Milwaukee Sheriff David Clarke: The armed citizen will keep this country free
Milwaukee Sheriff David Clarke spoke at the Conservative Political Action Conference yesterday, according to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. Apparently, he’s a strong supporter of the 2d Amendment;
“The armed citizen made this country free, and the armed citizen will keep this country free,” he said.
In response, panelist Emily Miller, Washington Times Senior Opinion Editor, said she wanted to vote for Clarke for president.
Clarke also said that government-mandated gun-free zones “get people killed” and that the only person safe in a gun-free zone is the criminal with the gun.
“Somebody has to be there to stop the threat,” he said. “That’s why I believe the armed citizen, the law-abiding armed citizen, is what makes our community safe.”
I guess he could join in with Detroit Police Chief James Craig in his call for armed citizens. Another of the good guys.
Category: Guns
Amen!
(Libtard commenter:) “Raaaaaaccc.. . . .wait? what? who?”
An intelligent, popular, effective, and pro-gun lawman in a major metropolitan area–and (gasp) he’s black! Imagine the stroke that Nancy Pelosi must be having over this. And the Glorious Leader. And the staffs of BSNBC and the Communist News Network. And of course our very own VWPussy, whose ears must be bleeding right now from the trauma to his/her/its tiny little brain.
It just warms the very cockles of me Black Irish heart!
I really hope that our next POTUS has the balls to get us back to our former glory. Someone like this guy.
Whatever is making police actually like law-abiding citizens with guns should be sprayed in the air.
All I can think of is Breitbart. Our crowd needs to get behind people like the everyday guy. The guy who only wants the freedoms and liberties our Founders fought for. Not the money or purported fame and perks. Someone to do the right things for the right reasons.
What is surprising isn’t that Sheriff Clarke is saying these things, but rather that so many don’t understand the concept and we find it comment worthy when someone does. It used to be the rule, not the exception, and in those days, there weren’t the mass shootings as common as they are now. I was just reading about the Blair Mountain War, which happened in the early 1920s and it was interesting to note that there were machine guns and sub-machine guns in civilian hands, legally. Legally purchased and legally held without having to go through the processes now in place.
I’ve noticed that most major gun control efforts, starting with the National Firearms Act of 1934 (Roosevelt), was done under democrat Presidents. The 1968 NFA (Johnson) and the federal “assault” weapons ban in 1993/4 (Clinton). Anyone else see that doing these bans and restrictions hasn’t made us more safe, but that doesn’t seem to deter the anti-gunners into believing that if they pass just one more law, it will make everything better. When it doesn’t, they convince themselves that they didn’t go far enough with the last law and we need just one more to make it work. And then the cycle repeats and keeps perpetuating all with the same end result. The 1993/4 ban did nothing to stop Harris and Klebold, or hinder them, because they were within the gun laws on some things, like the purchase of a carbine that would only hold 10 rounds, but then broke other laws by sawing off the barrel of a shotgun and someone under the age of 21 in possession of a handgun (Brady Bill worked awesome). Oh, and the school was a gun free zone, unless you had a badge, then everything is legal.
I don’t go to “gun free zones” if I can help it. I don’t like being a prime target for bad guys.
Reagan made a few mistakes while President, but IMO, one of the biggest he made was tucked away in the FOPA of 1986.
While a lot of that Act was good (being able to transport weapons between states without confiscation) there was one thing in there that really sucked, that being the Hughes Amendment to the bill.
It basically said that if you had an automatic weapon, it had to be registered by the time the bill was passed or you couldn’t legally own it any longer.
Throw in a few other goodies (can’t own automatic weapons made after 1986–with the resulting skyrocketing costs) and does the good of that bill outweigh the bad?
YMMV.
WOW, common sense seems to be spreading, let’s hope it continues to do so, and i hope it stays contagious!!
The more liberals crap themselves and faint, the better!!
Gun-free zones – haven’t seen any around here, so far, but I won’t patronize one of those businesses, anyway. They are simply putting a bullseye on their doors. Expecially restaurants — that’s a prime location for a shoot-’em-up to happen.
I agree with Sheriff Clarke. If I want one, I should have one.
One of the nicer picky points in Texas law is that for a business to post a ‘no-guns’ sign, it has to be identical to the model approved in the legislature – including size, color of the lettering, verbiage, etc. So if they just put up something like the red circle with a slashed gun in it – it is not a legal sign, and while they can ask you to leave, you are committing no crime by walking in with a gun in the first place. (Of course, the antis call that a loophole- but what do they know…)
I should point out that I can’t carry a cast iron skillet everywhere with me, for self defense.
It is just refreshing to see a Sheriff of such a large community take such a stance. Especially in a political environment like Milwaukee. I give him a huge applause for standing up for the legal, armed citizens of his jurisdiction. Wish we had more Sheriffs and Police Chiefs like him.
If it’s any consolation, most of the cops/troopers in CT are going to refuse to round up the weapons that didn’t get registered (and whaddya know–most of the offenders were COPS!!) despite the harrumphing of the politicians and chattering class.