Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
and then

Wisconsin Sheriff Tells the Truth!

76 posts in this topic

Michelle noones chomping at the bit to get into a gun war except the crazies shooting up crap. The rest are trying to resolve this without mass bloodshed. Ive listened to you and you are reasonable so that might make sense to you. Being prepared and willing is much different then crossing the line into open conflict.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At the end of the day, if the police can not protect you, then yes, you have to protect yourselves. But surely the government should be making sure there are enough resources to keep the public safe.......not always possible to do that if you are faced with a gun aimed at you and there is no time to call anyone, but my point was will there be some using this as an excuse to shoot to kill when it may not have been necessary ?

Sure there will probably be a few Charles Bronsons (Aka Mr. Death Wish, lol) over here, who may or may not think themselves as heros in their act of vigilantism, but that's nothing compared to aggresiveness of the criminals we have here. Not to sound rude, Freetoroam, but in all honesty that's the last goddamn thing we're all worry about since those types seem to be very few in numbers The criminals here outweigh the vigilantes 5 to 1. If you lived here for at least a couple of years, you would understand a lot more than you already think you do know. You would want more than just a simple gun, you would also probably want at least a shotgun for back up.

You've got to understand, there is a large difference in the population pertaining to your country and our country. You've got what? 62 million total over in England and we've got nearly 312 million over here. Now we're bound to have more criminals over here versus the amount of criminals you have over in England. Which means we've got bigger problems than you, again...not to mention the Cartels we've got coming across our borders, adding to the big cluster**** of criminal activity we have here. So even though gun restrictions worked out for you guys on your tiny little island, that's a pipe dream here; maybe if our population was cut down below the number of your total criminal population. I mean we've got a "F" ing army of criminals over here, spread out all over the country, some organized and some not organized. We're fighting a war on crime here, not just a few thefts, bank robberies, murders or fights in a local pub somewhere. To put it simply, our criminal activity is worse than your criminal activity, therefore, we need guns. And as for the Charles Bronson types? They don't scare us so much, because there is very few of them, the criminals do, because there is a **** load of them over here!

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what??? Are you kidding me? An overzealous group of men killed a man who had a fake gun and was no threat to them at all. How barbaric.

They did not know it was fake at the time and NO, they did not kill him deliberately. They were defending themselves, you for one should know how that works! thats the reason why you have guns isn`t it, to use them if needed to defend yourselves, we do not have guns so use other means. As i have said before, if i lived in America, i too would have a gun if needed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They did not know it was fake at the time and NO, they did not kill him deliberately. They were defending themselves, you for one should know how that works! thats the reason why you have guns isn`t it, to use them if needed to defend yourselves, we do not have guns so use other means. As i have said before, if i lived in America, i too would have a gun if needed.

I answered this in the other thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure there will probably be a few Charles Bronsons (Aka Mr. Death Wish, lol) over here, who may or may not think themselves as heros in their act of vigilantism, but that's nothing compared to aggresiveness of the criminals we have here. Not to sound rude, Freetoroam, but in all honesty that's the last goddamn thing we're all worry about since those types seem to be very few in numbers The criminals here outweigh the vigilantes 5 to 1. If you lived here for at least a couple of years, you would understand a lot more than you already think you do know. You would want more than just a simple gun, you would also probably want at least a shotgun for back up.

You've got to understand, there is a large difference in the population pertaining to your country and our country. You've got what? 62 million total over in England and we've got nearly 312 million over here. Now we're bound to have more criminals over here versus the amount of criminals you have over in England. Which means we've got bigger problems than you, again...not to mention the Cartels we've got coming across our borders, adding to the big cluster**** of criminal activity we have here. So even though gun restrictions worked out for you guys on your tiny little island, that's a pipe dream here; maybe if our population was cut down below the number of your total criminal population. I mean we've got a "F" ing army of criminals over here, spread out all over the country, some organized and some not organized. We're fighting a war on crime here, not just a few thefts, bank robberies, murders or fights in a local pub somewhere. To put it simply, our criminal activity is worse than your criminal activity, therefore, we need guns. And as for the Charles Bronson types? They don't scare us so much, because there is very few of them, the criminals do, because there is a **** load of them over here!

Thankyou, an answer to my question from a person who knows.

As you point out, you need guns, we do not.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Vigilantism and vengeance is actively seeking out criminals and taking the law into your own hands. Thats a big difference from home and self defense where the criminal has sought you out.

100% correct you are .. They are not the same.. Self defence is nothing like vigilantism... Anyone who thinks so, has not thought it through and fails to understand the meaning of both terms .. If for example, you are out in the park, and someone attacks you, and you are able to protect yourself, you fight back to defend yourself...If you are able to defend yourself, then it is not logical to stand there like a clampet and take it.. You have to fight back or get seriously hurt or worse off..

Same for your rights to protect yourself in your own home.. IF you have the means to do it.( IE your gun ) . then act fast and do it.. There is no time for fannying around if a violent criminal is there to get you, and even your family, and calling the police may not save your butt on time..( Police are known to turn up late ) . You take your gun and you act as fast as you can.. This is NOT vigilantism, it is self defence.. If you own the rights, then make use of them if you can and are able..

