Rights Are Not Subject to the Fear of Others
This is one of the more idiotic things I’ve read in a while.
When Mr. Krause, the fellow in West Allis, was walking around with his weapon, I argued that his right to carry the weapon ended when he started to infringe on the rights of his neighbors by frightening them.
Is that really the standard that capper wants for protecting our rights?
Capper’s support for higher taxes frightens me because I’m worried that my company will close our Wisconsin office and put me out of work if the tax burden gets heavier. Capper should be prohibited from blogging in support of tax increases.
That gangbanger who shot a kid in South Milwaukee is scary. We should toss out his right to a trial and forbid him from getting an attorney. Just lock him up without a trial. I’d feel safer knowing that he won’t have the opportunity to get out of jail.
Those Scientology folks are scary. They should be prohibited from practicing their religion.
Large demonstrations can turn violent and cause a lot of property damage. That’s really frightening. No more than four people should be allowed to assemble at any time.
Capper’s blogging is irrational and angry at times. I’m scared that he may be violent in his home. The police should search his house and seize any sharp objects. No warrant is necessary.
That first time drunk driver may go out and drive drunk again. That’s scary. He should be denied bail.
I could go on, but you get the point. Our rights are not subject to the emotions - rational or not - of our fellow citizens. If we set up a system whereby the government can squash our rights if one other person is scared or offended or worried about our legal exercise of our rights, then we will be living under tyranny.
When this topic comes up, I often wonder how anyone who frightens so easily can function on a daily basis.
On a related note, if you haven’t seen this video, go check it out—hoplophobia (fear of guns/weapons) graphically illustrated.
Posted by Jed on February 22, 2009 at 1202 hrs
Gay people scare me. Perhaps we should prohibit them from marrying or kissing in public.
Posted by scott on February 22, 2009 at 1312 hrs
Sure scott, we should arrest them to or maybe issue them a ticket, like in this case. Maybe you can realize that is the issue, not policy.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 22, 2009 at 1320 hrs
I’m not trying to disagree with Owen per se, just to indicate all sides are guilty of this kind of thinking from time to time.
Posted by scott on February 22, 2009 at 1323 hrs
scott,
But your comment makes sense only if the anti-gay marriage arguments are based on a fear of gays, which is generally not the case.
Posted by Jed on February 22, 2009 at 1337 hrs
Where in the world did the Right To Not Be Frightened By the Legal Activity of Other Citizens come from? Capper’s Bizzaro World Bill of Rights?
Since we’re making them up as we go, how about the Right To Not Have To Work For a Living? Or the Right To Live in a Mansion and Drive A Porsche? The Right To Not Be Aggravated By Idiots? The Right To Not Have Moronic Opinions Thrust Upon You?
Sheesh.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 22, 2009 at 1346 hrs
No where did I say that he didn’t have the right to have a gun. I just question why he wanted to plant a tree. That is abnormal behavior to most people. If he doesn’t something out of the ordinary with a dangerous weapon, shouldn’t that be addressed?
Of course, I suppose to those not exposed to the world outside of an exburb, it just may be.
Posted by capper on February 22, 2009 at 1411 hrs
If he doesn’t something out of the ordinary with a dangerous weapon, shouldn’t that be addressed?
No, comrade. It shouldn’t.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 22, 2009 at 1433 hrs
Jawohl, mein Herr!
Too bad common sense and common courtesy have lost out to fear and paranoia.
Posted by capper on February 22, 2009 at 1437 hrs
“Too bad common sense and common courtesy have lost out to fear and paranoia. “
That last comment was just too funny. You are the one thinks it is ok to take away a right based simply on fear and paranoia.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 22, 2009 at 1441 hrs
Reminds me of two past experiences relating to the “open carry” issue.
One late summer afternoon in the late 1980’s my squad was sent to a “man with a gun” call in the 3400 block of W. Highland Blvd. Seems that a landlord was going from rental unit to rental unit collecting his rent in cash; had a handgun holstered opening on his belt. My rookie partner wanted to arrest him for “carrying a concealed weapon.” I patiently explained that the handgun was not concealed. My rookie partner then wanted to cite him for “disorderly conduct.” I asked him if any of the residents were complaining about being “disturbed” or “frightened” by the open carry. None presented themselves. At which point my rookie partner conceded there was no violation.
The second incident involved a bank security guard in uniform that Deputy City Attorney and Chief City Prosecutor David Felger managed to have ticketed for a city ordinance violation of either “carrying a concealed weapon” or “disorderly conduct.” I can’t remember which. The security guard was having lunch off the banks premises, at the Walgreens in Grand Avenue. In uniform. Service revolver on his gunbelt. Felger was attempting to create “prosecutor-made law” that it was illegal for a security guard in uniform to go openly armed OFF the premises of his employer.
As city judge, I dismissed the case immediately. Felger ceased his efforts to make “open carry by a security guard in uniform” a defacto ordinance violation
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 22, 2009 at 1457 hrs
Again, I never said that he shouldn’t have the freakin’ gun. I am decrying the dearth of common sense.
How would you feel if it was a young, greasy-looking man standing on a street corner with a gun on his hip? Would you be OK with that?
What if a guy came into your place of business, or even your home, and was obviously p.o.ed about something, and had the gun. Would that be OK?
Again, it is not the gun, per se. It is the context of the situation.
Posted by capper on February 22, 2009 at 1458 hrs
Now you’re inventing hypotheticals? Criminey. Let’s just stick to your argument about the facts of the case at hand. Defend your position that a neighbor’s fear trumps a citizen’s legal rights on his own property. You haven’t done so yet.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 22, 2009 at 1504 hrs
Why, yes I did:
This is a suburban area, and not out in the middle of the boonies somewhere. The people living in this neighborhood have a right to certain expectations. They are in their social, if not necessarily technically legal, right to expect not to have to worry about neighbors playing music too loud, running around naked, or have to worry about some guy playing wild, wild west.
His rights don’t outweigh the rights of others. Or is that the point you are advocating?
Posted by capper on February 22, 2009 at 1510 hrs
Two congressmen have proposed a bill to force all internet users to store 2 years of internet usage to help police investigate cases of child sexual predators.
This fits into this discussion because it is derived out of the fear that we as citizens cannot be trusted and must be feared. We will lose our right to internet privacy because of a relatively few predators that would stalk our children.
I am wondering what thoughts this group would have on this subject. Does it infringe on our rights of internet privacy or is it needed to protect our children. I, for one, will take it upon myself to protect and teach my children from strangers. We have taught them to proceed carefully and have trusted that they are listening to us. They know that they can talk to us about virtually anything and keeping that trust is the key to children learning and trusting their limits.
Do we think it is OK that the government would force us to keep internet records for two years in case we need to be investigated for being sexual predators? Has that fear become a potential infringement of our rights?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 22, 2009 at 1522 hrs
So, seeing a man with a holstered gun, minding his own business in a [somewhat] suburban area and being frightened is somehow an entirely “logical” response to capper; however, if those suburbanites, seeing a group of young black men, dressed and acting like thugs (in the mall for instance), are frightened and choose to avoid the area, they’re just being “racist”...OK, just checking. Apparently, the mere existence of a gun is now equivalent to a threat?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 22, 2009 at 1527 hrs
I had not heard of that proposal. It’s moronic because it won’t work. If I’m a child predator, I’m not going to be too concerned about dumping my history folder.
