D.C. Mayor Refuses to Allow People to Defend Themselves Because “I Don’t Like Guns”

D.C. Police Chief Cathy L. Lanier (courtesy washingtontimes.com)

A few days ago Cathy Lanier, the police chief of Washington, D.C., admitted that the police would not arrive in time to save lives in the event of a “Paris-style terrorist attack.” She advised that the best way to save lives is to for the victims defend themselves. In response, a few news agencies asked D.C.’s mayor, Muriel Bowser, whether, in light of the top cop’s advice, she would be changing her stance on forbidding her residents to defend themselves with firearms. One might expect a thoughtful, rational response from an elected official asked for her take on her Chief’s advice. Instead, what Washingtonians got was a politician spouting the usual big city Democrat stance . . .

From the Washington Examiner:

Since Lanier, appearing on the CBS magazine show 60 Minutes, didn’t say exactly how District residents with limited access to guns should (counter an attack), Burns asked if gun laws should be changed.

Bowser said that she is not satisfied with the District’s gun laws, but doesn’t want them loosened. “I don’t like guns,” she said as the press conference with local business leaders erupted in applause.

As the clapping went on, she added, “I don’t think more guns should be the answer.”

Gun control advocates like Mayor Bowser only see firearms as something evil. In their binary world view, if guns are “allowed” on the streets, more people will die. But if we make them (even more) illegal, lives will be saved … all evidence to the contrary. It doesn’t matter that guns really do save lives, or that the premise underlying their anti-gun position is false. All that matters is that they stick to the party line, because actually thinking about the causes of “gun violence” is too difficult. Or politically inconvenient.

Even in the face of overwhelming proof that armed self defense is, now more than ever, a necessary option for Americans — including testimony from her own Chief of Police to that effect — Democrats like Mayor Bowser continue to demand further restrictions on the ability citizens to defend themselves. Reasons like, “I don’t like guns” just aren’t good enough any more.

comments

  1. avatar Jeff the Griz says:

    Imagine a 3 y/o, with limited rational thought. Turning their nose up to broccoli screaming “No, I don’t like it”, stomps feet and runs off.
    Yup D.C. that’s who you elected. Sorry for anyone pro-gun stuck in that hell hole!

    1. avatar Art out Wet says:

      In a land ruled by law, the personal opinions of executives matters very little. Executives, be they presidents, governors, or mayors should not be able to defraud their citizens of their basic human rights. Her opinion of guns does not matter. We have an inalienable human (and Constitutionally recognized) right to bear arms.

      It is too bad that we have to a certain extent become a nation ruled by the whims of politicians rather than a land ruled by true Law.

      1. avatar Mk10108 says:

        Too bad we don’t vote them out of office.

        1. avatar Kyle says:

          Politicians NEVER get voted out of office. They just recycle into other political positions. Its just too damn sad.

        2. avatar Stuki Moi says:

          We do. It’s just that our votes don’t matter.

        3. avatar Richard Staccone says:

          As long as the media keeps misleading the citizens by protecting scumbag politicians, they will continue to have lifetime careers in politics. If the media would expose these incompetent so call leaders for what they really are and show the mistakes they have made, the bad decisions that they make, that costs us huge amounts of tax payer money and our freedom, then many would not survive their first term. Keeping the public uninformed guarantees that they will continue to vote for the wrong people. Eventually the country will suffer and collapse. It is going down that road slowly but surely.

      2. avatar William Burke says:

        [APPLAUSE]

        God save us from tyrants, petty and grandiose. Despotism demands to be opposed at every turn.

    2. avatar William Burke says:

      When it’s that bad (and it is), I have no sympathy for anyone who chooses to remain. If you don’t like it, MOVE.

      What a suckass nest of despotism. SIC SEMPER TYRANNIS!!!

