Violence In Milwaukee…Big Surprise

If you have not been paying attention, Milwaukee has had a violent weekend with 9 shootings, 5 homicides, and one Officer Involved Shooting (OIS) on an armed man.  In response to the OIS shooting, cars and businesses were torched.  White people were targeted for “beat downs” by Black Lives Matter (BLM) rioters.  Even the media was targeted who were simply trying to cover the story.  The firefighters were forced to withdraw for their own safety because the loser rioters were throwing rocks and bricks at them.   Chants of “Black Power” can be heard in the video below.

Video: ‘Black Lives Matter’ Rioters Target Whites For Beat Downs

 Milwaukee Crowd Turns Violent After Police Fatally Shoot Armed Man

BTW…Thank you Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and the Democrat Party for creating and fomenting the hatred we see here.  BLM once again proves they are nothing but a bunch of street thug agitators.

This violence came after just a day or two after Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett and Police Chief Ed Flynn continued with their usual whining about stopping the violence.  They continue to preach that the violence is all because of their being so many guns on the streets and the need for more gun laws.  Really?  I guess given the torching of vehicles and a gas station, we better also now restrict cigarette lighters and matches.

If it’s really all about the guns, why does every other part of the state, with collectively more guns than Milwaukee, not see this type of violence?  We really only see this type of behavior throughout the country in the urban centers controlled by liberals.

Funny how the liberal excuse is always to take away the natural right of people to defend themselves.  Watch the first video and tell me that you don’t need to be carrying a gun when you venture into Milwaukee.  At any moment you are a potential target because of the color of your skin, what you drive, or what you have.  Decades of liberal policies have made Milwaukee unsafe, and Madison is on the way there too.

This all has escalated as a result of the coordinated actions of the Nobel Peace Prize winning President and BLM, who have brought us anything but peace and don’t really care about the lives of black people.  We were well on our way to becoming a post racial society before Obama and BLM came along.  Race relations have been set back decades.  Expect nothing less from the community organizer and student of Saul Alinsky.  He is playing by his “Radical Rule Book”.

If you are not a gun owner, consider becoming one.  Obtain the training with your firearm you need to protect yourself.

Judge Napolitano

From the Freedom Files

Guns and the president

Published on Jan 24, 2013

By Judge Andrew P. Napolitano
Published January 24, 2013

Here is an uncomfortable pop quiz: Who has killed more children, Adam Lanza or Barack Obama? We’ll hold off on the answer for a few paragraphs while we look at the state of governmental excess — including killing — in America. But you can probably guess the correct answer from the manner in which I have posed the question.
We all know that the sheet anchor of our liberties is the Declaration of Independence. The president himself quoted Thomas Jefferson’s most famous line in his inaugural address earlier this week. He recognized that all men and women are created equal and endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights and that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

The president would no doubt like to modify the word “created” to read “shall be maintained,” since his presidency seems dedicated to keeping us equal, not in terms of equality of rights and opportunity but of outcome. He has dedicated himself to using the coercive power of the federal government to take from those who have and give to those who don’t. Under the Constitution, charity is a decision for individuals to make, not the government.

This forced egalitarianism was never the purpose of government in America. When the people in the original 13 states gave up some of their personal liberties to create their state governments so they could perform the services that governments in the West do, and when the states themselves gave up some of their liberties to create the federal government of limited powers to address the issues of nationhood, they never authorized government to impose taxes to transfer wealth to those who lack it or need it.

This may sound harsh, but there is simply no authority in the Constitution for the feds to tax Americans or to borrow money in their names to rebuild private homes in New Orleans or at the Jersey Shore. And there is no moral authority for that, either. If folks want to give money to those whose properties were damaged by natural disasters and lacked adequate insurance coverage, they are free to do so, but nowhere does government have the authority to compel us to do so.

