he was carrying right now. The guy was like "yeah". Then the government official walked out scared.
I thought it was hilarious.



posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 09:12 AM
link   
So nobody backed down then? I mean one guy who still did not change his position is hardly officials backing down. I suppose its is a feel good story for gun owners but, if nobody has been armed at all the resulting vote would have been the same as the attorney said the rule was against the law.



posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 09:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by MrSpad
So nobody backed down then? I mean one guy who still did not change his position is hardly officials backing down. I suppose its is a feel good story for gun owners but, if nobody has been armed at all the resulting vote would have been the same as the attorney said the rule was against the law.


Yes, cause that's a bad thing right? Following the Constitution? Cheer up.



posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 02:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by imagineering
I hope this type of response is imitated across the whole country. Our supposed leaders and law enforcement are seriously pushing for some kind of agenda, the divide between citizen, law enforcement and government leaders is growing every day.
Just look at how they are arming themselves for civil unrest, they are willing to kill every one of us, many here on ATS say that the government won't kill its own citizens, I say rubbish, just look at how easy police officers oppress people and kill innocent people. Get enough bullies into a group and you have a nasty oppressive army on your hands.

Whats to say that the "organised" citizens wouldnt become that very group of bullies oppressing other citizens who didnt agree to either join them or support their stance.
There is an awful lot of talk on here about civil unrest in America and id suggest getting a load of people together, armed, to circumvent the Political process because they either dont trust it or believe in it would put you amongst the Tunisias and Egypts of this world.
Everybody has rights and while id totally agree that politics is now bunk, along with history, its still the only half decent way of having a consensus without the mayhem, civil war and hangings from street posts.
Id suggest that any arming of "them" for the possibility of civil unrest is in direct response to people like yourself who see the state as a natural enemy and others who reported a wildly innacurate story and made it out to be a case of the people taking over the town to defend a fellow citizen.
Do you not actually think that some of you are trying to talk yourselves into a conflict with authority?
edit on 9-2-2013 by LFN69 because: .



posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 03:08 PM
link   
The message stands the same. If you want to be around people who are willing to stand up for what's right, come on up to Washington State!


We have our corruption and psychopaths just like everyone else, but overall we are a good bunch!



posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 04:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by 3n19m470
The message stands the same. If you want to be around people who are willing to stand up for what's right, come on up to Washington State!


We have our corruption and psychopaths just like everyone else, but overall we are a good bunch!

.and the definition of right is?



posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 04:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by LFN69

Originally posted by 3n19m470
The message stands the same. If you want to be around people who are willing to stand up for what's right, come on up to Washington State!


We have our corruption and psychopaths just like everyone else, but overall we are a good bunch!

.and the definition of right is?


The right to keep and bear arms is what this thread is about. If you've read the thread at all, I would think that was obvious.



posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 06:22 PM
link   


Whats to say that the "organised" citizens wouldnt become that very group of bullies oppressing other citizens who didnt agree to either join them or support their stance.
There is an awful lot of talk on here about civil unrest in America and id suggest getting a load of people together, armed, to circumvent the Political process because they either dont trust it or believe in it would put you amongst the Tunisias and Egypts of this world.
Everybody has rights and while id totally agree that politics is now bunk, along with history, its still the only half decent way of having a consensus without the mayhem, civil war and hangings from street posts.
Id suggest that any arming of "them" for the possibility of civil unrest is in direct response to people like yourself who see the state as a natural enemy and others who reported a wildly innacurate story and made it out to be a case of the people taking over the town to defend a fellow citizen.
Do you not actually think that some of you are trying to talk yourselves into a conflict with authority?
edit on 9-2-2013 by LFN69 because: .


Actually, not only is it our right but it's our duty to challenge authority when they abuse their position of power. So before asking whether we want confrontation ask yourself whether it's necessary.





new topics




 
18
<<   2 >>

log in

join