-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
sheboyganpress: Flynn goes to far by threatening law abiding gun owners
- Thread starter Mike
- Start date
Nitrox314
Regular Member
imported post
"We hope everyone who now wants to openly carry a gun ask themselves: Do I really have a right to intimidate my fellow citizens, by openly displaying my weapon in this way?"
Wow, is this question laden with anti-gun liberal agenda or what?
"We hope everyone who now wants to openly carry a gun ask themselves: Do I really have a right to intimidate my fellow citizens, by openly displaying my weapon in this way?"
Wow, is this question laden with anti-gun liberal agenda or what?
HankT
State Researcher
imported post
Nitrox314 wrote:
Nitrox314 wrote:
It's just a straw man argument. Both the antis and the pros use that fallacy-based technique freely. Easy to spot.
suntzu
Regular Member
imported post
"Flynn vowed to have officers who see anyone carrying a gun on Milwaukee streets, "put them on the ground, take the gun away and then decide whether (the person has) a right to carry it."
sounds to me as if this man is looking for multiple civil rights lawsuits....
it would be nice to see 10-15 people gathered in Milwaukee to demonstrate that law abiding people are NOT the enemies of the state as this criminal police chief would have everyone believe.
"Flynn vowed to have officers who see anyone carrying a gun on Milwaukee streets, "put them on the ground, take the gun away and then decide whether (the person has) a right to carry it."
sounds to me as if this man is looking for multiple civil rights lawsuits....
it would be nice to see 10-15 people gathered in Milwaukee to demonstrate that law abiding people are NOT the enemies of the state as this criminal police chief would have everyone believe.
suntzu
Regular Member
imported post
HankT wrote:
as for "intimidation"--law enforcement does that every day to the people...it always seems that it is only intimidation if the PEOPLE choose to exercise their rights in what the police consider a "socially unacceptable" way...but it is NEVER intimidation when law enforcement does it...
HankT wrote:
it sounds as if that police chief has some serious issues with the people who choose to exercise their Constitutionally protected rights...
as for "intimidation"--law enforcement does that every day to the people...it always seems that it is only intimidation if the PEOPLE choose to exercise their rights in what the police consider a "socially unacceptable" way...but it is NEVER intimidation when law enforcement does it...
Japle
Regular Member
imported post
I can remember when the sight of a black man walking through a (by law) all-white neighborhood would result in the cops being called, the black man being put on the ground, cuffed and hauled off to jail. Laws and customs have changed. Now, no one gives it a second thought.
Just because some people are disturbed by a citizen doing something he has a right to do doesn't mean they have to call the cops. When I lived in Tucson in the early '70s, open carry was common and no one got upset. They were used to it.
Open carry will be accepted when people learn that the sight of a gun doesn'tmean a crime is about to be committed. Cops will stop over-reacting when they learn the same thing.
If it's legal to open cary where you live, do so. Routine open carry is the only solution to this garbage.
I can remember when the sight of a black man walking through a (by law) all-white neighborhood would result in the cops being called, the black man being put on the ground, cuffed and hauled off to jail. Laws and customs have changed. Now, no one gives it a second thought.
Just because some people are disturbed by a citizen doing something he has a right to do doesn't mean they have to call the cops. When I lived in Tucson in the early '70s, open carry was common and no one got upset. They were used to it.
Open carry will be accepted when people learn that the sight of a gun doesn'tmean a crime is about to be committed. Cops will stop over-reacting when they learn the same thing.
If it's legal to open cary where you live, do so. Routine open carry is the only solution to this garbage.
NightOwl
Regular Member
imported post
Does wisconsin have a "terrorist threats" law? Most tend to say something like this: "A terrorist threat is the threat to commit an act of violence intended to threaten or intimidate another individual(s) with reckless disregard of the risks."
If Wisconsin does have such a law, wouldn't the following statement attributed to Flynn apply: “if you see anybody carrying a gun on the streets of Milwaukee, we’ll put them on the ground, take the gun away and then decide whether you have a right to carry it.” ?
Just a thought.
Does wisconsin have a "terrorist threats" law? Most tend to say something like this: "A terrorist threat is the threat to commit an act of violence intended to threaten or intimidate another individual(s) with reckless disregard of the risks."
If Wisconsin does have such a law, wouldn't the following statement attributed to Flynn apply: “if you see anybody carrying a gun on the streets of Milwaukee, we’ll put them on the ground, take the gun away and then decide whether you have a right to carry it.” ?
Just a thought.
xenophon
Regular Member
imported post
Are you kidding me? They basically want to REPEAL Wisconsin's pre-emption statute and give local govt the ability to ban as they please.
I just heard that Gov Doyle wants legislatures to make it so. This is outrageous.
Are you kidding me? They basically want to REPEAL Wisconsin's pre-emption statute and give local govt the ability to ban as they please.
I just heard that Gov Doyle wants legislatures to make it so. This is outrageous.
FunkTrooper
Regular Member
imported post
Thanks to all forms of media people assume people with guns are dangerous. I blame peoples inability to fact check and use reasoning. Why think for yourself when you can have others think for you - socialism 101
Thanks to all forms of media people assume people with guns are dangerous. I blame peoples inability to fact check and use reasoning. Why think for yourself when you can have others think for you - socialism 101
KS_to_CA
Regular Member
imported post
suntzu wrote:
That would be fun.