      1. avatar Galtha58 says:

        @William Burke: Probably why so many people with good paying jobs commute to work from areas outside of Washington D.C. proper. Which may also be the reason the crime is so bad there. Those that leave to live in better areas are often the people that have the political influence to force change. In D.C. I suspect that many that live there are sucking on the teat of the government and don’t really want that to change. And that is a big part of the problem.

        1. avatar Jus Bill says:

          Well, Maryland isn’t exactly a standard bearer for the Second Amendment. Federal drones live here and bring their anti-constitutional attitudes home with them from work. NOVA is becoming just as bad.

    3. avatar Don says:

      Recently, Ben Carson said victims should do the same thing in response to an armed gunman. The lefties were all over him.
      Now one of their own suggests this “new” idea and there is silence.

      1. avatar Billca says:

        The proper response when someone starts yelling “Aloha Snack Bar” while shooting, if you can’t evacuate or find cover, is to use any weapons within reach, improvised or not. Throw things that will cause injury but almost anything works since the normal reaction is to duck away from unknown incoming missiles. That means inaccurate fire and possibly lives saved. Of course the best solution is to return accurate and effective fire with your own weapon.

  2. avatar Vhyrus says:

    Muriel Bowser…. can we start calling the DC police Koopa Troopas?

    1. avatar CRF says:

      Yes, let’s! Comment of the day.

      1. avatar Custodian says:

        So, where’s a Mario Bros. when you need em?

  3. avatar ready,fire,aim says:

    i guess I’ll just tongue lash the bad guy into submission right?

    1. avatar Rad Man says:

      You might want to start with thoughtful dialogue first.

      1. avatar ready,fire,aim says:

        i dig the picture…Warriors…

        1. avatar Rad Man says:

          Baseball Furies!

      2. avatar William Burke says:

        Yep. We need sensitivity retraining in re-education camps. I mean gulags.

  4. avatar Mk10108 says:

    Against all principles of Liberty…an individual dictating a denial to others lawful self protect. We fought against a monarchy and be damned if we return to one

  5. avatar Roymond says:

    “You should defend yourselves. We just won’t let you have the tools to do it.”

    1. avatar Jeff the Griz says:

      They would probably tell you, if your a real man you can go fist to cuffs with the terrorists. So yeah some Judo and you don’t need any tools, other than your hands, and a cell phone so you can call and tell the authorities where to find your body.

      1. avatar Former Water Walker says:

        I’m still a real man-but missing lots of “realness” in my 60’s. So how do you judo chop your way outa’ a boo-lit goin’ 3000fps? What a horrible city…it makes Chiraq look good in comparison…

        1. avatar Jeff the Griz says:

          That was my point about using the phone so the responders know where the body can be found.

      2. avatar Hannibal says:

        They might TELL you that but then if someone is breaking into their home they’ll just hide in their safe room and wait for their guys with guns to take down the bad guys.

    2. avatar William Burke says:

      “Your best defense is to call the police and pray. We are all about self-determination. For people somewhere else.”

      1. avatar Juanito ''Johnnie'' Ibañez says:

        Guess what, ‘2Asux’?

        Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone
        By Linda Greenhouse, June 28, 2005

        WASHINGTON, June 27 – The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm, even a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation.
        […]
        http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/justices-rule-police-do-not-have-a-constitutional-duty-to-protect-someone.html

        Also:

        Just Dial 911? The Myth of Police Protection
        Most Police Have No Legal Duty to Protect Citizens from Criminal Attack
        By Richard W. Stevens Saturday, April 01, 2000

        Underlying all “gun control” ideology is this one belief.” “Private citizens don’t need firearms because the police will protect them from crime.” That belief is both false and dangerous for two reasons.

