Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Obama's next AG:San Diego Police Chief William Lansdowne...

Posted 1 year ago on Jan. 28, 2013, 9:19 p.m. EST by chuckuschumer (-366)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

San Diego Police Chief William Lansdowne is fully supportive of the Obama/Feinstein gun grab, and says "if lawmakers play it right Americans can be completely disarmed within "a generation."

Lansdowne has gone on record saying: "I could not be more supportive of the president for taking the position he has. I think it's courageous with the politics involved in this process. [And] I think it's going to eventually make the country safer." He made it clear that it may take "a generation," but new laws could eventually take all guns off the streets.

This is quite a departure from other law enforcement personnel we've seen around the country--particularly Sheriffs--who've come out firmly against any infringement on the 2nd Amendment. We've cheered those officials for standing with the people, and now Lansdowne has taken a position completely opposite them.

Moreover, Lansdowne has also been slamming the NRA in interviews. And he seems overtly thrilled at the money the NRA is being forced to spend to get their message out in the wake of the crime at Sandy Hook Elementary. "We broke the NRA," says Lansdowne.

This should give a thrill up the leg of all the OWS legion that populate this Forum....The American people finally unarmed and fully subjugated, under complete control of the Government.

Kinda brings a tear of joy to your eye,doesn't it?

57 Comments

57 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 7 points by GirlFriday (21783) 1 year ago

I'm going to get all of this out because this thread will become the conspiracy theorist's wet dream.

Actually, he isn't the only one and the NRA needs a good bitch slapping. Right up there with a couple of other industries.

We need to get something straight. Obama will be replaced by someone else and in another 4-8 years after that the next individual will be replaced and so on.

The big picture is that the issues will be here as these people come and go. People like you and people like me will deal with each other and more importantly how the hell that we address the new issues presented from "reform".

This means that you are going to need to bring to the table some other crap. You are going to want to fund ATF. You are going to want to support back ground checks and the tools necessary to do that type of research. You're going to want to look at the problems with the mental health care system or the lack thereof and your going to want to drop any BS regarding morality or how the younger generation blah, blah, blah. You want to discuss the criminal element-or the insane criminals then shit or get off the pot.

Specifically, you are going to want to discuss the service providers in the area and how they take someone that is mentally unstable, medicate them and release them. You are going to want to question the placing mentally ill that must have medication and can't really function in society at home. The nurses or counselors that stop by every so many days aren't going to cut it. Then you are going to need to question the for profit half way houses. In fact, you are going to need to question the criteria involved in treatment and the process of "stream line". You are going to want to consider much of what has privatized and bring that back under control of your state.

You are going to want to question this because often these people will wind up in jail or prisons. You are going to want to question the faux privatization prison system and the lack of medical/mental health care there.You are paying through tax dollars in mental health AND in court costs and jail/prison time and lawd knows in the repeat factor. You will save money in fixing the mental health care system.

You're going to need to prevent a history of wrongly diagnosed mental illness. That means that you are probably going to have to question the referrals that are made by teachers to pediatricians for the diagnosis of ADHD to acquire medication to be calm in class. That means that you are going to have to question the need for the referral in the first place. That means that you are going to have to question the testing scam in the schools that forces kids to be still and quiet for much longer than they should be.

Considering that many psych wards are attached to hospitals that do not pay property taxes (for charity that they usually decide secretly) it's time to question your state IRS so that they can start questioning what constitutes charity. We should also seriously question all of those that fall under the category of education and do not pay taxes (like testing companies) and the traveling counselors and nurses.

I promise you, honey, the NRA and the MSM aren't going to be around for any of this unless their intention is to interpret it to profit from it.

So, here we are: the people like you and the people like me. You gonna start dealing with the issues or are you going to recite MSM talking points?

[-] 2 points by frovikleka (2563) from Island Heights, NJ 1 year ago

I knew of most of the points you made GF, but i could not have expressed it nearly as well. Good job.

~Odin~

[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Well said.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (21783) 1 year ago

Thank you.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Real issues to consider - I like that.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (21783) 1 year ago

Well, I missed that whole why do you even have pediatricians diagnosing for ADHD? But, I didn't want to go in and fix it.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Always room for further additions - keep real issues out front for consideration.