This shows how far we have come from the Constitution the Founders gave us. They “constituted” a government of limited powers, and they did so because they wanted the government to protect our freedoms, since they understood that personal responsibility and freedom — not government handouts — are the soundest routes to prosperity. Hence, they limited the government because they knew the lessons of history. And those lessons informed them that often it is the government itself that is the greatest threat to personal freedom.

One hundred years ago, during the Progressive Era, Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson turned the concept of limited government on its head. They argued that the Constitution could be disregarded because the federal government possesses unlimited powers to address the people’s needs. Barack Obama is their ideological heir. As their heir, he is not only the head of the executive branch of the federal government, but he is also the head of one of the two dominant political parties.

That political party has dedicated itself to making certain killing legal. The Democrats have continually celebrated the abominable decision of the Supreme Court in Roe vs. Wade, issued 40 years ago this week. They have championed abortion for the past 40 years. They have assaulted the greatest and most fundamental of human rights: the right to live. In doing so, they have succeeded in causing the government to permit the killing of more than 50 million American babies in their mothers’ wombs in the past 40 years — for the sake of convenience and sexual activity without consequence, in a manner that is antiseptic and lawful. And no one hears the babies’ cries of pain or anguish.

The president himself has more directly killed about 176 children in Pakistan by the use of CIA drones. These drones have been dispatched by him alone — not pursuant to any congressional declaration of war. At least two of these murdered children were Americans. But since the cameras were kept away, since all of this takes place 10,000 miles from America, and since the survivors are legally and politically helpless, no one here hears the Pakistani children’s cries of pain and anguish.

One of the reasons we have the constitutionally guaranteed right to keep and bear arms is to enable us to resist a drone sent to the path of our children by shooting it down, no matter who sent it. But you can’t stop a drone with a BB gun. Hence the need for serious firepower in the hands of ordinary Americans — to give tyrants pause and to stop tyrants when they don’t pause. The president wants to use Lanza’s horrific slaughter of 20 babies in a public school in Connecticut with a stolen gun as an excuse to restrict the freedoms of all law-abiding gun-owning Americans, any one of whom would have stopped Lanza in a heartbeat with a lawful gun, before the police could, had they been in that school.

Now back to our pop quiz: Who has killed more children, Lanza or Obama? Does a president with blood on his hands have any moral standing to infringe upon the natural right to self-defense of those whose hands are clean? Would you sacrifice your liberty to defend yourself and your children so that the government can kill whom it pleases?

The answers are obvious.

Six 2nd Amendment Facts Everyone Should Know


Choose Your Crime Stats

The Second Amendment Explained

Amendment II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

In the days when this amendment was written, the militia meant every adult able to bear arms. The militia was not the regular army. The term “regulated” was not a legal term at that time, but a mechanical one. A regulator was any mechanical device used to make something work better. A spin-ball governor was used to “regulate” the speed of a steam engine, as one example. A “Well Regulated” militia meant a militia with all the proper equipment needed to do their job better. That meant good weapons with good sights. After all, what use is a militia if they cannot hit what they are aiming at?

The Second Amendment is not about target shooting or hunting. At the time, hunting was indispensable for survival in the new nation, especially when food crops were unavailable. To deprive the people of their hunting weapons was to condemn them to death by starvation in the winter months. Military commanders of the time viewed hunting weapons as off limits. When Lieutenant Colonel George Monro surrendered Fort William Henry to Major General Louis-Joseph de Montcalm during the French and Indian Wars, the civilian militia serving the British were allowed to take their weapons with them when they left. When the British marched on Concord, triggering the Battles of Lexington and Concord and the start of the American Revolution, it was to seize military arms, not hunting weapons.

By the very inclusion of the terms “militia”, “security”, and “free state” it is clear that the Second Amendment is referring to military arms. The Founding Fathers understood that it was only because the people had been in possession of military arms that they were able to resist the economic enslavement of King George’s Currency Act, created under pressure from the then-private central Bank of England. Absent those arms in the hands of the people, the banker-imposed poverty would have continued indefinitely.