        First, the police cannot and do not protect everyone from crime. Second, the government and the police in most localities owe no legal duty to protect individuals from criminal attack. When it comes to deterring crime and defending against criminals, individuals are ultimately responsible for themselves and their loved ones. Depending solely on police emergency response means relying on the telephone as the only defensive tool. Too often, citizens in trouble dial 911 . . . and die.
        […]
        http://fee.org/freeman/just-dial-911-the-myth-of-police-protection/

        Just a few other examples:

        Riss v. New York, 22 N.Y.2d 579,293 N.Y.S.2d 897, 240 N.E.2d 806 (1958)
        Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. 1981)
        Bowers v. DeVito, 686 F.2d 616 (7th Cir. 1982)
        DeShaney v. Winnebago County D.S.S., 489 U.S. 189 (1989)
        Lynch v. N.C. Dept. of Justice, 376 S.E. 2nd 247 (N.C. App. 1989)
        Barillari v. City of Milwaukee, 533 N.W.2d 759 (Wis. 1995)
        Ford v. Town of Grafton, 693 N.E.2d 1047 (Mass. App. 1998)
        Castle Rock v. Gonzales, (04-278) 545 U.S. 748 (2005)

      2. avatar Juanito ''Johnnie'' Ibañez says:

        Guess what, William?

        Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone
        By Linda Greenhouse, June 28, 2005

        WASHINGTON, June 27 – The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm, even a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation.
        […]
        http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/justices-rule-police-do-not-have-a-constitutional-duty-to-protect-someone.html

        Also:

        Just Dial 911? The Myth of Police Protection
        Most Police Have No Legal Duty to Protect Citizens from Criminal Attack
        By Richard W. Stevens Saturday, April 01, 2000

        Underlying all “gun control” ideology is this one belief.” “Private citizens don’t need firearms because the police will protect them from crime.” That belief is both false and dangerous for two reasons.

        First, the police cannot and do not protect everyone from crime. Second, the government and the police in most localities owe no legal duty to protect individuals from criminal attack. When it comes to deterring crime and defending against criminals, individuals are ultimately responsible for themselves and their loved ones. Depending solely on police emergency response means relying on the telephone as the only defensive tool. Too often, citizens in trouble dial 911 . . . and die.
        […]
        http://fee.org/freeman/just-dial-911-the-myth-of-police-protection/

        Just a few other examples:

        Riss v. New York, 22 N.Y.2d 579,293 N.Y.S.2d 897, 240 N.E.2d 806 (1958)
        Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. 1981)
        Bowers v. DeVito, 686 F.2d 616 (7th Cir. 1982)
        DeShaney v. Winnebago County D.S.S., 489 U.S. 189 (1989)
        Lynch v. N.C. Dept. of Justice, 376 S.E. 2nd 247 (N.C. App. 1989)
        Barillari v. City of Milwaukee, 533 N.W.2d 759 (Wis. 1995)
        Ford v. Town of Grafton, 693 N.E.2d 1047 (Mass. App. 1998)
        Castle Rock v. Gonzales, (04-278) 545 U.S. 748 (2005)

  6. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

    Well Muriel,
    I don’t like you. So you need to be banned, tarred and feathered.

    1. avatar William Burke says:

      Grandiose B.

  7. avatar Sam says:

    Any Politician or law-enforcement that disallows an individual the right to self defense should be held both Criminally and civilly liable if any person is hurt, raped,robbed, or killed due to not being able to have the tools to defend themselves.
    If more politicians are charged with accessory to a crime due to illegally obstructing the Constitution and a persons right to self defense then just maybe they will back off lawful carry of firearms and other weapons (tools) that could help Tax paying, Voting Citizens defend themselves and or others.

    1. avatar CZ Guy says:

      ^this^….what Sam said….

    2. avatar Lance says:

      18 USC 241

  8. avatar scooter says:

    I’m a teacher… I have a fire extinguisher and office supplies to defend myself and my students. I know that feel. Outside of work hours, I have a 9mm or .38 response ready, but when I’m responsible for the most lives, lockdown. AKA “shelter in place.” AKA “wait to die.” Maybe throw a desk. Because people don’t like guns. Frequently, those people have the benefit of armed security… or operate outside of the laws OTHER citizens follow. Like this hypocritical LEO dummy.

