Madison's Anti-Gun Campaign

My son came across this video last night. The final statement at around the 1:25 minute mark, "We are also asking the community that if they see anybody with a firearm that they call us immediately." could have easily been modified to say "... if they see anybody threatening with a firearm" or "doing something illegal with a firearm." But no, they simply said call the police if they see anybody with a firearm.

Obviously one can and perhaps ought to call the police whenever they see a person doing something threatening or illegal-- regardless if there is a firearm present. The police are focusing on firearms, not on criminal behavior.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8P6_l6NvhyQ

Recognizing their are still pro-gun people who think "conceal carry will solve all of this" I would ask them...

Do they want the police to be summoned should someone ever see a bulge on their hip inside their shirt?

Do they want the police to come and demand "papers please" should they ever "print" when they reach for a can of peas off the grocery store shelf?

What if ONE person is alarmed by catching a glimpse of your legally carried holstered handgun inside of your jacket when they are in a hot shopping mall and you unzipped to cool off. Is that disorderly conduct too? (insert eye roll here)

Conceal carry won't solve the problem. Police HAVE to adjust their approach.

I recognize this represents a change for police but the knee jerk "gun = bad" "see a gun call police" is the mindless tried and failed 1990's banning, zero tolerance, no common sense approach. Tried and failed. Its 2010, Wisconsin is decades behind the times in recognizing rights. Again, I recognize this represents a change. I'm sorry change is "hard" for law enforcement, but either way "change gonna come"

So call 911 everytime you see a LEO sitting in a restaurant.....constant MWAG calls should drive them to change their policies.

Shotgun said:

My son came across this video last night. The final statement at around the 1:25 minute mark, "We are also asking the community that if they see anybody with a firearm that they call us immediately." could have easily been modified to say "... if they see anybody threatening with a firearm" or "doing something illegal with a firearm." But no, they simply said call the police if they see anybody with a firearm.

Obviously one can and perhaps ought to call the police whenever they see a person doing something threatening or illegal-- regardless if there is a firearm present. The police are focusing on firearms, not on criminal behavior.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8P6_l6NvhyQ

Click to expand...

Start calling the police about the police carrying guns.

991: Hello 911 what's your emergency?

caller: Well I don't know if it's an emergency, it's just that there are two guys carrying guns in the Coffee shop I'm at.

911: Yes that is an emergency, what are these to guys wearing?

Caller: Ah well they both have blue pants and shirts, one is about 40 years old medium build with brown hair and the other is about 25, thin, with blond hair. Hurry, man, they seem loaded for bear, lots of clips with bullets and all kinds of weird stuff hanging from their belts.

911: I see, we will send an officer right away.

911: 1-Adam we have a MWAG call at the Coffee Shop on Main and 1st.

LEO: Oh my God we're at that coffee shop right now, we don't see anyone with guns. (Whispers to his partner "we got a MWAG right in this shop, go tactical."

911: Caller where are these men at?

Caller: Well they were sitting by the window in a booth, but they seem to be getting very excited and perhaps agitated, please have the police hurry....Oh my god...they are standing up looking around with their hands on their guns...For gods sake hurry they may start shooting at any time.

911 (with an excited inflection): 1-Adam, the caller is scared and is saying the two suspects are getting excited and have placed their hands on their guns and he feels they may start shooting at any time...do you see anyone with a guns?

LEO (In a frightened and concerned voice): No... no... we don't see anyone with a gun. We need back up right now, send SWAT. For God's sake hurry.

To be continued....

lol

Lmfao

Hilarious Venator!

what kind of troouble could a person get into by doing just hat calling in a mwag on a cop

oliverclotheshoff said:

what kind of troouble could a person get into by doing just hat calling in a mwag on a cop

Click to expand...

I can't think of too much. If you were really frightened that's all that seems to matter. FEELINGS are everything...bah...

But as we all know they can and will arrests/harass you for any trumped up charge. Until the populous starts to demand better behavior from LE the abuse will continue.