But to your point, yes, I think it would be an infringement of our rights. I don’t think there is any such thing as a “right of internet privacy” but I do think it would violate our 5th Amendment rights regarding self-incrimination and being deprived of liberty without due process.
nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law
Posted by Owen on February 22, 2009 at 1528 hrs
Wiaggie,
When did I comment on any mall thing?
But since you bring it up: Why would it be fear-causing for some young, African American men to have a gun, but not for a suburbanite in his yard?
Posted by capper on February 22, 2009 at 1551 hrs
“Again, I never said that he shouldn’t have the freakin’ gun”
Then why even bring it up. You don’t want to have him have the gun outside the house.
I suppose to those not exposed to the world outside of an exburb Is this the left’s latest talking point, as I have seen this kind of talk on other blogs as well. What the heck, do you, kr and Jay get together in a cave and discuss what to write on your blogs?Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 22, 2009 at 1618 hrs
your comment makes sense only if the anti-gay marriage arguments are based on a fear of gays
Actually, Jed, I think a lot of times that’s exactly what it is.
Posted by scott on February 22, 2009 at 1619 hrs
No sillier than hate crime legislation, which penalizes some crimes more severely because of the actor’s hatred or prejudices toward the victim. Sounds nice from certain angles - tell hate groups you won’t tolerate their illegal behavior, and so on. But it has the side effect of punishing people for their thoughts or beliefs. Worse, it trivializes the suffering endured by other, NON-hate-crime victims. Exact same injury, but different motive, and so suddenly the criminal’s punishment range is lower.
Or consider the pervasive political correctness movement. No one claims to be following PC rules anymore, of course, because the term has become so negative in tone. But people’s jobs and families can still be seriously impacted by a misspoken word or unpopular phrase.
And then there’s silly things like “zero tolerance” policies in many schools, which remove all common sense from disciplinary decisions. Sure, we don’t want our kids killing each other on our campuses. But in the name of preventing any such thing from ever occurring, we are sending grade school kids home (or expelling them!) for bringing a tiny G.I. Joe pistol to school, or for pointing a french fry at another student like a gun and yelling “bang bang.”
Face it, many people believe that they have a right to not be offended, or scared, by anyone. And that if they ever are scared or offended, then the government should be able to punish someone for it.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 22, 2009 at 1619 hrs
No sillier than hate crime legislation
I have mixed feelings about hate crime legislation. On the one hand I see your point quite well, but on the other hand…these crimes do have more victims than just the immediate one. These crimes are intended to intimidate an entire group of people. It makes me wish for the punishment for the crime to reflect that aspect of it as well.
Posted by scott on February 22, 2009 at 1623 hrs
These crimes are intended to intimidate an entire group of people.
Then why aren’t gang members tried for hate crimes for intimidating their neighborhoods? I can’t recall any crimes against the law-abiding citizens of the inner city ever being called hate crimes.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 22, 2009 at 1629 hrs
Why would it be fear-causing for some young, African American men to have a gun, but not for a suburbanite in his yard?
Because of the exact thing that you wrote: “it’s not the inanimate object on the person’s hip that is necessarily the scary thing. It is the person that is toting it…” I know we’re supposed to believe that stereotypes are bad - but they’re usually rooted in facts. That comment was aimed at your statement that the Mr. Krause infringed “on the rights of his neighbors by frightening them”. You made it sound like it was natural to be scared upon the mere sight of a gun.
Regardless, the whole point is the ridiculousness of charging him with “unlawful use of the weapon” when there was no “use”. This is the problem with trying to enforce gun control without the legal right to do it. How about punishing people who really do commit crimes with guns and stop inferring intent? - after all, Minority Report was just a movie.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 22, 2009 at 1711 hrs
The charge was actually Disorderly Conduct. IOW, conduct that is not acceptable or is deemed dangerous by society.
It was the guy who shot his TV that was charged with unlawful use of the weapon, but I don’t know if it was for shooting his TV or brandishing a high powered hunting rifle.
Posted by capper on February 22, 2009 at 1715 hrs
Here’s the problem.
Let’s put aside for the moment that Krause needs his head examined for feeling compelled to wear a pistol to plant a tree. There is something mentally off about the notion that tree planting and gun tottin’ are related.
And any one who feels that he has a right to wear the thing because of imaginary threats needs their heads examined.
But with no brouhaha being raised about this gun being on public display—because that what it is—would imply that it is perfectly all right for everyone to sport the gun on their person.
This is not exactly jewelry to perfectly accent his ensemble. This is a fashion statement of a whole different kind, albeit a menacing one.
So why wouldn’t Krause be wearing the gun, except to menace? This gets us back to capper’s original point.
Though capper brings the example of loud music and running around naked, none of these have the potential threat of the gun.
The difference between
Civilization. I guess you guys are just not into it any more.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 22, 2009 at 1717 hrs
1. Here’s the thing with rights… he doesn’t have to explain it to you. It is his right. You don’t have to explain to me why you make wacky comments and he doesn’t have to explain to you why he wanted to wear his gun. None of us have to have a justification to exercise our rights.
2. There are plenty of reasons to wear a weapon without the goal of menacing. For one, it’s illegal to carry concealed in Wisconsin, so if he wants to have one on his person for protection, he has to wear it openly. Perhaps if Wisconsin were sane and allowed concealed carry, this would never have been an issue. Furthermore, he was planting a tree for goodness sake. How is that menacing in the least?
For two, I used to carry openly quite frequently - and as a minor no less
When I went up to go plinking on some land of ours, I often strapped a pistol to my belt (and a bowie knife for the snakes). Why? It was convenient (this was prior to Texas passing concealed carry), and when properly secured, perfectly safe. I walked into convenience stores, restaurants, etc. and nobody ever said a thing. Why? Because the presence of an inanimate object on the hip of someone buying a sandwich is a non-issue for liberty-minded people. Just because y’all are irrationally freaked out by the sight of a gun, we should not be abandoning our right.
Posted by Owen on February 22, 2009 at 1739 hrs
It appears that capper and Schmitz need to familiarize themselves with Brown v. Texas.
Jed can probably expound in more detail, but, in short, if Krause was breaking no law and without cause he was detained, then the police (and the law they were under the perceived authority of) were wrong.
It’s too bad capper would want the law bent to his own world vision, and as per usual, Schmitz is just being hyperbolic. I’d say a Burger led court isn’t too concerned with his vision of civilization…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 22, 2009 at 1741 hrs
Gay people scare me
Jeez, Scott—you really ARE a pansy.
Posted by dad29 on February 22, 2009 at 1804 hrs
The charge was actually Disorderly Conduct. IOW, conduct that is not acceptable or is deemed dangerous by society
Yah, Cap, and the charge did not stick. IOW, the conduct WAS acceptable and/or was NOT ‘deemed dangerous’ by a judge.
Pipe. Smoke.