“The refusal of King George 3rd to allow the colonies to operate an honest money system, which freed the ordinary man from the clutches of the money manipulators, was probably the prime cause of the revolution.” — Benjamin Franklin, Founding Father

The Founding Fathers, while acknowledging the need for some form of government, knew all too well from thousands of years of human history that government is not automatically the friend of the governed, and had to be kept under tight control.

“Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action.” — George Washington, in a speech of January 7, 1790

Following the Revolution, the Founding Fathers created a nation with power and authority reserved to the people. In order to avoid despotic rule, the government was broken into three separate parts, so that the natural tendency for government to seek more power would be turned against itself and not the people. Strict limits were imposed on the government itself, to keep the government the servant of the people.

The Founding Fathers included the Second Amendment because they understood that any system of government is only as good as the people who are in that government. They understood that political power attracts the very sort of people who should never be allowed to have it. And they understood that no matter how limited government was at its creation, over time all governments tend towards oligarchy, cease to be the servant of the people, and seek to become the masters.

“While the people have property, arms in their hands, and only a spark of noble spirit, the most corrupt Congress must be mad to form any project of tyranny.” – Rev. Nicholas Collin, Fayetteville Gazette (N.C.), October 12, 1789

“The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” (Thomas Jefferson Papers p. 334, 1950)

In short, the Second Amendment is not about hunting or target shooting. It is and was ever intended to be about protecting We The People from the government of the United States.

The “Greater Good” Part 3 by Nutnfancy

Milwaukee gun range voluntarily reports law-abiding customers to local police

From Wisconsin Carry Inc…

Subject: Milwaukee gun range voluntarily reports law-abiding customers to local police

Greetings in Freedom,

Wisconsin Carry has learned of some concerning information that we would like to pass along to our membership and right-to-carry interested folks in southeast Wisconsin.

In a recently published Milwaukee Journal Sentinel article which you can read here:

It was reported that the former Badger Guns (now Brew City Shooters Supply) has, since 2009, been reporting the names of every customer that comes in to use their firing range to the West Milwaukee Police Department. In this time over 25,000 customer names were reported to West Milwaukee Police Chief Dennis Nasci who ran a background check on each through “his system”.

So far in 2012 it was reported more than 8,800 customer name records have been supplied to West Milwaukee Police by Brew City Shooters Supply to have a criminal background check run on them. We do not know yet, how else West Milwaukee Police have been using these records they have been given by Brew City Shooters Supply, nor if they are storing those customer names for future reference. We also do not know what other purposes West Milwaukee Police might choose to use these customer name lists for in the future.

Having spoken with members of WCI who frequent Brew City Shooters Supply, though they were aware they signed a liability release to use the range, they were NOT aware in any way that their use of the range was being reported to West Milwaukee Police Department.

Wisconsin Carry does not believe it is the governments business if, when, or how often law-abiding citizens use a firing range. We also believe that if a business is going to report law-abiding activities of customers to local police departments so a background check can be run with no reason or justification, they should be explicitly informing customers of this tactic. Wisconsin Carry rejects the selective intrusion on customers privacy by any business with no reason or cause other than those customers patronage to participate in a legal activity.

Wisconsin Carry rejects the use of public resource to run background checks on law abiding citizens with no probable cause or reasonable suspicion whether those citizens were using a firing range, attending church, going to the grocery store, or stopping in a corner tavern for a cocktail.

We do not know if Brew City Shooters Supply also provided the names of customers who came in to purchase ammunition to West Milwaukee Police.

Wisconsin Carry has made an open records request of the Village of West Milwaukee for any and all information and documents pertaining to this scheme of Brew City Shooters/Badger Guns providing lists of law-abiding customer names to Village of West Milwaukee Police. We will send out updates as more information becomes available as to the extent of the use of that information, whether the rights of law-abiding customers were violated by Brew City Shooters Supply or Village of West Milwaukee Police, and any other details which we believe would be of interest to the law-abiding gun owners of Southeast Wisconsin.

Carry On,

Nik Clark

Chairman/President – Wisconsin Carry, Inc.