    1. avatar Stuki Moi says:

      I believe the LEO was the non dummy in this scenario, advising people to defend themselves. The politician was the dummy. If the LEO still prosecutes people for violating the whim of the politician, despite knowing better, I guess it doesn’t really matter, but still.

      In the bigger picture, the whole notion that “I was just doing my job” needs to go away. Adults are 100% responsible for every single one of their actions. Their “boss” is just dome dude incentivizing them with money to do something. If that something is wrong, they have zero duty to do it. In fact still have a duty to not do it. If they still choose to do it, their actions are no less wrong than if they just did it on their own volition. The military “may” be an exception. But surely no other job is.

  9. avatar 80 D says:

    At the risk of stating the obvious I believe the problem lies not with what one mayor says against guns but that the statement receives applause.

    1. avatar William Burke says:

      Excellent point.

  10. avatar Jared says:

    Discriminating against 2A rights is still considered acceptable. Imagine the reaction if she was asked about parts of the civil rights act and if she responded by saying “No, I think it should be weakened, I don’t like blacks.”

    1. avatar the ruester says:

      “No carry permits! Not now, not EVA! We will never integrate with the ammosexual monkey!”

    2. avatar Paul says:

      In a very real way, she did say she doesn’t like blacks. What type of person is affected the most harshly by this mayors position? Anti-2A laws always Negatively affect the poor the most, and generally the inner city poor are made up of minorities. Restricting access to self defense tools such as guns means that poor people get to lay and pray until cops arrive to photo the bodies. On the other hand, middle class and wealthy people have the means to overcome barriers controlling access to guns (like CHL fees and training/class fees ). So, any restriction on what should be a right, just keeps guns from those who can’t afford them..a poor family in the hood most likely won’t be able to fork up the $250+ for their government granted license to their rights. Therefore, any elected official who tries to put “common sense gun control” into affect, must, by their actions, hate blacks and other minorities, and does not care if they die at the hands of criminals while waiting for police response.

  11. avatar Sam I Am says:

    People always have the politicians (and policies) they deserve.

    1. avatar Mk10108 says:

      No…just the ones they vote for.

      1. avatar CRF says:

        Unless they’re not the ones they voted for.

      2. avatar Sam I Am says:

        Which is re-stating my comment using different words.

        Someone might posit that “the people” made a mistake, and deserved better; once. When the voters elect and re-elect the same ideas over and again, they have the world they deserve.

        1. avatar Stuki Moi says:

          The ones who voted for her, yes. They got what they asked for.

          The problem is, those who voted for someone else, didn’t get the one they voted for. They don’t deserve her. Instead they are just being trampled all over. Because they happen to be black. Or gay. Or some other minority whose vote didn’t matter.

        2. avatar SteveInCO says:

          @Stuki,

          It happens that in DC blacks are the majority. Though your larger point remains valid.

    2. avatar Cliff H says:

      The basic problem with “pure” democracy that the Founding Fathers struggled with: You get the government that 50% plus one vote elects and forces on the rest.

      If people want to continue passing laws, and it sure seems like they do, there should be a law making it a felony to run for political office, take an oath to “defend and protect the Constitution”, and then publicly ignore or actually work against that Constitution. By her public statement she has confirmed that she took that oath in bad faith and that alone should be enough to convict.

      1. avatar Paul says:

        Actually, it’s not the founding fathers that had a problem with it. They knew exactly what the evils of democracy were/are. That’s why they gave us a Republic. It was EVERYTHING that happened after that that destroyed the republic. And of course now, every government school in the country, colleges included, teach the value of our “democracy”. It’s sick. Collectivists rule in this day and age…crying shame.

  12. avatar AznMike says:

    So lemme get this straight, she doesn’t like guns, but she’s a cop…who carries a gun. So is she going to go full English and have all DC police carry only batons and maybe a tazer?

    1. avatar Sam says:

      Re Read that– It wasn’t the Police Chief said that it was the Mayor.

