Add Brew City Shooters Supply of Milwaukee, Wisconsin to the Blacklist

If you live in Milwaukee, Wisconsin and have shot at the Brew City Shooters Supply range know that your personal information was given to the local police:

Wisconsin -(Ammoland.com)-Wisconsin Carry has learned of some concerning information that we would like to pass along to our membership and right-to-carry interested folks in southeast Wisconsin.

In a recently published Milwaukee Journal Sentinel article which you can read here

It was reported that the former Badger Guns (now Brew City Shooters Supply) http://www.brewcityshooterssupply.com/ has, since 2009, been reporting the names of every customer that comes in to use their firing range to the West Milwaukee Police Department.

In this time over 25,000 customer names were reported to West Milwaukee Police Chief Dennis Nasci who ran a background check on each through “his system”.

So far in 2012 it was reported more than 8,800 customer name records have been supplied to West Milwaukee Police by Brew City Shooters Supply to have a criminal background check run on them.

If there’s one thing I hate it’s a company that treats its customers like suspected criminals. At least I’m lead to believe that Brew City Shooters Supply suspects all of their customers are criminals since I can think of no other reason that they would report every one of their customers to the police. Either way I’d refrain from giving them any business as their behavior, if nothing else, is an effective means of creating a local firearm registry.

Win the Gold Pay the State Gold

What do the American athletes at the Olympics get when they win a gold medal? An $8,986 tax bill from the Internal Revenue Service (revenuers):

While 529 hardworking athletes proudly represent the United States in the 2012 Olympics, any medals and money they earn wearing red, white and blue will be taxed by the IRS. According to research done by the Americans for Tax Reform Foundation, U.S. Olympic athletes are liable to pay income tax on medals earned and prizes received at the London games.

American medalists face a top income tax rate of 35 percent. Under U.S. tax law, they must add the value of their Olympic medals and prizes to their taxable income. It is therefore easy to calculate the tax bite on Olympic glory.

At today’s commodity prices, the value of a gold medal is about $675. A silver medal is worth about $385 while a bronze medal is worth under $5.

There are also prizes that accompany each medal: $25,000 for gold, $15,000 for silver, and $10,000 for bronze.

You have to pay if you want to play and if you don’t pay the state will take what it wants at gun point. Perhaps the state isn’t exploiting this tax code enough. They could really exploit this to push the “everybody is a winner” mentality. Those who win competitions can be subjected to major taxes thus ensuring everybody who wins loses and everybody who loses wins.

Traveling the Path to Persia

Obama simply won’t be satisfied until we’re at war with Iran:

President Obama’s executive order is designed to make it harder for Iran to evade existing sanctions.

Mr Obama said the US remained committed to reaching a diplomatic solution on Iran, but the onus was on Tehran to meet its international obligations.

We’re so committed to reaching a diplomatic solution on Iran (not with Iran mind you) that we’re punishing the people living there [PDF]. But we have good cause, right:

The sanctions come amid ongoing concern over Iran’s nuclear programme, which Tehran denies is to develop weapons.

Who is concerned? It’s obviously not United States intelligence agencies:

Reporting from Washington — As U.S. and Israeli officials talk publicly about the prospect of a military strike against Iran’s nuclear program, one fact is often overlooked: U.S. intelligence agencies don’t believe Iran is actively trying to build an atomic bomb.

A highly classified U.S. intelligence assessment circulated to policymakers early last year largely affirms that view, originally made in 2007. Both reports, known as national intelligence estimates, conclude that Tehran halted efforts to develop and build a nuclear warhead in 2003.

Obama, and the rest of the decision makers in the United States government, won’t be happy until our soliders and Iranian people are dying in an unnecessary conflict.

I can Only Conclude Mayor Bloomberg is a Psychopath

Mayor Bloomberg’s recent statement on Piers Morgan leads me to only one conclusion, he’s a psychopath. Let’s consider Bloomberg’s statement:

“I don’t understand why the police officers across this country don’t stand up collectively and say, ‘We’re gonna go on strike. We’re not going to protect you unless you, the public, through your legislature, do what’s required to keep us safe,’” Bloomberg said.

“After all, police officers want to go home to their families and we’re doing everything we can to make their jobs more difficult,” the mayor added.

