Terrorists In WI Assault Citizens With Violence And Extortion

Earlier this week, 5 men decided to go out for some dinner while wearing their firearms as prescribed by Wisconsin state law.

In Wisconsin, there are no regulations pertaining to the open carry of firearms. As long as you are on public land or the property owner you are visiting approves of your being openly armed, you are free to open carry a firearm.

While they were eating dinner at a local restaurant, eight armed terrorists descended upon them and held them at gun point while they rifled through the men’s property.

After the peaceful men had been forcibly disarmed, the terrorists decided to extort money from them. Today, these men are facing violence against them if they refuse to comply with the extortion.

The CityOfMadison.com reports:

The Madison Police Department (MPD) has conducted a review of an incident that took place this past Saturday night at Culver’s Frozen Custard restaurant, 4301 East Towne Blvd. Based upon the further investigation, Chief Noble Wray has concluded the appropriate charge for all 5 armed individuals is Disorderly Conduct (DC). Accordingly, DC citations will be issued, and Obstructing a Peace Officer tickets given to two will be rescinded.

reply to post by mnemeth1


They where following the Law should be end of story! And the old lady should be arrested for calling 911 without cause! A good lawyer should eat up this police dept

Did I read the article wrong? Violence and Extortion?

2 were charged for disorderly conduct because they did not have a license. Not a good idea to walk around outside with a license, carrying open. Had they had their license, they would have not been charged like the other 3. All 5 were given back their guns, and it appears no violence happened.

Things could have went MUCH WORSE given the attitude of other officers I've seen, I'm glad these officers were sensible enough to realize that none of these men were doing wrong, and were forced to give 2 tickets because an old woman got scared and called 911.

reply to post by Big Trouble in Little Chi


You don't need a license to open carry.

I know I never leave to go to a restaurant without some sort of firearm by my side.

The police did this to terrorize citizens into not exercising their 2nd amendment rights.

The entire point of the citations is to intimidate and suppress the population.

They serve no other purpose.

The government is blatantly engaging in outright terrorism against the population of Madison WI.

Originally posted by hippomchippo
I know I never leave to go to a restaurant without some sort of firearm by my side.

If you do or don't is not the issue, the 2nd amendment to the constitution is! If I wish to its my right!

Originally posted by mnemeth1
The police did this to terrorize citizens into not exercising their 2nd amendment rights.

The entire point of the citations is to intimidate and suppress the population.

They serve no other purpose.

The government is blatantly engaging in outright terrorism against the population of Madison WI.

Personally, I find a gun much more intimidating than a citation.
But that's just my opinion.

reply to post by mnemeth1


brilliant post. star and flag.

Originally posted by slinger

Originally posted by hippomchippo
I know I never leave to go to a restaurant without some sort of firearm by my side.

If you do or don't is not the issue, the 2nd amendment to the constitution is! If I wish to its my right!

Ok.
But why would you bring guns to a family restaurant?
I think these guys WANTED to provoke a reaction.

You can keep your second amendment and guns all you want, but really...Bringing them to a restaurant where there are children? Seems tasteless.

reply to post by hippomchippo


I find the police extremely intimidating considering they are armed and have a monopoly on the use of violent force.

Anyone that attempts to openly display the same rights the police have is subjected to violence and extortion.

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by hippomchippo

 

I find the police extremely intimidating considering they are armed and have a monopoly on the use of violent force.

Anyone that attempts to openly display the same rights the police have is subjected to violence and extortion.

I don't like the way police operate myself either.
But, do you agree with people bringing firearms to family restaurants as a way to provoke a response?
I think it's obvious thats what these people were doing.

reply to post by hippomchippo




every action taken by the government is by threat of violence. the government is the only entity that can forcibly wrestle you to the ground, detain you, lock you away, and maim or kill you if you resist in the process. this applies to everything, taxation, etc. actions taken by police officers are worse because the threat of violence is much more immediate.

now, you may not agree with those 8 men's right to bear arms, but its the law. there's lots of laws i disagree with to, but i don't advocate violence in advancement of my view of how the world should be. These police men were most likely simply ignorant of the law in this case, but if they were not, and were performing these actions to MAKE A POLITICAL POINT then that is in every way the definition of terrorism.

ter·ror·ism (tr-rzm)
n.
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.