      1. avatar AznMike says:

        Whoops, my bad. You’re right it’s the mayor. Guess I got a little confused with the picture of the police chief.

        1. avatar Sam says:

          The Police Chief was advocating to ease the gun restrictions so People could defend themselves.
          I see you were not the only one.

  13. avatar 7.62x54r says:

    Don’t ya just feel like kickin’ somebody in the shins once in a while? Jez.

  14. avatar actionphysicalman says:

    There are some guns that I don’t like either.

  15. avatar explainist says:

    the thing is, the other guy decides if there will be gun fire.

  16. avatar Ralph says:

    “I don’t like guns” is the most honest thing ever said by any progressive in the history of the Democrat party since forever.

  17. avatar Dirk Diggler says:

    And did her highness surrender her armed protection? After all, she doesn’t like guns

    1. avatar Gov. William J. Le Petomane says:

      No, she likes her own guns, she hate’s yours. She’s a hypocrite, not a fool.

  18. avatar Capybara says:

    Greedy tyrant. Screw them and their, “I get to defend myself with my gun or my police detail with their guns but all of you rabble can just die” attitudes. I live in anti-gun California and today, I am thankful that I was lucky enough to get to exercise my natural, civil and Constitutional rights with gun ownership and my CCW.

  19. avatar William Burke says:

    Generalissimo Lanier. Never seen a petty bureaucrat adorm his/herself with more hash and medals than this POS.

    It’s a sure sign of someone with delusions of grandeur. What is her wife’s name, I wonder?

    1. avatar FedUp says:

      Don’t know when I’ve seen one with less. All major city chiefs seem to be 4-star generals with medals to match. “I got this medal for stomping a kitten, this one for shooting a friendly dog…”

      1. avatar Juanito ''Johnnie'' Ibañez says:

        GEN. Mark Alexander Milley, Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army.

        That’s quite common for an Army officer with 35 years of service to his country.

        His awards:

        Combat Infantryman Badge with Star (denoting 2nd award)
        Expert Infantryman Badge
        Master Parachutist badge (United States)
        Special Forces Tab
        Ranger Tab
        SCUBA Diver Badge
        Joint Chiefs of Staff Identification Badge
        United States Army Staff Identification Badge
        Brevet Parachutiste (French Parachutist) Badge
        101st Airborne Division Combat Service Identification Badge
        506th Infantry Regiment Distinctive Unit Insignia
        8 Overseas Service Bars – Army
        Army Distinguished Service Medal with two bronze oak leaf clusters
        Defense Superior Service Medal with two bronze oak leaf clusters
        Legion of Merit with two oak leaf clusters
        Bronze Star Medal with three oak leaf clusters
        Meritorious Service Medal with silver oak leaf cluster
        Army Commendation Medal with four oak leaf clusters
        Army Achievement Medal with oak leaf cluster
        Joint Meritorious Unit Award with oak leaf cluster
        Meritorious Unit Commendation with three oak leaf clusters
        National Defense Service Medal with one bronze service star
        Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal with two service stars
        Afghanistan Campaign Medal with three campaign stars
        Iraq Campaign Medal with two campaign stars
        Global War on Terrorism Service Medal
        Korea Defense Service Medal
        Humanitarian Service Medal
        Army Service Ribbon
        Army Overseas Service Ribbon with bronze award numeral 5
        NATO Medal for service with ISAF with bronze service star
        Multinational Force and Observers Medal

        I’ll guarantee he earned each and every one of these.

  20. avatar Sixpack70 says:

    Another reason why any of our rights should not be put into the hands of petty tyrants. Your personal opinion doesn’t matter for crap.

  21. avatar AM says:

    “should be the answer” vs. “would (or even; could) be the answer”?

    Your anachronistic, hide bound, nanny-state, “I know what’s good for you”, central control, government is the answer to all of modern society’s ills, monomaniac political pseudo-orthodoxy is showing; and on full, embarrassing display Ms. Mayor.