That’s an interesting statement coming from Bloomberg. The implication appears to be that police officers are being killed left and right (which they’re not) because of the current gun laws in the United States so, as a means of punishing the public for not demanding stricter gun laws, the police should go on strike until the public decides to surrender their arms. Another implication is that crime would skyrocket so high while the police were on strike that people would surrender their arms to regain police protection. There’s a major catch-22 with his statement. He believes the police are critical for the safety of individuals and guns are dangerous for individuals. Because of these beliefs he wants the police to stop protect individuals which, according to Bloomberg’s beliefs, will cause a great deal of harm to come to those individuals. He’s so invested in his goal of restricting gun ownership that he’s willing to, according to his belief in police being necessary for the safety of individuals, hurt everybody to achieve it. That right there is a classic trademark of a psychopath.

He is one of the people I fear because he’s so sure of his ideology that he’s willing, once again according to his own beliefs, to kill people for it.

Personally I’d have no problem with the police going on strike because I don’t believe they’re necessary to the safety of our society. In the absence of police I believe the market would take over and protection would be offered through voluntary means. But Bloomberg doesn’t share my belief in market anarchism so for him to suggest what he’s suggesting is despicable. It would be akin to me suggesting a North Korean-esque state be established in the Untied States to viciously beat and murder people until they’re convinced the state is evil and come over to my way of thinking.

The Media’s Lies

There’s no question about whether or not the media lacks honesty. As soon as any tragedy happens the media swoops in and attempts politicize it. Reason has a nice list of politicizing attempts made by the media regarding the recent shooting in Aurora, Colorado. If we were to believe everything the media has said so far the shooter was a occupying member of the Tea Party who was bullied for playing video games and liking Star Trek.

These attempts to politicize the shooting are blatant attempts at getting ratings (and the networks know they are guaranteed rating when covering this). What was the motive of the shooter? In all likelihood he’s just crazy and no rational person will be able to make sense of any justification given by him. People don’t like hearing that though, they want closure, they want something they can understand. The media understands this and exploits it for ratings. Media companies that traditionally align with the left will attempt to blame the shooting on the right while media companies that traditionally align with the right will attempt to blame the shooting on the left. One side will try to connect the shooter with the Tea Party movement while the other side will attempt to connect the shooter with the Occupy movement. Those who align themselves with the left will latch onto accusations that the shooter was aligned with the right in an attempt to justify their own political views and vise versa.

In the end people don’t want to hear he was merely crazy. We can’t deal with crazy, we can legislate it away, we can’t predict who is going to go crazy and stop them beforehand, and that’s the opposite of what most people want to hear.

Big Sacrifices

It looks like the Spanish royal family has decided to make some hard decisions in these tough economic times:

The king will lose 20,900 euros (£16,400; $25,660) from his salary of just over 292,000 euros for the year – a cut of 7.1%.

In total, the 8.3m euro royal budget will be cut by 100,000 euros in 2012.

A royal budget reduction of 1.2%? My, that is a big sacrifice. However will they get by?

Surprising Nobody, the Department Stands Behind the Officers’ Actions

So many mistakes were made in this raid that I’m not sure where to begin:

In the early-morning hours, deputies knocked on 26-year-old Andrew Lee Scott’s door without identifying themselves as law enforcement officers. Scott answered the door with a gun in his hand.

“When we knocked on the door, the door opened and the occupant of that apartment was pointing a gun at deputies, and that’s when we opened fire and killed him,” Lt. John Herrell said. “Even though this subject is not the one we were looking for when he opened the door. He was pointing the gun at the deputy and if you put yourselves in the deputy’s shoes. They were there to pick up someone who was wanted for an attempted homicide.”

Officials said the deputies did not identify themselves because of safety reasons.

The police were chasing a homicide suspect who parked his motorcycle in the parking lot of an apartment complex and disappeared. In their infinite wisdom the police assumed the suspect ran into one apartment and went pounding on the door at 1:30 in the morning without so much as announcing who they were. Being a startled chap, the person living in the apartment grabbed a gun and answered the door. Upon opening the door the resident was greeted by gunfire from the officers.

In order, I’d say the first mistake was made when the police decided to play eeny meeny miny mo to decide which apartment the suspect had gone into. The second mistake was made when the police started pounding on the randomly selected door without announcing that they were, in fact, police officers. Mistake three was made by the resident, who opened the door (although this may have been irrelevant as I’ll explain in a second). Finally, the fourth mistake was made by the police who decide it was entirely OK to gun down the resident of the randomly selected apartment.