Like rather then going after a symptom ( pharma intervention with all of the nasty side effects ) - why not start at the cause (s) - like artificial dyes and sweeteners in food and drink as well as growth hormones and steroids introduced to our food chain to fatten it up faster. Corn sugar syrup ( fructose ) that tells our bodies that we are still hungry. All the shit that is put into our food. Address that and see a lot of the other side effects disappear on their own.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (21783) 1 year ago

I agree but to a greater extent trying to force your 6, 7, 8 and 9 year olds into the sit still because the testing has got to this point isn't going to work and I don't care what you feed them.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Kids have a natural need to burn energy - a healthy need - it would be best if they were given plenty of exercise/play throughout the day - and no doubt their ability to sit still and pay attention to lessons would be better. Give em some nice background music as well. Would be nice too if their school lunches weren't packed full of processed starch ( sugar rush and crash ).

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (21783) 1 year ago

Well, many schools have cut down their playground time to about 15 minutes a day. They keep trying to force these kids into little robots and when they can't manage it then the teachers who now have their asses on the line of why this kid cannot be robotic make a referral and the parent usually has never had to deal with this but wants the kid to be successful takes it to the pediatrician. They make the decision and the kid is put on medication. From the get go there are issues.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Sounds like the educators as well as the parents need education on the needs of growing children to burn energy - could someone also send a clue to the Dr.'s?

This is what is known as common sense. A No Brainer. And yet......

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (21783) 1 year ago

Well, those that are at the top make those decisions. It isn't the teachers necessarily but those that incorporated the demands.

Just off hand do you know how much was spent on testing in your state? The last time that I looked, it was 26 million the first year and then 24 million for the next three.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Educational testing? Educational efficacy? Or Health?

Just think if parents teachers and doctors all banded together to support proper change in diet and daily physical activity in school? Direct democracy action?

[-] 0 points by GypsyKing (9727) 1 year ago

You kill me GF. You're wicked smart.

Now find somewhere to APPLY it.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (21783) 1 year ago

I have. Thank you.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9727) 1 year ago

You're Too Damed Smart to spend so much time bashing heads with nincompoop trolls.

Just an opinion.

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (21783) 1 year ago

We are taking back this damn forum.

[-] -1 points by GypsyKing (9727) 1 year ago

Look, please don't think I'm de-valuing you contribution here. Its been Great. But you're are Wicked smart. You could do Anything.

Just an opinion. I don't want to risk the wroth of GF unchained. LOL

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (21783) 1 year ago

Nice try.

[-] -1 points by GypsyKing (9727) 1 year ago

Nice try for what? Think I want you to go away?

Do you trust Anybody?

Well, that's your cross to bear.

[+] -4 points by chuckuschumer (-366) 1 year ago

So you agree with Sherrif Landsdowne,that American people should be disarmed??

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (21783) 1 year ago

Try again. This is what happens when you spend your time reading Brietbart. You either are a sucker or you are intentionally starting crap. You either did not know or you know perfectly well.

http://www.sandiego6.com/news/local/White-House-Congress-Create-Gun-Buying-Frenzy-After-Newtown-187115371.html

[-] -1 points by chuckuschumer (-366) 1 year ago

You didn't answer,why?

The "gun buying frenzy" is old news,just answer my question please.

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (21783) 1 year ago

I have repeatedly outlined on this forum what I support and what I do not. You can look it up.

[-] -1 points by chuckuschumer (-366) 1 year ago

I'll take that as a yes.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (21783) 1 year ago

Then you'd be wrong. But, you knew that. You took it out of context intentionally.

[-] 0 points by chuckuschumer (-366) 1 year ago

How is that wrong? You've not disagreed with anything said by this Police Chief. You've beat around the bush in your first response with complete ambiguity about the core point of the post.

I mean,what's so bloody hard about just stating your opinion either for or against?