1. UNLAWFUL (under the color of law, while clearly against its meaning)
2. USE OF FORCE OR VIOLENCE (defacto)
3. BY A GROUP (police men)
4. AGAINST PEOPLE (these citizens)
5. FOR PURPOSE OF COERCING (changing and discouraging legal behavior)
6. SOCIETY (any citizen that has the right to bear arms)
7. FOR IDEALOGICAL REASONS (nuff said)

Originally posted by hippomchippo
I don't like the way police operate myself either.
But, do you agree with people bringing firearms to family restaurants as a way to provoke a response?
I think it's obvious thats what these people were doing.

Visiting a restaurant while you are carrying a chainsaw, a pocket knife, or a gun makes no difference. If you aren't threatening anyone, I don't know how that could be considered "provoking a response".

Originally posted by snusfanatic
reply to post by hippomchippo

 

every action taken by the government is by threat of violence. the government is the only entity that can forcibly wrestle you to the ground, detain you, lock you away, and maim or kill you if you resist in the process. this applies to everything, taxation, etc. actions taken by police officers are worse because the threat of violence is much more immediate.

now, you may not agree with those 8 men's rights to bear arms, but its the law. there's lots of laws i disagree with to, but i don't advocate violence in advancement of my view of how the world should be. These police men were most likely simply ignorant of the law in this case, but if they were not, and were performing these actions to MAKE A POLITICAL POINT then that is in every way the definition of terrorism.

ter·ror·ism (tr-rzm)
n.
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

Relax, tex.
Like I said earlier, I don't disagree with the second amendment, personally I think it's a pretty good way of warding off tyrants.
But when it's used in this capacity to try and rile people up and get a response, I don't like it, it's just distasteful.
Just my opinion.

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by hippomchippo
I don't like the way police operate myself either.
But, do you agree with people bringing firearms to family restaurants as a way to provoke a response?
I think it's obvious thats what these people were doing.

Visiting a restaurant while you are carrying a chainsaw, a pocket knife, or a gun makes no difference. If you aren't threatening anyone, I don't know how that could be considered "provoking a response".

edit on 27-9-2010 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)

Personally, I don't think we should bring ANY weapons to a family restaurant.
Do you really think these guys just brought their guns by accident?
There is NO reason for them to bring guns here, so I'm thinking that it was to try to get a response.

Originally posted by hippomchippo
Personally, I don't think we should bring ANY weapons to a family restaurant.
Do you really think these guys just brought their guns by accident?
There is NO reason for them to bring guns here, so I'm thinking that it was to try to get a response.

I personally think we should ban democrats.

Of course, since democrats have a right to believe what they believe and do what they do, what I believe is fairly pointless.

I'm free to believe that, as long as I don't use force against democrats or have the government use force against them on my behalf.

Originally posted by hippomchippo

Originally posted by slinger

Originally posted by hippomchippo
I know I never leave to go to a restaurant without some sort of firearm by my side.

If you do or don't is not the issue, the 2nd amendment to the constitution is! If I wish to its my right!

Ok.
But why would you bring guns to a family restaurant?
I think these guys WANTED to provoke a reaction.

You can keep your second amendment and guns all you want, but really...Bringing them to a restaurant where there are children? Seems tasteless.

edit on 27-9-2010 by hippomchippo because: (no reason given)

www.blip.tv... Go to this Link and then ask why take a gun to a restaurant!

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by hippomchippo
Personally, I don't think we should bring ANY weapons to a family restaurant.
Do you really think these guys just brought their guns by accident?
There is NO reason for them to bring guns here, so I'm thinking that it was to try to get a response.

I personally think we should ban democrats.

Of course, since democrats have a right to believe what they believe and do what they do, what I believe is fairly pointless.

I'm free to believe that, as long as I don't use force against democrats or have the government use force against them on my behalf.

edit on 27-9-2010 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)

I take it you're assuming i'm a democrat then, right?
Because I'm not, lol.

I still haven't gotten an answer for why someone would bring weapons to a family restaurant other than to invoke a response.

reply to post by hippomchippo


I'm not assuming anything - other than peaceful people have an inherent right to do what they want as long as they aren't harming anyone else or their property in the process.