I mentioned that the fact the resident opened the door may have been irrelevant, this is because things may not have changed if he didn’t. Had the resident not opened the door the officers would have likely kicked the door in and came storming in. Upon seeing the armed resident the officers would likely have shot him dead as target identification did not seem high on their priority list. I won’t fault the resident for arming himself, I’d do the exact same thing if I heard people banging on my door at 1:30 in the morning (although I wouldn’t answer).

As far as I’m concerned the police are entirely at fault in this case. They had no way of knowing if they had selected the correct apartment, never announced they were police officers, and made no attempt to identify the person who opened the door before they opened fire. Lieutenant John Herrell tried to justify the officers’ actions by stating the resident was pointing a gun at them. That excuse doesn’t fly when the officers not only selected the apartment by little more than random chance but failed to even announce they were police officers. They claim that their failure to announce was done for “safety reasons” (meaning officer safety only) but that also doesn’t fly. Individuals joining the police department know what they’re getting into, it’s an unsafe job, and there are responsibilities. One of those responsibilities is alerting residents that you’re police officers so they know that the random people banging on their door at 1:30 in the morning aren’t thugs looking to commit murder (and even if you do announce that you’re police officers you can’t assume that the resident(s) will believe you, criminals have been known to impersonate police officers before). The job of police officers, at least they claim, is to protect and serve not kick own doors and gun down anybody they see who is armed. Because of this it’s imperative that officers identify their targets. A man holding a gun when answering his door because random people are banging on it at 1:30 shouldn’t be surprising or treated as a threat of violence in of itself. If the resident had made verbal threats towards the officers or shot at the officers it would be a different game.

From where I’m sitting this looks like a pretty cut and dry case of murder. If the resident had made threats towards the officers or shot at them I’m sure that knowledge would have been divulged to justify the officers’ actions. As it sits the only justification being given is the fact the resident was holding a firearm, which shouldn’t be treated as unusual considering the circumstances.

We Didn’t Get Here on Our Own

Obama gave a political speech and you know what that means? It means the Internet is abuzz with his supporters cheering his speech and his opponents decrying his speech. His opponents have been brining up a part of his speech that strongly mirrors that famous one given by Elizabeth Warren some time ago. Basically Obama is trying to explain how all successful people became successful because of the government:

There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me — because they want to give something back. They know they didn’t — look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own. I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something — there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there. (Applause.)

If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life.

This part of his speech is true, nobody became successful by themselves. One needs consumers to buy their products or services before they can become successful. Unfortunately, as is common for Obama, his grain of truth is used to create a bucket of lies:

Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive.

Is this the same unbelievable American system that diverts ungodly amounts of money into the construction of drones, aircraft carriers, and submarines so we can trot around the world and kill people who aren’t like us? Is this the same unbelievable American system that protects the interests of favored businesses from competition? Is this the same unbelievable American system that will murder you if you disobey one of its decrees?

The one thing our unbelievable American system hasn’t done is allow us to thrive… unless you’re one of the state’s cronies of course.

Somebody invested in roads and bridges.

I think he mean somebody paid for the roads and bridges at gunpoint because the state has claimed a monopoly on the construction of transportation infrastructure. People didn’t invest in those roads and bridges, they paid for them because they were forced to, they were threatened with kidnapping and detainment in a cage if they didn’t “invest” in the state monopoly.

If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that.

Obama is correct, most businesses were physically built by private construction companies. The success of those businesses was made possible by consumers. An entrepreneur came up with the idea and figured out how to execute it. In fact the only real hinderance was the state that demanded a huge portion of the business owner’s wealth in exchange for “protection” from itself.

Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.

OK, here is where I raise a giant middle finger. The state didn’t create the Internet “so that all companies could make money off of the Internet.” Do you know why the state created the technology that lead to the Internet? Because the United States government was having the biggest dick measuring competition in the history of the human race with Soviet Russia. Realizing that a centralized communication system would be rendered entirely inoperable by a Soviet nuclear strike the United States government moved to develop a more decentralized communication network. It had nothing to do with helping companies make money, it had everything with that silly little competition that almost ended life on this planet as we know it.

The last thing the United States government had on its mind with the predecessor to the Interent was economic gains, they just wanted to survive the stupid little war they managed to get every man, woman, and child living within its borders involved in. No member of the state can claim any kind of moral high ground when it comes to the Internet.