Posted by dad29 on February 22, 2009 at 1812 hrs
A little snappy with the answers aren’t we Owen. Chain a bit yanked?
Don’t have to explain it to you!!?? Sniff, sniff.
This all comes down to community standards. First off Wisconsin is sane. There is no reason for conceal and carry in this state. If it was a crime prevention measure, then it really would not be needed in a low crime state as ours. Turns out it isn’t tough, and maybe under the new administration the NRA won’t be able to bully silent any research on this issue.
A majority of people i this state and I’d bet elsewhere want it that way. Minnesota would probably be one such state.
Really not any different than if Krause would press his full frontal nudity to the picture window facing the street. For sure people can be naked in their houses, but the display is regarded as distasteful and inappropriate, as I would bet many would deem the Krause wearing the gun to plant a tree.
And dad, that was one judge, a muni judge and so not the last word. If West Allis would pass an ordinance forbidding wearing a gun in public within city limits, even on someone’s own property, it would stand. Community standards.
You know, the rest of us have rights as well.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 22, 2009 at 1859 hrs
Dad,
Which is why I offered my opinion on why I thought it was wrong.
Owen,
Your argument again fortifies mine. It is a contextual thing. In Texas, that might be the norm. Here, thank God, it is not.
What I fine truly ironic is that you and your readers have been bashing me for being concerned about someone carrying a gun, which might or might not lead to a problem. But you are saying he wants to carry it for something that may or may not even happen. In fact, the odds of the average person carrying a gun is rarer, in this situation.
We know the bad guys are out there. I have worked in the roughest parts of Milwaukee for 20 years (my places of work have included 34th and Wells, 28th and Highland, and 12th and Vliet - and that doesn’t include going into peoples’ homes to possibly remove their children when I was in foster care), and I’ve never felt the need for a gun, nor have I ever had a problem.
That is because I use my head. But if I were confronted with a bad guy, I would rather have to only worry about him than some wannabe hero also taking shots.
And please note, that if I wanted to be a complete ass about it, I could have brought up that story from Pennsylvania at any time during this whole spat.
Posted by capper on February 22, 2009 at 1900 hrs
Keith/capper,
You continue to miss the point. In America, we have a right to keep and bear arms. He doesn’t have to justify carrying a weapon to the government any more than you have to justify speaking freely or practicing your religion or taking the 5th. It is a RIGHT. You may not like that it is a right, but it is. Deal with it or cower in your homes if you don’t like the fact that people exercise their rights every now and then.
Posted by Owen on February 22, 2009 at 1922 hrs
Keith Schmitz wrote, above, that “If West Allis would pass an ordinance forbidding wearing a gun in public within the city limits, even on your own property, it would stand.
No it wouldn’t.
Our State Legislature (which has the say on this, not a city council) has passed legislation providing that localities cannot pass gun legislation that is more restrictive than state law. Rather than having a patchwork of local rules which might make it an ordinance violation to own a hunting rifle in one community where it would be perfectly legal in the community across the street, they have decided that gun laws will be uniform thru out the state, and they, the State Legislature will make them.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 22, 2009 at 1923 hrs
Owen,
With all due respect, you are totally ignoring my two main points.
1) Just because you have the right to do something, doesn’t mean it is the right thing to do.
2) I can go out anytime, without a gun, and feel safe. Why can’t you?
Posted by capper on February 22, 2009 at 1925 hrs
You know, the rest of us have rights as well.
Yes, we know, Keith. The recently-established Right To Not Be Frightened By the Legal Activity of Other Citizens. You and capper are really on to something, I think. Probably needs a catchier handle, though. How about the Peter Pan Right? You know, the guy from Neverland, where you never had to grow up?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 22, 2009 at 1934 hrs
1) True, but that was not the thrust of your post. You were clearly advocating the prohibition of open carry . The only way to accomplish that is with government coercion. You said that his right to carry ended when he scared his neighbor. That’s crap. You were not arguing that it would have been decent of him to not carry openly. You were arguing that his right ENDED.
2) Meaningless point. It doesn’t matter if I want to carry a gun or not. It is my right and it’s not of your business if I choose to exercise it. I don’t question you when you want to exercise your right to petition your government or vote or demand a jury trial. Keep your nose out of the business of people who want to exercise their 2nd Amendment rights.
Posted by Owen on February 22, 2009 at 1937 hrs
So far capper and I have insulted no one, indicating we have a point and you obviously do not.
Isn’t the justification for conceal and carry out of fear of that boogie man known as the “bad guy?”
In a civilized society, there are no need for guns except hunting and target shooting. More guns beyond those purposes mean less civilization and a backwards society.
What’s funny is we wouldn’t be having these arguments except for the NRA pushing mass gun ownership for the good of their gun-making clients.
You all are being used.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 22, 2009 at 1941 hrs
OK, Owen, then what about the rights of his neighbors? Don’t they count for anything?
I don’t question you when you want to exercise your right to petition your government or vote or demand a jury trial. Keep your nose out of the business of people who want to exercise their 2nd Amendment rights.
Then you agree that the paid sick leave should be enforced, in any community that the people would want it?
Posted by capper on February 22, 2009 at 1945 hrs
The 2nd Amendment was put in place to ensure that the citizens of the United States could protect themselves from tyranny. As it turns out, the coming tyranny is that of the politically correct (eeewww - your gun offends me) and the incompetent (government that believes that the constitution doesn’t apply if just one person is offended and that life should be fair).
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 22, 2009 at 1949 hrs
Does that mean JJ you want to shoot us over a discussion?
Wow!
If you own a gun or 50 maybe that’s not a good idea.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 22, 2009 at 1953 hrs
Much better to have a tyranny of frightened NRA members. Got it.
Thanks, JJ.
Posted by capper on February 22, 2009 at 1955 hrs
Wow Keith - take your meds already.
The point is that gun ownership is a constitutional right. Not being afraid or offended is not.
But honestly - you scare me more than the dude in West Allis. You are actively trying to take away constitutional rights. He was merely excercising his.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 22, 2009 at 1958 hrs
Do you guys seriously think that the only reason someone would want a gun is because of the NRA? I’ve never even been the recipient of an NRA mailer. But if you really believe that, you may want to put down the MoveOn flyer.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 22, 2009 at 2000 hrs
Then you agree that the paid sick leave should be enforced, in any community that the people would want it?
Hey, you’re right…I think I saw that somewhere…
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances; or preventing them from getting some of that sweet paid sick leave.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 22, 2009 at 2000 hrs
That they got by petitioning the government. Doh, I hate when reality gets in the way of snark, don’t you?
Posted by capper on February 22, 2009 at 2002 hrs
capper,
The “rights” you attributed to the neighbors are not rights. By definition, a right cannot demand something from other people. For example, if I have a right to have a gun, it imposes nothing on you. If you have a “right” to a quiet neighborhood, it imposes on other people’s liberty by forcing them to be quiet. We may all agree that quiet neighborhoods are a good thing and agree to enforce ordinances to maintain such quiet, but it is not a right. It is mutual agreement.