To mistakenly act due to innocence of what the law says is one thing. To blatantly ignore it is another.
suntzu wrote:
That would be fun.
To mistakenly act due to innocence of what the law says is one thing. To blatantly ignore it is another.
Gordie
Regular Member
imported post
I'm intimidated by people who are larger than me, let's ban gyms and tall people so that Ifeel more secure.
I'm intimidated by people who are larger than me, let's ban gyms and tall people so that Ifeel more secure.
imported post
How can the Chief of Police violate the law and NOT go to jail. This is absurd! He needs to be put on notice, follow the laws you purport to enforce or step down from your position. There seems to be a madness sweeping the country, that any liberal can simply make up the laws as they go. We can no longer abide by these a@*holes.
How can the Chief of Police violate the law and NOT go to jail. This is absurd! He needs to be put on notice, follow the laws you purport to enforce or step down from your position. There seems to be a madness sweeping the country, that any liberal can simply make up the laws as they go. We can no longer abide by these a@*holes.
Huck
Regular Member
imported post
FYI Chief Flynn, that decision was made over 200 years ago and is covered by the second ammendment of the Constitution of the United States.
The last I heard it aint up toPolice Chiefs to decide whether or notpeople have rights.
FYI Chief Flynn, that decision was made over 200 years ago and is covered by the second ammendment of the Constitution of the United States.
The last I heard it aint up toPolice Chiefs to decide whether or notpeople have rights.
Huck
Regular Member
imported post
IMHO, it's "intimidating" only to people who're up to no good.
Good, honest, people have nothing to fear from good, honest, armed people.
IMHO, it's "intimidating" only to people who're up to no good.
Good, honest, people have nothing to fear from good, honest, armed people.
Daddyo
Regular Member
imported post
Huck wrote:
Actually, that decision was made thousands of years ago by whatever force(s) you choose to believe caused humans to come into existence (I'll line up with God, myself).
The Framers of the Constitution merely wrote it down so jokers like Flynn could remember it.
Huck wrote:
Actually, that decision was made thousands of years ago by whatever force(s) you choose to believe caused humans to come into existence (I'll line up with God, myself).
The Framers of the Constitution merely wrote it down so jokers like Flynn could remember it.
Swampbeast
Regular Member
imported post
When is the last time a gunman walked around openly carrying his gun? They don't!Plus, all the recent stories about shooting are exactly why we all SHOULD carry a gun around.
JoeSparky
Centurion
imported post
Swampbeast wrote:
See the red text above....
With this same logic we need to fear EVERY MALE for he is walking around in public with the potential to RAPE and we need to arrest every female for they have the equipement to be prostitutes.
Reminds me of the story in which a woman is reading in a small boat that is floating on the lake. Unfortunately, she also has a fishing pole and line in the boat with her and NO Fishing license. The Game warden threatens to arrest/cite her for she has all the equipment needed to fish illegally. She responded that she would charge him with rape since he had all the equipment needed to commit rape.
Finally, I AM NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE UNREASONABLE FEARS OF SHEEPLE! IF they can't deal with my LAWFUL possesion and carry of my lawfully owned and carried firearms that is their problem!
last edited for correct spelling of intended words not the ones I mistyped first!
Swampbeast wrote:
See the red text above....
With this same logic we need to fear EVERY MALE for he is walking around in public with the potential to RAPE and we need to arrest every female for they have the equipement to be prostitutes.
Reminds me of the story in which a woman is reading in a small boat that is floating on the lake. Unfortunately, she also has a fishing pole and line in the boat with her and NO Fishing license. The Game warden threatens to arrest/cite her for she has all the equipment needed to fish illegally. She responded that she would charge him with rape since he had all the equipment needed to commit rape.
Finally, I AM NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE UNREASONABLE FEARS OF SHEEPLE! IF they can't deal with my LAWFUL possesion and carry of my lawfully owned and carried firearms that is their problem!
last edited for correct spelling of intended words not the ones I mistyped first!
deepdiver
Campaign Veteran
imported post
Nitrox314 wrote:
"We hope that everyone asks themselves: Does Milwaukee Police Chief Edward Flynn really have the right to intimidate law abiding citizens by stating his intention to order officer's under his command to threaten them with deadly force if they legally exercise a constitutionally protected right?
And if he is so willing to ignore the law, state constitution and US Constitution on this matter, what other laws will he order his force to ignore and what other constitutionally protected rights will they unilaterally infringe in the future with the threat of deadly force against law abiding citizens?"
Nitrox314 wrote:
Should have read:
"We hope that everyone asks themselves: Does Milwaukee Police Chief Edward Flynn really have the right to intimidate law abiding citizens by stating his intention to order officer's under his command to threaten them with deadly force if they legally exercise a constitutionally protected right?
And if he is so willing to ignore the law, state constitution and US Constitution on this matter, what other laws will he order his force to ignore and what other constitutionally protected rights will they unilaterally infringe in the future with the threat of deadly force against law abiding citizens?"
Huck
Regular Member
imported post
Amen pard! Since when dounreasonable fears over-ride our rights?
Amen pard! Since when dounreasonable fears over-ride our rights?
smithman
Regular Member
imported post
Nitrox314 wrote:
Nitrox314 wrote:
By this logic LEOs are intimidating people whenever they are on duty. I don't think that the chief would say that, though. I would hope he would say "These people who OC are simply carrying like my officers do while on duty" but then again he is a tool who shows he cannot uphold the state constitution.