    “….should….” indicates that your political sellout to the State as all powerful, progressive, and good has blinded you to 200+ years of the American experiment, to wit: the individual is the ultimate arbitrator and moving force in the preservation of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

    You preclude and abort the law aborning that the individual and collective, independent of the State, “could” and possibly “would” have a positive impact on this problem; if given the chance; by the very structure that steals the individual’s right to self-preservation through the chimera of “security”.

  22. avatar Ironbear says:

    “Instead, what Washingtonians got was a politician spouting the usual big city Democrat stance . . .”

    Saw that coming.

  23. avatar rob g says:

    Watching these crazy liberals spout the party line from the DNC night after night on the news is maddening. I’m really wondering where all this insanity is leading us to. They lie to our faces, misrepresent facts, rewrite history, defy the will of the electorate and escape any accountability. Millions of us have watched as our real estate values have been destroyed, our utility bills skyrocketed, our small businesses shuttered and the Christian centered values and morality we were raised with ridiculed. Any one who predicted the mess we find ourselves in now 7 years ago was laughed at. Is it any wonder why the GOP “inside the beltway” leadership is spineless?
    This is THEIR mayor.What has our Republican Legislative Branch done to straighten the thuggish DC politicians out and protect citizens 2A rights? Nothing. They control the funding for the city of DC.

    1. avatar William Burke says:

      This began a 102 years ago, not 7.

    2. avatar Watts' Twat says:

      THAT’S why I, my family, and my friends/coworkers will be voting for Donald J.Trump.

  24. avatar James in Florida says:

    Allegedly three drug dealers saved people in france from ak wielding terrorist…….how does a professional police captain not see the benefits of cc for law abiding human beings aka good guys with guns?
    Is there no end to incompetence.

  25. avatar Pantera Vazquez says:

    The mayor does not like guns, so that’s it. The rest applaud it.

    Washington DC
    The American Experience.
    Chief’s shoulder patch……….sums it up.

  26. avatar jwm says:

    Isis agrees with the DC mayor. They like unarmed victims, also.

  27. avatar Ed says:

    I just don’t like cops. Can we ban them now? This bitch thinks her badge and position apparently allow her to violate all the citizens rights in the d.c. area. A true democrat.

    1. avatar jwm says:

      The mayor…..oh, nevermind.

      1. avatar Sam says:

        Yes he didn’t read or comprehend what the article says lol

        1. avatar Ralph says:

          Yes, but Lanier is still a bitch.

        2. avatar jwm says:

          Another ex, Ralph?

  28. avatar Galtha58 says:

    Well at least D.C. did not make this list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_by_murder_rate
    Only 2 U.S. cities are on this list. Two cities with very strict gun control laws. So why the high murder rates in these cities? Notice that most of the other cities are in countries with very strict gun control laws and with far fewer guns in circulation that in the United States.
    Compare to the data on this link:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
    United States is 121 down on this list when sorted by most intentional homicides per 100,000 people. Again, most of the coutries with much higher homicides have much stricter gun laws than we do in our country and far fewer guns per person. And our homicide rate would be much lower than 3.8 per 100K if we took out our big cities with far higher numbers than the overall rate for the entire country. 3.8 per 100,000 is about the same as 3.8, 1000ths of a percent. NOT 3.8%, NOT 3.8 One hundreths of a percent but 3.8 one thousanths of a percent. Way way less than one percent. The chance that you will be killed if you don’t live in a bad area of a big city is much less than that. Compare that to Honduras with 90.4 intentional homicides per 100,000 people and you start to get an understanding of why our homicide rate is not nearly as bad as the press and the anti-gun groups make it out to be. Venezuela is another country with less guns per person, way more restrictive gun laws and many more homicides than we have in the United State. After all that you should start to get the feeling this is more about politics than it is about saving lives.