You must be a politician,you certainly have the ability to say absolutely nothing while pretending to say something in the most vague terms.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (21783) 1 year ago

Chief Lansdowne, who plays an active role in the western region of the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) association, said it may take a generation but guns will eventually be taken off the streets through new laws like Senator Diane Feinstein’s proposed assault weapons ban legislation. Some of the items his organization is addressing include; a ban on assault weapons, restricting high-capacity magazines, closing loopholes that allow firearm sales between private owners without background checks, and implementing much stricter background checks by using a comprehensive database. San Diego City’s top cop focused on grandfathering a law provision contained in Senator Feinstein’s legislation that would allow current lawful firearms owners to keep their assault weapons, but said that firearms would be destroyed upon the owner’s death and the new law would no longer allow firearms to be passed down to heirs and relatives.


I sure as hell do My stance hasn't changed. Any other dumb ass questions?

[Deleted]

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (21783) 1 year ago

lolwut?

[-] -2 points by chuckuschumer (-366) 1 year ago

"I sure as hell do"

Good,finally an answer. You agree with Lansdowne,I thought you were of that mentality. You're an Occupy gun grabber.

Thanks for opening up.

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (21783) 1 year ago

You fucking little drama queen.

[-] 0 points by chuckuschumer (-366) 1 year ago

No drama,mama just the freedom that truth brings as it sets you free.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (21783) 1 year ago

I agree. You should be flying high now that we have untangled your little attempt to twist shit.

Feel better? I know you do.

[-] 1 points by WSmith (5271) from Cornelius, OR 1 year ago
[-] 0 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

So what does this have to do with Obama ?
Not only is your "Obama/Feinstein gun grab" a lie,
I doubt Obama ever heard of Lansdowne


Again- it is sad how many lies are posted here as real.
Trolls have to stay busy

[-] 0 points by nomdeguerre (1775) from Brooklyn, NY 1 year ago

It's hard to fight backing up. Currently, the NRA couldn't endorse the Sandy Hook as false flag narrative, the public isn't ready to follow. However they could covertly fund a massive effort to bring the truth to the public.

Sandy Hook: Officers encountered 'several individuals' as they approached scene http://www.legitgov.org/Sandy-Hook-Officers-encountered-several-individuals-they-approached-scene

http://memoryholeblog.com/2013/01/06/sandy-hook-school-massacre-timeline/

http://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2013/01/27/how-television-news-creates-the-illusion-of-knowledge/

http://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2013/01/21/sandy-hook-actors-robots-androids-television-creations/

To understand today's world, it is necessary to understand three concepts: false flag attacks, information warfare, and control fraud.

[-] -2 points by chuckuschumer (-366) 1 year ago

This is what Obama really meant by "hope and change".

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

There is no "gun grab" No one is being "subjugated". And the "American people" ain't gonna be "fully unarmed". That's just exaggerated, fear mongering designed, and perpetrated to put gun maker profits over the American people. Old, Stale, and dishonest attempt to protect gun profits. Most Americans know better and don't believe your paranoid lies.

[-] 1 points by Narley (-634) 1 year ago

The American people won’t be disarmed, at least not in the foreseeable future. There may be more gun restrictions and a few types of guns banned. But does anyone think the new proposed restrictions will make any difference? I don’t.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

evidence - in GB & AU proves that it does make a difference if we do it right

[-] 1 points by Narley (-634) 1 year ago

I don't have the confidence you seem to have. We are not GB, Canada or AU, the populace will not go quietly into the night. No being sarcastic but the Feds have a poor record of doing anything right. I’m not persuaded Americans will be disarmed, ever.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

I, and no one I have read or seen wants to DISARM Americans.
registration, license, insure
We almost have more guns than people

[-] 1 points by Narley (-634) 1 year ago

OK, just so you know where I’m coming from. I own a few guns, but I don’t live and breathe guns like some people. I don’t own an AR-15. With the exception of a couple of old Beretta pistols, the new regulations will have no effect on me. I don’t have a horse in this race.

You say no one wants to disarm Americans. I disagree. A lot of people would love to totally disarm the masses. There are news stories to that effect almost every day. This kind of talk just entrenches gun owners to not allow any new restrictions. They see it as just another step toward eventual confiscation. Paranoid or not, that’s the way gun owners feel. They simply don’t believe people who say they just want reasonable gun laws.