There is no way on earth I would fanny around if my life and kids were in danger..I have quickly acted before when I felt my kid was in danger, and I would do it again..

Edited by Beckys_Mom
9 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thankyou, an answer to my question from a person who knows.

As you point out, you need guns, we do not.

Your welcome. And for now...right, you don't need guns that bad to defend yourselves, but for how long? At some point, maybe in your great grandchidren's lifetime, that may change. Although I can't see how the population over in England could rise to our numbers, I do see if your population gets near a 100 million +, you could end up changing you gun restriction laws in a heartbeat; the same goes for Australia.

As a American, I envy you (England) and Austraila, when it comes to keeping your gun violence to a minimum and the need without guns. You've got something good there and you have the right conditions to make it happen. (We don't...that's what some of us are trying to get you to understand.) But I think it's because of your low population rates, when that changes overtime and grows, I think all of you will really begin to see and understand why we are so pro-gun over here in the U.S. All it takes is one of your conditions (like population increase) over there to change and the nongun Utopia idea will slowly or quickly diminish. But I hope you guys can keep it up for as long as you can, just know nothing lasts forever.

Edited by Purifier
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

100% correct you are .. They are not the same.. Self defence is nothing like vigilantism... Anyone who thinks so, has not thought it through and fails to understand the meaning of both terms .. If for example, you are out in the park, and someone attacks you, and you are able to protect yourself, you fight back to defend yourself...If you are able to defend yourself, then it is not logical to stand there like a clampet and take it.. You have to fight back or get seriously hurt or worse off..

Same for your rights to protect yourself in your own home.. IF you have the means to do it.( IE your gun ) . then act fast and do it.. There is no time for fannying around if a violent criminal is there to get you, and even your family, and calling the police may not save your butt on time..( Police are known to turn up late ) . You take your gun and you act as fast as you can.. This is NOT vigilantism, it is self defence.. If you own the rights, then make use of them if you can and are able..

There is no way on earth I would fanny around if my life and kids were in danger..I have quickly acted before when I felt my kid was in danger, and I would do it again..

Exactly. But in all serious, we are seriously lacking the knowledge of what words mean now-a-days. I think we should be teaching what the constitution means in schools, plus help students have better understand of what words in the dictionary mean. Ignorance isn't a excuse to ignore the problems that are happening today, it is more a incentive to actually research and try to understand the problem better before you act upon the need. That is where so many people go wrong in the present. Someone once said, "The path to hell is paved in good intentions." Can't remember who said that.

Edited by Uncle Sam
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly. But in all serious, we are seriously lacking the knowledge of what words mean now-a-days. I think we should be teaching what the constitution means in schools, plus help students have better understand of what words in the dictionary mean. Ignorance isn't a excuse to ignore the problems that are happening today, it is more a incentive to actually research and try to understand the problem better before you act upon the need. That is where so many people go wrong in the present. Someone once said, "The path to hell is paved in good intentions." Can't remember who said that.

I thought they taught you all about the constitution at your schools?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought they taught you all about the constitution at your schools?

Not really they just teach you when it was made, who made it, why it was made. But they don't teach you what it means and why we need it.

P.S. Is it just me or am I really gaining lots of respect?

Edited by Uncle Sam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not really they just teach you when it was made, who made it, why it was made. But they don't teach you what it means and why we need it.

I agree with you that all of it should be taught including WHY they need it... If I lived there, I would teach my own kids the importance of it ....

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with you that all of it should be taught including WHY they need it... If I lived there, I would teach my own kids the importance of it ....

People need to seriously be proactive in this department if the government is unwilling to teach our children the importance of the constitution. It feels like the government is trying to make it out to be a unimportant document, a relic of the past, which it really isn't at all. It is just as valuable as it was the day they sign it.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People need to seriously be proactive in this department if the government is unwilling to teach our children the importance of the constitution. It feels like the government is trying to make it out to be a unimportant document, a relic of the past, which it really isn't at all. It is just as valuable as it was the day they sign it.

In many years to come, it could get worse If what you say is true, and kids are not being taught the importance of the constitution ..Later on in life as they get older, they look at it and see it as nothing more than a piece of paper..they can wind up doing away with it and replacing it with something else..

Edited by Beckys_Mom
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In many years to come, it could get worse If what you say is true, and kids are not being taught the importance of the constitution ..Later on in life as they get older, they look at it and see it as nothing more than a piece of paper..they can wind up doing away with it and replacing it with something else..

That is what I am afraid of... I am not only looking out for now, I am looking out for future generations.

Edited by Uncle Sam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It sounds to me like the good Sheriff is announcing something like:"My dear fellow citizens, thanks to a bunch of tightwads and over indebted, not being able to afford more, civilization has been defeated. Expect some lynching justice near you soon."

Despite the intentional bending of words in your post, I'm sure you're intelligent enough to understand the Sheriff does not have enough resources and realistically understands people should be able to defend themselves. A criminal breaking into a house and a boy defending his sister with a gun, or a mother defending her children with a gun do not equate to "lynching justice", as you would so eloquently put it.