So no, the preferences of the neighbors do not supersede the constitutionally protected right of Krause. Think of it this way, if all of your neighbors got together and decided that they thought that you shouldn’t be allowed to blog because they were worried about it attracting stalkers to your neighborhood, would you support that? After all, they have a “right” to a peaceful neighborhood, right?
Keith,
My goodness you are off your rocker. Have a nice day.
Posted by Owen on February 22, 2009 at 2004 hrs
Owen,
Your second paragraph is meaningless, unless I am a much more powerful blogger than I realize. I am responsible for my behaviors, not of others.
Now, if I was blogging with a gun, and starting shooting every time I saw something stupid, yes, then I would be infringing on their rights. Their civil rights.
Which is more important, civil rights or Constitutional rights? IOW, the right to freedom or the right to a gun?
Posted by capper on February 22, 2009 at 2012 hrs
Your argument, capper, wasn’t whether Milwaukee citizens can petition their government, it’s whether they have a constitutional right to paid sick leave, which is what you’re equating to their rights under the 2nd amendment.
And they don’t.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 22, 2009 at 2014 hrs
Capper and Keith. Its days like today when I hear your misguided paranoid rants and I thank my lucky stars that I have a constitution and a bill of rights to protect me from GUYS LIKE YOU!
You don’t get it, and I don’t care if you get it. THANK GOODNESS I don’t have to care if you get it.
No one owes you an answer. Your snarky strawman questions that only a 3 year old would be dumb enough to ask about “is he scared fo termites or crabgrass” aren’t worthy of a response.
Today is a day when I get to be thankful that our constitution FOR ONCE did what it was suppose to do and protect me and my rights from GUYS LIKE YOU.
YOU are scary. YOU guys are frightening. I fear GUYS LIKE YOU, not guys like Brad.
Brad and his behavior will NEVER have a negative impact on my life. Guys like you and Keith… You and guys like you who either forgot or were never taught what freedom is have been having negative impacts on the lives and rights of people for the last 100 years. (probably more)
And last week. YOU LOSE. Freedom won. Deal with it.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 22, 2009 at 2016 hrs
capper -
1)Mr Krause didn’t shoot anything or anyone.
2)The last time I checked a constitutional right IS a civil right.
3)We have our freedom because of the gun and the patriots who chose to fight for it over the past 234 years or so.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 22, 2009 at 2020 hrs
In a civilized society keith, there are no need for laws, least of all laws against guns. Because, however, I do not live in such a place, I keep a gun for many reasons, including the reason that I may need to shoot someone.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 22, 2009 at 2050 hrs
Again, the insults. Owen, apparently respect is also unconstitutional on this blog.
So what’s the gun for JJ to protect your so called rights if you weren’t going to use it? I know you won’t but there was an inherent threat.
Rights are relative and subject to those who have political power, but should have some basis in rationality.
Rights have responsibilities. Freedom of speech does not include yelling fire in a crowded theater. Freedom of the press does not include slander and libel. Freedom of assembly does not protect mobs.
Rights also have responsibility. And we the people define those rights, not some gun industry lobbying group.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 22, 2009 at 2054 hrs
“In a civilized society, there are no need for guns except hunting and target shooting. ”
I am not sure what your exact definition of “civilized society” is, Keith, but I can only assume it’s synonymous with “fantasy world” or perhaps “overly oppressive totalitarian regime (which you support).” Because if you think this society of ours somehow reaches the level of no one needing to be armed, you are woefully incorrect.
I actually understand how some modern city-dwellers who rely on government to provide every single service under the sun reach this conclusion. But you are wrong. I know, I know… when pro-second-amendment people like me point out things like how the founding fathers recognized the need for personal defense, you think we’re misreading the text. (Only we’re not - see the highly accurate constitutional analysis in Heller vs. the District of Columbia Supreme Court case from last year.) When we point out that dictatorships like Nazi Germany or North Korea or others tend to get busy with disarming the populace prior to really enacting draconian restrictions, you think “that could never happen today” or “that could never happen in the U.S.” The irony is, the reason we have such little threat of such a takeover may well be BECAUSE of the 2nd Amendment. But none of us have lived prior to the founding of this country, and we know no other way of life. Many take our security from governmental oppression as a given, take it for granted, and assume that men are somehow fundamentally different, somehow less flawed than they were sixty years ago. Or that Americans are so different from today’s tribal states in Africa that such abuses could never occur here.
It is a luxury to be able to even think like that, because history teaches a different lesson.
As to the arguments from others (capper?) that the guy should have to justify his carrying a weapon on his own property, no, he shouldn’t. Just because you would never choose to do such a thing does not enable you to pass judgment on his choices. You snicker when Owen says the man was “exercising his right” but that is exactly what he was doing.
And it is great that you feel secure in dark alleys without a firearm. Really. I do think that’s a good thing, and I wouldn’t force anyone to carry a gun any more than you should try to prevent them from doing so. But it’s not all about you, or your point of view. Little old ladies may not feel so secure. Men with less self-confidence may not. (Or with more experience as victims of crime.) Merchants carrying home their proceeds may not. Stalking victims may not. Celebrities may not. Who knows? The point is, the right is shared by all, and you don’t have to agree with how I choose to exercise it - but you do need to recognize that it is my right to do so. And Owen was correct in saying that it is not your place to demand a justification. Sorry.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 22, 2009 at 2055 hrs
“We the people define those rights.”
No, “we the people” don’t define those rights. Rights are natural and not granted by any person or any group of people. “We the people” through a constitution granted limited powers to a government, not rights to a people.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 22, 2009 at 2059 hrs
Capper and Keith-Go to our website http://www.wisconsinpatriots.com and under the Must Read tab on top click on Sheep, Wolves and Sheepdogs. Read it, try to understand it. You are the sheep being referred to. You are in denial about violent crime in this state and believe it always happens to the other guy and won’t happen to you. You have been drinking the liberal Cool Aid so long you no longer understand what rights are. When the legislature banned concealed carry of firearms in the 1870s they didn’t ban open carry. They felt concealed carry was sneaky and wanted Wisconsin citizens to carry their weapons in the open. Some of us are doing that now and soon many more will be doing it as well. Brad Krause was just a man exercising his Constitutional and civil rights. It doesn’t matter if you or his neighbors like it or not. In time people (even sheep) will once again become accustomed to good people openly carrying their holstered sidearms as they already do in many states (including MN where you can carry concealed or open-your choice) and this hysteria that folks like you are trying to create will subside.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 22, 2009 at 2106 hrs
Just because you have the right to do something, doesn’t mean it is the right thing to do
Well, that covers abortion.
Posted by dad29 on February 22, 2009 at 2107 hrs
Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.Seems pretty clear to me. And it was written many, many moons before anyone even thought about an organization called the NRA.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 22, 2009 at 2109 hrs
In a civilized society, there are no need for guns except hunting and target shooting. More guns beyond those purposes mean less civilization and a backwards society
So the folks who wrote the 2A were “uncivilized”?
At least your take on the Framers comports with your take on the Constitution itself. 2 points for consistency.
BTW, the real reason for the 2A was to make sure that the Gummint didn’t exceed its britch-size.