I'm Reading Deacon for defense and justice and the tactics of the police in 1964 to intimidate you by violating your rights, hasn't changed much. The difference now is video and audio recorders. The book is great and a reasonable parallel to the OC movement.
Book: http://www.amazon.com/Deacons-Defense-Resistance-Rights-Movement/dp/0807857025

INFO on the group:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deacons_for_Defense_and_Justice

Also an atricle by a PhD candiate doing her disertation on gun rights (mostly OC) in Michigan. http://secondsmatter.blogspot.com/2010/08/activism-through-gun-rights-story-of.html

i've got an idea; let the left focus their efforts, rather than on banning guns, on ending all the reasons one would need a gun in our society. attacking the solution does not end the problem. thusly i have spoken.

oliverclotheshoff said:

what kind of troouble could a person get into by doing just hat calling in a mwag on a cop

Click to expand...

I wouldn't recommend it.

First, LE trolls this forum daily. Guarantee they will read this thread.

Second, it would just provide them false evidence that OC causes a disturbance. They can say "see, people are alarmed, they call us" when we know they almost always don't.

McX said:

i've got an idea; let the left focus their efforts, rather than on banning guns, on ending all the reasons one would need a gun in our society. attacking the solution does not end the problem. thusly i have spoken.

Click to expand...

Exactly. Its shocking that groups like WAVE think they way to end violence is to ask for laws against the law abiding.

Jeri B needs to go find criminals and thugs and ask them to stop the violence.

Don't come ask the peaceful to lay down their means to protect themselves against the violent.

Go ask the violent to stop assaulting/robbing/otherwise harming the peaceful.

Got that Jeri B? Go stand on the corner of 34th and Hadley and ask THEM to stop the violence.

Its like when Mayor Barrett goes to inner city churches for his "stop the violence" message. Good grief Mayor, you are barking up the wrong tree. Go stand on the corner of 34th and Hadley with Jeri B and ask them to stop the violence.

Wisconsin Carry said:

I wouldn't recommend it. First, LE trolls this forum daily. Guarantee they will read this thread. Second, it would just provide them false evidence that OC causes a disturbance. They can say "see, people are alarmed, they call us" when we know they almost always don't.

Click to expand...

Interesting premises.

LE may lurk and read this forum, and maybe even participate, but none are "trolls". Lt. Schell and I had quite an exchange of correspondence.

False evidence is nearly an oxymoron. "Almost always" is as nearly an oxymoron and is precisely 'modifying an absolute', a rhetorical faux pas.

Venator said:

Also an atricle by a PhD candiate doing her disertation on gun rights (mostly OC) in Michigan. http://secondsmatter.blogspot.com/2010/08/activism-through-gun-rights-story-of.html

Click to expand...

This is a good article, I enjoyed reading it.

I appreciate the absence, wittingly or unwittingly, of the slam on "berkeley.edu".

I wish Ms. Carlson the best. She has chosen a daunting topic to defend, the choice itself will be a great story.

Doug Huffman said:

I appreciate the absence, wittingly or unwittingly, of the slam on "berkeley.edu".

I wish Ms. Carlson the best. She has chosen a daunting topic to defend, the choice itself will be a great story.

Click to expand...

She is a great person and OC's every day in Michigan. She was certain that her advisor's wouldn't approve the topic, but they did, saying there was an absence of research done in this area. I'm sure she will be able to publish her work in whole or in part in somesociologyy journal at the very least.

Brass Magnet said:

This is a good article, I enjoyed reading it.

Click to expand...

The book is even better and I highly recommend reading it. It's not only a fascinating read it reminds us that freedom is a constant struggle.

The premise of the book is that it wasn't until blacks started to defend themselves that any drastic change in segregation took place in the south. The non-violence approach alienated too many black males, because they were told not to fight back. They didn't want to be passive when the Klan and Police beat and mocked their children and wives. Black male participation increased by several degrees of magnitude, when the tactic of self-defense was finally realized.

But you won't hear too much about the group or how important they were to the civil rights movement....why?...oh yeah right

Publication for profit is unlikely.

American PhD dissertations are typically at least fifty pages and can approach 500 pages in a rigorously academic format intended for peers (review) and not consumption.

There are a number of archives that are publicly accessible, maybe arXive.org where I have read in other fields.

Doug Huffman said:

Publication for profit is unlikely.

American PhD dissertations are typically at least fifty pages and can approach 500 pages in a rigorously academic format intended for peers (review) and not consumption.

There are a number of archives that are publicly accessible, maybe arXive.org where I have read in other fields.

Click to expand...

Uggghh, but they are so boring to read. Reading other's research was my least favorite part.

I'm sure. That's what the digest, Reader's Digest, is for.