But rather, self-defense against a criminal who has forcefully imposed himself upon the the property of another.

Or a criminal who would recklessly infringe upon another's rights.

Edited by Eonwe
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Despite the intentional bending of words in your post, I'm sure you're intelligent enough to understand the Sheriff does not have enough resources and realistically understands people should be able to defend themselves. A criminal breaking into a house and a boy defending his sister with a gun, or a mother defending her children with a gun do not equate to "lynching justice", as you would so eloquently put it.

But rather, self-defense against a criminal who has forcefully imposed himself upon the the property of another.

Or a criminal who would recklessly infringe upon another's rights.

That is exactly right. You are getting a firm grasp of the constitution and our right to bare arms. Glad some people are learning from the discussions being held instead of being stubborn and ignorant, not willing to learn or try to understand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My personal reading goal currently is to read the background history of each of the signers of the Declaration of Independence and the the Constitution. Ill say Patrick Henry earned his signatory rights by putting in work for the People.

But yeah thats just me...Carry on...

Way to go Sherriff !! :tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is exactly right. You are getting a firm grasp of the constitution and our right to bare arms. Glad some people are learning from the discussions being held instead of being stubborn and ignorant, not willing to learn or try to understand.

Coming from a military family, I already have a firm grasp of its designs and purposes.

But thank you for your support on my post. I appreciate the positive feedback, nonetheless.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with you that all of it should be taught including WHY they need it... If I lived there, I would teach my own kids the importance of it ....

I have conversations with my 7 year old all the time about our history. When I went to school we had a history teacher who was big on teaching the founding documents. Even had us memorize and resite the first couple paragraphs of the declaration of independance. Which I still know today. but it wasnt long after that a liberal agenda began to take over our schools, and the kids are definitly not being taught American history the way they should.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have conversations with my 7 year old all the time about our history. When I went to school we had a history teacher who was big on teaching the founding documents. Even had us memorize and resite the first couple paragraphs of the declaration of independance. Which I still know today. but it wasnt long after that a liberal agenda began to take over our schools, and the kids are definitly not being taught American history the way they should.

It is only right to reach your kids the true importance of it...When you say a liberal agenda, what do you mean? Why did they stop teaching it in its proper sense?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He means history is barely taught in our schools anymore. My child has learned so much more from his own reading and watching "educational" historical TV then he will ever learn in lower education. I say lower education because we have a higher education history teacher in the house so itleast real history is available there. I cannot tell you what percentage of students ever enter those classes as they would be considered electives unless you were in certain college majors.

So basically an American can go through there whole life without learning history or even "modern" history such as the conflict in your own countries recent history. Let alone what it was about. The only way to learn that is to do your own research here in America.

This was replaced with standarized testing that focuses only on basic school work. Reading, Arithmetic.

Edited by AsteroidX

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He means history is barely taught in our schools anymore. My child has learned so much more from his own reading and watching "educational" historical TV then he will ever learn in lower education. I say lower education because we have a higher education history teacher in the house so itleast real history is available there. I cannot tell you what percentage of students ever enter those classes as they would be considered electives unless you were in certain college majors.

I had already gathered that from previous posts.. He mentioned a liberal agenda took over.. So I asked -> .When you say a liberal agenda, what do you mean? Why did they stop teaching it in its proper sense?

I was looking to know what he meant, to see were he is coming from?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah. I dont attribute that to any Liberal agenda myself. But an Agenda. yeah I go for that.

Its the dumbing of Americans. Intentionally. Especially those of lesser means.

I cant speak of where he was coming from but from past conversations I will assume it is close to near the same as what Im saying.

Sorry for butting in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People need to seriously be proactive in this department if the government is unwilling to teach our children the importance of the constitution. It feels like the government is trying to make it out to be a unimportant document, a relic of the past, which it really isn't at all. It is just as valuable as it was the day they sign it.

I agree completely with your sentiment, but the facts are that constitutional governance is an illusion. Consider the Unpatriot Act or NDAA amendments as but 2 examples out of many. Through the actions of all 3 branches of government, the Constitution is under steady attack. That so many citizens support the GWOT shows why.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the liberal agenda... I'm trying to come up with a simple answer. It's not easy. Best thing to do is hang around these forums, pay attention and gather it all in. So you got me searching for a well written simply put answer for ya and I came across this website. I guess it's a book promo with excerpts. I read one excerpt "the madness of the liberal agenda" and it was pretty concise and about as descriptive as one could ask for. In fact, the whole link is worthy of its own thread.

Here is the link. Aside from the excerpt I read I can't say ATM how the rest of it is but if you want to know all about modern liberalism and what many dislike about it this looks like a one stop link.

http://www.libertymind.com/index.php?page_id=257

I had already gathered that from previous posts.. He mentioned a liberal agenda took over.. So I asked -> .When you say a liberal agenda, what do you mean? Why did they stop teaching it in its proper sense?

I was looking to know what he meant, to see were he is coming from?

See above ^^^^

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.