Posted by dad29 on February 22, 2009 at 2110 hrs
BTW, the real reason for the 2A was to make sure that the Gummint didn’t exceed its britch-size.
Careful Dad - talk of the tyranny of the gov’t will have Keith thinking you are threatening him and want to shoot him. He seems to be a big fan of the gov’t.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 22, 2009 at 2117 hrs
In many ways, it was more civilized 150 years ago - when a man would tip his hat to a lady on the street…and she didn’t even faint at the sight of a holstered pistol on his hip!!
Well put, BVBigBro - unfortunately, liberals have become so used to controlling things using the government that they have a hard time with the original concept of The People “allowing” their government to control certain things…and the fact that it has no say in others, without further consent of the governed.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 22, 2009 at 2138 hrs
It’s funny to observe how some threads will spiral out of control; this is one of them.
I think folks have lost track of some of capper’s other points: “To me, walking around with a gun while doing something like gardening is abnormal, even if it is perfectly legal. If my neighbor was out doing some yard work and was carrying a weapon, it would cause me alarm, and I would probably call the cops as well.” I would too, as I would probably be a little uncomfortable asking him what was going on or if the gun was loaded. I own several guns myself, but I don’t feel the need to carry one with me when I take out the trash.
To me that is a perfectly legitimate observation. There is also the point of personal responsibility here. If Mr. Krause wants to mulch his lawn while strapped, he’s perfectly within his right to do so, but he should expect some pushback. He obviously was looking for some type of attention or affirmation, and guess what, he got it. It’s no different than people expressing their opinion in the form of a rally or protest, and then another group showing up expressing their 1st amendment right with opposing views. Both groups have the right to free speech, but sometimes “responsibility” is knowing and expecting that exercising your right isn’t going to be met with everyone’s approval. It kind of goes with the territory.
Mr. Krause and the clown in Webb City are two entirely different situations. One guy exhibited “poor neighborly behavior” and was reported by neighbors. In Webb City, the guy discharged his weapon, the police were called by his wife, and then he staged a mini standoff; he got what he deserved. Both showed a severe lack of responsibility.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 22, 2009 at 2208 hrs
The hysteria is the liberals have just been reminded that their governor is responsible for bringing open carry to Wisconsin. He is the person who decided that carrying concealed guns did not make much sense. Did he forget to mention that people still can carry guns and that he prefers they carry them openly? Read Hamdan again if you don’t think so.
The free exercise of liberty is not specific to guns. It has everything to do with being free to enjoy life and that includes being safe and secure (being in a constant state of peace).
The open carry law of Wisconsin is clear. It also has been on the books since 1872. It says that guns may not be carried concealed, forcing people to carry them so others must be able to see them. There is no state law banning the carry of guns. State law also trumps local ordinances. That is the statutory authority in state law people possess. We just want the Attorney General to enforce this law.
The state and federal constitutions simply protect your individual right. The constitutions did not create your right. The human right to be safe pre-dates the writing of these documents by centuries.
If some hyper sensitive person does not like the law, so what? The law is still the law. No one has a right not to be offended by others. If seeing my gun offends you, just look away.
Being constantly armed to me makes as much sense as always having a spare tire in my car or a charged fire extinguisher handy in the house. Should I have a flat or a fire, I am prepared to deal with it. If someone threatens my life, I am prepared to stop that threat.
Be a victim or a survivor, it’s your choice.
Posted by ccwtrainer on February 22, 2009 at 2209 hrs
The state and federal constitutions simply protect your individual right. The constitutions did not create your right. The human right to be safe pre-dates the writing of these documents by centuries.
Which is what I’ve been saying all along.
Another question, if CCW was such a hot thing, why did the Repubs refuse to put it to referendum? Why are states passing laws so that no one knows who has CCW? Is it to cover up the crimes committed with CCW?
And if more people start doing open carry, you will be surprised by the uproar it will cause.
45acp-You might have missed it, but I have seen and worked in the areas of high crime for the past twenty years. I also have seen the results of negligent use of firearms. I don’t want anymore dead kids, thank you.
Again, it boils down to the way Laker put it, responsibility. If we are regressing to a society where this crap is the norm, where responsibility and consideration of others is a thing scoffed at, it is not a good omen for this country.
Posted by capper on February 22, 2009 at 2217 hrs
An even worse omen is a society where private property is scoffed at.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 22, 2009 at 2237 hrs
Like Krause did to his neighbors? I agree!
Posted by capper on February 22, 2009 at 2241 hrs
Krause did nothing to his neighbors. Paranoia and self righteousness are not generally communicable diseases.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 22, 2009 at 2250 hrs
So you’re saying Krause was paranoid and self-righteous? I agree!
Posted by capper on February 22, 2009 at 2257 hrs
It must be infuriating for you to live in the USA, capper. Krause doesn’t have to listen to you, doesn’t have to pay attention to you, doesn’t have to like you, doesn’t have to talk to you, doesn’t have to pay any mind whatsoever to what his self-declared betters think of him. Worse, he then can go back into his castle and ignore you altogether. Liberty is a glorious thing.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 22, 2009 at 2305 hrs
I’ve been watching this thread and a couple of things jump out…
1. capper suggested, and Owen correctly pointed out, that Krause’s right to carry a weapon - openly - ended when he frightened his neighbor.
capper and Schmitz have tried to spin out of that, but what capper wrote is right there for all to see. Schmitz went so far as to suggest that millions of Americans are uncivilized because they apparently have an affinity for firearms.
However, regardless of how uncivilized it may be to Schmitz, the US Supreme Court - not he - is the final arbiter. His argument is emblematic of why people “cling to their guns.”
Both capper and Schmitz then want to see Krause punished for infringing on some nebulous right of not being offended. It seems they are advocating that the police had probable cause to cite Krause.
They are dead wrong and the Supreme Court has ruled as such. In Brown v. Texas, government lacks the authority to detain anyone without probable cause and set forth very strict guidelines. Unfortunately, for the perpetually afraid and offended, little things like the Constitution are mere roadblocks, not roadmaps.
2. This thread has veered off to discuss CCW, however, Owen’s original remarks are more philosophical in nature and for a while actually prompted an interesting discussion on positive rights versus negative rights and capper and Schmitz took the bait.
Again, while Schmitz might think the Constitution grants right to people, it is incontrovertible that the Constitution is based on Lockian principles of natural law and negative rights. In reality, the Bill of Rights is actually superfluous; they are inherent in the original document as all rights are unto man and the states and the document itself is a constraint on government, not people.
Liberals have long found this frustrating, and indeed, has prompted some very interesting debates going back to the very founding of the document.
In short, Krause was well within his rights to carry that weapon in plain sight and government lacks any authority to cite him short of passing a law that says a person cannot plant trees while carrying a weapon. Just because it is odd, doesn’t make it illegal. capper’s fear is largely irrational - as is Krause’s neighbors’.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 22, 2009 at 2316 hrs
Wow. Just… wow. Owen, you’re a better man than I for even indulging these guys. I can’t imagine going through life scared shitless of the idea of adults making adult decisions for themselves.