  29. avatar Galtha58 says:

    When Obama stated that “other civilized countries don’t have the kind of (gun violence) issues that we have” he was either very ignorant of the facts or intentionally lying. In the first case he should shut up if he does not know the facts. In the second case he should be impeached.

    1. avatar Andrew Lias says:

      But the other countries aren’t civilized because their murder rates are too high!

  30. avatar Jay W. says:

    Politically inconvenient is the key phrase. If its not the guns, then it MIGHT be the failed policies of the people who have been in power in the big cities for the last several decades, and we can’t have the voters looking in that direction, now can we?

  31. avatar Watts' Twat says:

    I say “good” for her, D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser, at least she’s consistent. Remember this moron was elected by low-info voters, ideologically inferior Liberal elitists, greedy lobbyists, and corrupt politicians, idiots all, who will reap what they’ve sown. The best thing is that should some horrific event take place the clueless, unarmed, inhabitants of her city (unlike law enforcement), nearly all anti-gunners, will bear the brunt of a terrorist attack, it will be THEIR blood that runs like a river, off the sidewalk, into the gutter and down the sewers (where it belongs). Keep up the good work “anti’s” while I and millions of others, “right” thinking Americans, sit back, safe in our homes and watch the videos of “natural selection” at it’s best on cable news.

    1. avatar Watts' Twat says:

      Correction:

      Where I said “corrupt politicians” it should read “corrupt bureaucrats/petty tyrants (civil service workers)”. Damn Adobe “plug-in’s”!

  32. avatar Juanito ''Johnnie'' Ibañez says:

    “I don’t like guns”
    —DC Mayor Muriel Bowser

    Great, Bowser: start with disarming your armed DC Metro body guards and the DC Metro Police in general.

    If you don’t “walk the walk” like you “talk the talk” you’re nothing but a LibSoc Hypocrite.

    1. avatar Dave says:

      Yep. I was in DC last July, and the guards at the Smithsonian had revolvers instead of Glocks, which I assume is due to mag capacity restrictions (Guards don’t technically qualify as law enforcement). On a side note, none of the metal detectors were running that day. Sometimes they’re running, sometimes they aren’t. Just enough to be a liability for patrons who might want to defend themselves.

  33. avatar HP says:

    My god. What a repugnant, vile person she is.

    1. avatar Mr. AR-10 says:

      Yea, well we know her politics, we know she doesn’t like the constitution, none of this is a surprise.

      But here’s what’s important.

      I’d do her.

  34. avatar Danny Griffin says:

    “I don’t like guns,” she said

    Another cop who doesn’t like guns. smh

    1. avatar SteveInCO says:

      It was the mayor who said that.

      It’s just barely possible (though I think it unlikely) that the chief of police, Lanier (shown), given freedom to do so, would be more pro gun. Evidence for: her recent statement that people should take down their attackers, and the fact that she INSTANTLY ceased enforcing DC’s gun ban when it was (briefly) overturned. Evidence against: Slowrolling the permit process and denying most apps. Though that could be due to pressure from the s***stain who could fire her.

  35. avatar gsnyder says:

    Mayor would already be dead if guns had not been available. Hypocrisy continues.

  36. avatar Out_Fang_Thief says:

    If a Mayor refuses to let civilians carry a firearm to protect themselves, because she’s afraid of guns, could said Mayor be held liable for injury or death caused to any unarmed civilians?

  37. avatar Dave says:

    Isn’t Bowser the evil monster villain in the Mario Games? It sounds like a fitting name in light of that.

  38. avatar Benji says:

    she added, “I don’t think more guns should be the answer.”

    “I don’t feel any guns in the hands of law abiding citizens should be the answer” is a statement that better represents what is going on in her head.

  39. avatar Anonymous says:

    Her police chief’s remark reminds of this line in Monty Python and the Holy Grail:
    “Keep me covered.”
    “What with?”

  40. avatar AL L says:

    Sorry, folks in D. C. You elected the asshole, now you have to live with your choice. Next time GO VOTE!

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email