The paranoid feeling of gun owners, valid or not, will most likely result in mass non-compliance. Some states, eight I believe, are trying to pass state laws saying they will not enforce any new regulations. Several law enforcement agencies have publically stated they will not enforce any new regulations. This isn’t going to be as easy as just passing a new law.

I don’t have a solution. I really don’t. You’d have to be blind not to see all the gun violence. At best, the new regulations will take a couple of generations to get the banned weapons off the street.

[-] 0 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

"You say no one wants to disarm Americans. I disagree. A lot of people would love to totally disarm the masses. There are news stories to that effect almost every day."

pardon me if I am blaming you for what plagues this forum-
gross generalizations & lies without any documentation or proof or links.

Can you name & show links to 5 people who state that they advocate disarming the masses

[-] 1 points by Narley (-634) 1 year ago

I could probably come up with fifty links and comments where politicians and talking heads want to totally disarm America, if I were so inclined. But I’m just not that interested enough to spend thirty minutes searching for them. I’m sure you could find them easy enough if interested.

As I said, I don’t care much either way about the proposed gun regulations. Guns aren’t my reason for living. This topic is just interesting conversation for me. I am a little perplexed about all the fuss. Seems much ado about nothing.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

DO NOT pardon me if I am blaming you for what plagues this forum- gross generalizations & lies without any documentation or proof or links.

Can you name & show links to 5 people who state that they advocate disarming the masses?

Are you afraid to prove me wrong?

[-] 1 points by imagine40 (383) 1 year ago

Some of us think dead children is a big thing. I think you may find some politicians who want to disarm Americans. But not likely. You wanna try?

Not 50. Just 5. C'mon.

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

They certainly don't infringe on anyones 2nd amendment rights. Over time the background check can limit gun proliferation to criminals, but only if we also pass the strict gun trafficking sentencing. If we start putting the people selling guns to criminals that crime WILL slow down.

[-] 0 points by Shayneh (-482) 1 year ago

We already have federal laws in place dealing with "gun trafficing" or as the politicians would like to call it "straw purchases" - it's already illegal but the feds aren't prosecuting those who do it.

With 20,000 laws on the books do you really think something is left out when it comes to criminals using firearms to kill. The laws are not being enforced - that's where the problem is.

[-] 3 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

We must start putting the gun sellers (to criminals) in jail for 20 years. Can't do that if they can sell guns without background checks. Do you support selling guns to criminals? I just watched a click of LaPierre supporting no loophole universal background checks in '99. Seems reasonable. You disagree?

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

why should we NOT treat all guns like we treat totally automatic machine guns?
According to a Maryland police chief, 2,000,000 gun sales were stopped by background checks.
Aren't 20 little children enough?
And again - the problem is not the gun sales - it is the GUN OWNERS


"We already have federal laws in place dealing with "gun trafficing" or as the politicians would like to call it "straw purchases" - it's already illegal but the feds aren't prosecuting those who do it."
Other than nra, your source for this is ?
Did you hear about the truck full of 8,000 guns that was driven from Virginia into DC and they arrested the driver & let him go? Funny - me niether.

[-] 0 points by peacehurricane (293) 1 year ago

As long as the killing in these wars continue details matter very little. Simple stop killing innocents and then using the results against the people paying for it to be done to them and electing the sorry asses again. The publis is some kind of mentally challenged place be it MSM, brainwash, the eating of flesh which is the entire cause of all the ills. The doctors would be unemployed if they did what is right and herbs heal you are what you eat and if it be death may be the time to consider if you want to live or you can play doctor YIKES

[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Wow. honestly I did not quite understand that comment.

[-] -1 points by peacehurricane (293) 1 year ago

There is no need to go over all the proposed laws or any other details involving guns as long as the USA is killing innocent people. We pay for this and elect the same people again when we all know the People want out of war. They must be looney in the head to work hard to pay so much money for actions they do not support. Eating meat makes people sick and I see no reason taxpayers should be financially responsible while the doctors make money from maintaining the conditions adding Rx after Rx until you die.

[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Ok. Sounds like a good reason for inaction on reasonable gun safety legislation. But I can't agree that it is good enough. Sorry and Thanks