Posted by Mike Gallo on February 22, 2009 at 2317 hrs
capper’s fear is largely irrational - as is Krause’s neighbors’.
Just because it may be legal, doesn’t mean that one’s concern is irrational. What is irrational is feeling the need to go armed while gardening.
Mike Gallo-
We are the ones that don’t need the guns to feel secure. Who’s the ones that are scared?
Posted by capper on February 22, 2009 at 2321 hrs
Brad did nothing illegal or wrong.
I open carry where ever I go,every day. You’re predictions of the trauma caused to the public is total hyperbole. You are saying the citizens of Wisconsin are genetically inferior to the remainder of the US (Illinois being the possible exception).
Capper, if you ever travel outside of Wisconsin to any other state, you are somewhere that armed citizens may be standing next to you.
That thought will likely cause you to go to bed and pull the covers over your head.
Just because you are a sheep, that gives you no right to expect everyone else to be a sheep too. If it is any comfort to you, I have no responsibility to come to your aid.
States pass laws to keep premit holder data private because who has a permit is none of your business.
Criminals don’t get permits. Instead, the state should publish a list of criminals. I’d bet you would see some familiar names if they did (so don’t expect that anytime soon).
You said “And if more people start doing open carry, you will be surprised by the uproar it will cause”. So what? People will get used to it.
Posted by ccwtrainer on February 22, 2009 at 2328 hrs
Then why no referendum?
Oh, yeah, because the polls weren’t favorable.
Many more people can lead productive lives without their security blanket, than those that need it.
I went to West Allis just last night to snowblow my dad’s drive, and I did it without a gun! And I was never killed, robbed or nothing!
I must be Superman in your eyes.
Posted by capper on February 22, 2009 at 2333 hrs
No, you’re still a sheep.
Posted by ccwtrainer on February 22, 2009 at 2339 hrs
Well cap, looks like we made a bunch off knuckleheads who fancy themselves as patriots waste a lot of time.
Never in their wildest dreams would our founding fathers dream of the distortion that the 2A (dad giving best performance as a rube) you guys have bullied on this country. A bunch of fearful men whipped up by distortion and self delusion.
Founding fathers wanted to build a better society, save the slave owning part. Yahoos dragging around automatic weapons or owning dozen of guns would not be part of it. The excess weaponry detract our efforts to build a better society no matter how you slice it. We cannot justify your selfishness and bullheadedness, and fortunately political changes may help us overpower you agents of corporate manipulation through the NRA.
The biggest joke is of course this nonsense about defying the government. Many of you supported one the most rights abusing administration we’ve had in a long time and adhere to corporate control.
You guys are amusing as hell.
Thanks for helping cap and I make it classy.
Go ahead and do what you do.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 22, 2009 at 2340 hrs
“Then why no referendum?”
It’s not necessary since open carry is already the law.
Do you actually think you have any say in this matter after 137 years? I don’t think so. This debate was over a very long time ago.
Posted by ccwtrainer on February 22, 2009 at 2347 hrs
Keith, is that the best you can do?
You’re setting yourself up for a big disappointment.
By the way, what do you know of the NRA’s involvment in any of this open carry thing? Just curious.
Posted by ccwtrainer on February 22, 2009 at 2356 hrs
The referendum question was about CCW, for what it’s worth. Glad to see you following along. Makes me feel even better knowing you got a gun.
Now it’s essay time. Situation: Legally owned gun, in the privacy of his home.
Results: Not so good. Actually, very, very bad.
How do you guarantee that Krause or someone else doing open carry won’t do that?
Posted by capper on February 23, 2009 at 0004 hrs
You are offered no guarantee, capper. You are not owed one.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 23, 2009 at 0014 hrs
So, I am a second class citizen now?
Posted by capper on February 23, 2009 at 0015 hrs
No, capper, you are merely no more important than any other citizen.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 23, 2009 at 0020 hrs
This is not about CCW Capper, that’s illegal. Brad was carrying his gun openly, that is legal. See the difference? Now maybe you can follow along.
Wis. Stat. § 941.23 was enacted by the legislature in 1872 to force the open carry of firearms. This is the operating law that manages how citizens may exercise their right to bear arms (with the restriction that the gun must not be concealed). The state constitution merely protects this individual right.
I am okay if some people like you don’t like guns and would never carry one for whatever their reason. Having the freedom to decide for yourself rather than having the government decide for you is what is important. That is liberty.
I really do not care if you approve or not of my decision to go armed, vote, or exercise any other right that we have. I just wanted you be clear about this. When you woke up this morning, you are in a state where the state law says people can carry a gun if they wish.
Oh, and Jim Doyle fought very hard to keep this law from being repealed twice.
Posted by ccwtrainer on February 23, 2009 at 0941 hrs
Don’t look now capper, but you better start working on banning knives… http://www.sedona.biz/jerome-knife-attack0109.htm
hammers… http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/story?section=news/local&id=6381527
screwdrivers… http://www.newsday.com/news/local/ny-litool0125,0,3719279.story
cellphones… http://www.gadgets-weblog.com/50226711/man_shoves_phone_down_girlfriends_throat.php
dogs, cats, pillows, electrical cords, shoes, saws, forks, pencils, batteries, brussel sprouts.
capper, this is ridiculous… You don’t understand a basic premise that the country was founded on… and until you do, you’re going to be arguing for naught.
Schmitz, you’re just being a complete tool in this thread, and I really hope that no one wastes more of their time responding to your antics.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 23, 2009 at 0945 hrs
In a civilized society there would not be over 100 shooting deaths per year in a small section of a small city like Milwaukee.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 23, 2009 at 1035 hrs
You are correct - the people that live there are not civilized. It’s a drug and violence culture that the black community refuses to address.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 23, 2009 at 1056 hrs
It’s something we all need to address. Some things can really be addressed on a neighborhood level, but others can’t. Larger economic factors will require effort on all our parts.
Posted by scott on February 23, 2009 at 1102 hrs
Scott - I disagree. We’ve tried to help with a wide variety of programs, grants, and whatnot
Zilber threw a ton of money at the city - did it change anything? No.
I’m not saying we stop trying, but until that community itself decides that it is not going to tolerate that culture - nothing anyone on the outside does will make any difference.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 23, 2009 at 1129 hrs
Hate, just hate to point this out, but Zilber has hardly begun to spend what ever money on the area.
Seems like the conservative track is, if something doesn’t work, do more of it.
Tax cuts help cause the economic breakdown. Let’s do more tax cuts.
Guns have led to lots of death, disruption of lives and crime, let’s have more guns.
Virus attacking the population. Let’s get more virus.
Just curious. All this authoritative talk about money being dumped into the inner city? Where’s the links.
Jason, sorry I put the jumper plugs of fact to your cranial lobes. It does hurt. Next time and try to think like you do.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 23, 2009 at 1201 hrs
Guns have led to lots of death, disruption of lives and crime
Hey, here’s one for your “jumper plugs of facts”..... GUNS DON’T KILL PEOPLE!
Guns are inanimate objects… unless you think they’re alive? Are you insane?