The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together. There are some things, just like fighting fires, we don’t do on our own. I mean, imagine if everybody had their own fire service. That would be a hard way to organize fighting fires.

Yeah, imagine if everybody was able to voluntarily decide whether or not they even wanted fire service. As it sits right now fire departments are funded by stolen money and you know what? I still see firefighters standing in the middle of busy intersections with boots begging for even more money. Are they underfunded? Perhaps, but as they don’t have to compete on a free market against other fire departments we can’t be sure. For all we know the local fire departments are merely inefficient and frivolously throwing money away.

So we say to ourselves, ever since the founding of this country, you know what, there are some things we do better together. That’s how we funded the GI Bill. That’s how we created the middle class. That’s how we built the Golden Gate Bridge or the Hoover Dam. That’s how we invented the Internet. That’s how we sent a man to the moon. We rise or fall together as one nation and as one people, and that’s the reason I’m running for President — because I still believe in that idea. You’re not on your own, we’re in this together.

I like how he continues to purposely confuse the idea of people working together and people being forced into actions they may not want to take at the point of the state’s gun. He’s also shown a complete lack of historical knowledge, by his definition of people working together (that is the federal government doing it with stolen money) it didn’t happen “since the founding of this country” because the Articles of Confederation didn’t grant Congress the power to tax. Instead the Congress was relegated to begging the individual states for money, which meant the states were actually in control but that we never did things together, by his definition, until the ratification of the Constitution.

His claim that we rise and fall together as one nation is also patently false. As it currently stands the state’s cronies are rising while everybody else is falling. In fact the average American family income has been falling for the last ten or so years while corporate profits are hitting all time highs. It appears as though we aren’t all rising and falling together as a nation.

The speech continues on but that section summed it up well. According to Obama nothing would every get accomplished if it wasn’t for the all powerful state forcing people to surrender an ever-increasing portion of their wealth. Individuals in Obama’s world of delusion are entirely incapable of working together.

Rahm Emanuel’s New Gang Fighting Strategy

It appears that Chicago’s mayor, Rahm Emanuel, has a new method of fighting the city’s gang problem, which is to appeal to the gangs’ sense of values:

Heaven’s death is the latest of 253 murders so far this year in what has become a numbing drumbeat of violence. But her killing may be a crescendo. It prompted an angry Mayor Rahm Emanuel to lecture the gangs driving this staggering 38% increase in Chicago homicides.

Asked about this shooting at an economic development event, the mayor said, “This is not about crime. This is about values. Take your gang conflict away from a 7-year-old. Who raised you? You have a 7-year-old selling lemonade. You’re a member of a gang coming to get lemonade and another gang member is driving by. Where were you raised and who raised you?” His voice rising and pointing his finger, he continued sternly, “Stay away from the kids!”

I’m sure this strategy will work, after all gang members are known for their high moral standards. Just because some thugs are willing to murder other individuals over petty turf wars doesn’t mean they can’t be reasoned with, right? That’s been the problem throughout history, people simply haven’t nicely asked violent criminals to stop! It’s almost certain that Chicago’s crime rate is going to drop like a rock now that Emanuel asked the gangs to abide by societal values!

Seriously, what a putz. Violent crime is spiking in Chicago and the best Emanuel can do is ask the gangs to be nicer? He’s still fighting any attempted loosening of Chicago’s almost blanket ban on self-defense because allowing non-violent individuals to defend themselves against violent criminals would obviously be crazy.

No Good Deed Goes Unpunished

One cannot simply perform a good deed in this world without receiving some kind of punishment:

Tomas Lopez, 21, was patrolling part of Hallandale Beach north of Miami when he was told that a swimmer was in trouble in an unguarded area of the beach.

“I wasn’t going to say no,” the lifeguard said.

But his bosses said he had broken company rules and could have put other swimmers at risk. At least two colleagues have resigned in protest.

If your company has a policy that states individuals cannot leave zones in order to save lives then your company has a stupid policy. Lopez should have been commended for taking action that was necessary to save the life of a person shouting for help. I hope he finds a good job with a company that isn’t run by ass hats.

EDIT: 2012-07-06 12:28: As Zerg539 pointed out in the comments the lifeguard was offered his job back but declined. I’m guessing public outcry was what lead the company to offer him his job back, never let it be said that companies can’t be held accountable. Also, good on the lifeguard for not taking the offer, who would want to work for a company that put their stupid polices ahead of human lives?