The rest of your comments are just toolbox quotes from a tool.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 23, 2009 at 1207 hrs
Seems like the conservative track is, if something doesn’t work, do more of it
I really hate to feed the troll again, but this comment was laugh-out-loud funny. Ultimate projection - we do it, so you MUST do it too! You know, like how 40 years of the Great Society has created more poverty than it supposedly cured with a side benefit of destroying the role of fathers in their childrens lives, MPS continuing to fail no matter how much money we dump into it, criminals and gangs still having weapons no matter how many gun laws are imposed on law-abiding citizens and my favorite…. the porkulus bill signed last week that doubles-down on the national debt by the same folks that complained about the size of the national debt. Liberal logic - if your guy does it you suck and are evil, if our guy does it, he is the greatest thing since Tootsie-freakin’-Rolls and its the ONLY way to get out of this.
The truly funny part - you guys can’t even see your own
contradictions.Bottom line - you believe you should have the ability to enforce your beliefs, fears, irrationalities onto the rest of us and the Constitution be damned - even when wrapped in do-gooder rationalization. It doesn’t matter that you think planting a tree while wearing a holster is normal. I don’t think that your thought process is normal. See, its irrelavent. Open carry is legal and constitutionally protected even if some are offended just like letting someone burn the flag as free speech is legal and constitutionally protected even if some are offended.
With guys like Keith around, I am eternally grateful for the wisdom of our founding fathers and the constitutional protections the put in place.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 23, 2009 at 1242 hrs
With guys like Keith around, I am eternally grateful for the wisdom of our founding fathers and the constitutional protections the put in place.
I whole heartedly agree (see #50)
I fear guys like Keith and Capper. Not guys like Brad Krause
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 23, 2009 at 1439 hrs
I fear both kinds of guys. Kieth and Capper want to take our rights away, but that doesn’t change the fact that most people that are really into guns are also fucking bonkers.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 23, 2009 at 1537 hrs
Is it possible for you all to get a grip? Talk about touching a nerve?
We are not talking about taking any one’s rights away, just encouraging responsibility. You guys talk about that all the time. Why does holding a fire arm cause that argument to grow mute?
If you are talking about taking away Krause’s right to act like an ass, guilty as charged?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 23, 2009 at 1637 hrs
but that doesn’t change the fact that most people that are really into guns are also fucking bonkers.
Well I’m really into rights. Guns are just a facet of that. Do I fit your plebeian definition of bonkers?
Guns are like the breakwater of rights. They stand out there on there own. They are the first to take the hit. The first thing people who don’t understand freedom want to do away with. The ‘right’ that people who can’t wrap their head around common sense and defer to ignorance, fear and hysteria are ready to sacrifice.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 23, 2009 at 1647 hrs
Were our founding father bonkers for paying such attention to guns and the right to keep and bear arms?
I guess I’m happy that I’m in the company intellectually of men like that, not guys like keith and capper
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 23, 2009 at 1650 hrs
Ah Keith - but you ARE trying to take someone’s right - affirmed by the constitution - away. Just because you don’t like it. Boo-freaking-hoo.
So who gets to decide who is acting like “an ass” and gets to be in charge of deciding what behavior is acceptable Keith? You? Are the liberals the end-all be-all arbiters of acceptable human behavior now?
For all the lip-service you guys gave to the supposed police-state of the last administration, you really have shown yourselves to not really give a flying frito to constitutional rights at all if you disagree with them.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 23, 2009 at 1651 hrs
“We are not talking about taking any one’s rights away… ... if you are talking about taking away Krause’s right to act like an ass, guilty as charged?”
Hypocrite.
“Well I’m really into rights. Guns are just a facet of that. Do I fit your plebeian definition of bonkers?”
No, you don’t. I’m really into rights too. What I meant by “really into guns” is just that in my experiance, people that have like 100 guns and show them off and put pictures of their guns on the internet and feel like tough guys etc. etc., those people are f-ing bonkers. Most of the time. But they are free to be that way, as scary as it is.
“Were our founding father bonkers for paying such attention to guns and the right to keep and bear arms?”
No. You’re missing the distinction between keeping a gun for a good reason and being one of those crazy bastards that are really into guns because they’re wimps with small cocks.
And to be clear, they’re perfectly free to keep and bear their arms for sure. Lots of them are just bat-shit crazy and scary.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 23, 2009 at 1701 hrs
“Hey, here’s one for your “jumper plugs of facts”..... GUNS DON’T KILL PEOPLE! Guns are inanimate objects… unless you think they’re alive? Are you insane?”
Are you insane? Did the voices in your head tell you that some people think guns get up and walk around by themselves? Nobody has ever made that argument. The argument is that guns make impulse killing easier. Address that if you want to debate policy.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 23, 2009 at 1704 hrs
What I meant by “really into guns” is just that in my experiance, people that have like 100 guns and show them off and put pictures of their guns on the internet and feel like tough guys etc. etc., those people are f-ing bonkers.
Well I only have 7 guns… But I do have pictures of some of them on the internet. It doesn’t make me feel like a tough guy, I’m not sure how my dick fits on your scale of measure. Sounds like you have spent way more time comparing penis size than I, so I’ll leave that one to you.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 23, 2009 at 1725 hrs
If you totally outlawed guns - it wouldn’t change a thing in the inner city.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 23, 2009 at 1743 hrs
The argument is that guns make impulse killing easier.
That might be the implied argument, but the great troll Schmitz sure took a round-a-bout way to say it. The point is knives make impulse killing easier, cars, bats, hammers, pointy stick, and bunnies with great big teeth all do the same. Everything else is irrational aversion towards a single inanimate object - Guns.
Later on Keith says this “just encouraging responsibility”, and there has not yet been one shred of evidence by anyone in this thread or during the trial that the defendant acted in any other way that responsibly. Not one tiny little bit other than throwing out “civilized” and “not the right thing to do” bullshit. What a bunch of judgmental pricks. And to top it off, you start talking shit about a small subgroup of gun owners when you said “MOST people that are really into guns are also fucking bonkers. ” Just as unqualified and full of emotion as the rest in this thread who are proclaiming against Mr. Krause’s actions.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 23, 2009 at 1827 hrs
Whoa, whoa, whoa…
I think you guys confused Keith.
He says, “We are not talking about taking any one’s rights away, just encouraging responsibility. “
But, yet, capper says, “I argued that his right to carry the weapon ended when he started to infringe on the rights of his neighbors by frightening them.”
Nor have I even seen anything approaching a rational defense of such an impulsive remark. I saw a lot of nuanced spin, but never a full-throated defense. I guess it was because capper knows that defending such a position is very difficult within the context of the U.S. Constitution - being the pesky thing that it is to our liberal friends. It seems this is a classic example of some folks imagining all sorts of rights unto themselves that must be granted BY government.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 23, 2009 at 1841 hrs
“Well I only have 7 guns… But I do have pictures of some of them on the internet. It doesn’t make me feel like a tough guy, I’m not sure how my dick fits on your scale of measure. Sounds like you have spent way more time comparing penis size than I, so I’ll leave that one to you.”
It’s just a figure of speech. Sheesh. I’m not sure if you fit into that category based on that.
“The point is knives make impulse killing easier, cars, bats, hammers, pointy stick, and bunnies with great big teeth all do the same.”
None of these things make impulse killing as easy as guns do. The numbers bear that out. If knives and pointy sticks were as affective at killing as guns, why would guns exist?
“And to top it off, you start talking shit about a small subgroup of gun owners when you said “MOST people that are really into guns are also fucking bonkers. ” “
Maybe I wasn’t clear about this. I guess I’m talking about “people that are really into guns” as a subgroup of gun owners. I guess I don’t know how else to describe this subgroup. It’s not the hunters. It’s not the guys that go to the target range once every 2 months. It’s not the military historians. It’s the people that like to blow shit up. The crazies. Get it? That’s the group I’m talking about.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 23, 2009 at 1842 hrs
I happen to live on the near 60th and Silver Spring. Twice in the last three months I have been robbed at home. Once my garage has been broken into and last night my car was broken into less than 30 feet from where I slept. I will tell you now that I am going to carry my 44 magnum Super Red Hawk with the 7.5 inch barrel on my hip while in my backyard. Why, because I am afraid of my neighbors and if they become afraid of me maybe my stuff will remain mine.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 23, 2009 at 1845 hrs
None of these things make impulse killing as easy as guns do. The numbers bear that out. If knives and pointy sticks were as affective at killing as guns, why would guns exist?
Ok, so now that means that people can’t wear one openly? I’m not following this side track?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 23, 2009 at 1854 hrs
1. The argument is that guns make impulse killing easier.
No people make impulse killing easier. If one is prone to violence then the object that is used for violence is just a matter of degree and convenience. Want proof? Look to the north. Ozaukee County borders Milwaukee County yet there a much fewer murders there then in Milwaukee. Again, it is not the gun, it is the irresponsible thugs that own them and inhabit this little bit of hell known as Milwaukee.
On the other hand if one does a casual observation of those parts of the country with the highest murder rate one finds cities such as Washington DC, Chicago, San Francisco, Detroit etc. all good Democratic voting municipalities. Maybe it’s Democrats that kill people and living close to a Democrat is more dangerous than living close to a gun?Can we impose a three day waiting period before a Deomcrat guy can take a Democrat girl home?
How about and ugly Democrat ban?
If we banned the use of a Democrats dick then we could solve a lot of problems.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 23, 2009 at 1919 hrs
“Ok, so now that means that people can’t wear one openly? I’m not following this side track?”
No, it doesn’t. I made that statement to refute some idiot’s straw man argument that guns are inanimate objects somehow makes them safe. I strongly believe you should be able to wear a weapon openly or cencealed.
“No people make impulse killing easier.”
That just doesn’t make sense since “people” are what I’m comparing to “people with guns.” Look, it’s really simple. If two people get in a fight and there’s no gunb present, it is VASTLY less likely that somebody will die than if there is a gun present. Because people are sometimes impulsive and sometimes do stupid things. If somebody is being stupid and impulsive and is angry, that’s one thing. Throw a gun in there, and it makes killing easier. Think about it. Another way to put it would be this:
“If one is prone to violence then the object that is used for violence is just a matter of degree and convenience.”
See, I think you get it. You actuallty made the argument yourself. When I said guns make impulse killing easier, I just meant that of all objects, guns are the ones with the greatest degree of convenience.
“Ozaukee County borders Milwaukee County yet there a much fewer murders there then in Milwaukee. Again, it is not the gun, it is the irresponsible thugs that own them and inhabit this little bit of hell known as Milwaukee.”
Well, it’s probably a little of both. If you could take guns out of Milwaukee, crime would go down. If you could take thug mentality out of Milwaukee, crime would go down too. But it’s unrealistic to think you could take either one out. And taking the former out would be completely unconstitutional.
“On the other hand if one does a casual observation of those parts of the country with the highest murder rate one finds cities such as Washington DC, Chicago, San Francisco, Detroit etc. all good Democratic voting municipalities. Maybe it’s Democrats that kill people and living close to a Democrat is more dangerous than living close to a gun?”
Or maybe it’s the hot dog cart guys? There are a lot of those in all those places too? Or maybe, just maybe it’s that crime is worse in BIG CITIES. Which are usually left leaning and have lots of hotdog cart guys? Correlation does not mean causation.
I’m not going to respond to that last bit of weird stuff. It’s really creepy. I don’t really care for Democrats either, but this demonizing thing you’re doing is borderline psychotic.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 23, 2009 at 2209 hrs
It’s the people that like to blow shit up.
I think people that watch pro-wrestling are wacked…
I think chics that watch soaps and cry are wacked…
I think people who would pay hundreds of dollars to go watch people toss a ball around a field are wacked.
To be honest.. I’ve never been to a “full auto shoot” but I’d like to.
I like to watch fireworks though… Who DOESN’T like to blow shit up????
I don’t know dude… I think you’ve created a fictitious segment that doesn’t really exist to be honest with you.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 23, 2009 at 2353 hrs
I made that statement to refute some idiot’s straw man argument that guns are inanimate objects somehow makes them safe.
I think that guns are perfectly safe, and the real fear expressed by the Schmitz’s of this thread are of the people wearing them. I agree, there are scary people who have guns, but that doesn’t mean that I agree with them that it’s somehow unacceptable to wear one while doing my yard work.
If you could take guns out of Milwaukee, crime would go down.
I surmise that crime would actually go up. Since the thugs would know that there were no guns protecting the innocent, and hence be emboldened to break the law.
When I said guns make impulse killing easier, I just meant that of all objects, guns are the ones with the greatest degree of convenience.
I still think this entire subtopic of yours is non-sequitor with the start of this thread and the points made by Schmitz or capper. Hypothetically if guns simply did not exist in this world, would we then be having this conversation about knives? Guns do make impulse killing easier…. so what?!
If two people get in a fight and there’s no gunb present, it is VASTLY less likely that somebody will die than if there is a gun present. Because people are sometimes impulsive and sometimes do stupid things. If somebody is being stupid and impulsive and is angry, that’s one thing. Throw a gun in there, and it makes killing easier. Think about it.
What about if two people get into a fight, both with knives. Is that VASTLY less likely to result in death than two people with guns? Again, it’s all non-sequitor with the thread topic, and certainly with the actions of Mr. Krause. So…. ok?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 24, 2009 at 0910 hrs
“What about if two people get into a fight, both with knives. Is that VASTLY less likely to result in death than two people with guns?”
Yes. VASTLY less likely to result in death.
Look, I’m a vigorous defender of 2nd Amendment rights. I really am. I just think a lof of you guys are dishonest about it. We should have the right to bear arms because it’s in the constitution, and it’s in the constitution because it is a valuable protection from government. These things trump any issues regarding safety. Liberty has to trump order. But that doesn’t mean that the guys that are making arguments based on safety and order don’t have some good points. Again, NONE of those points trump the liberty point, but you guys just sound like idiots when somebody says, “guns are effective killing tools” and you say, “no more effective than knives or sticks.” That’s just retarded. If a stick was as effective of a killing tool as a gun, our military would use sticks instead of guns. You would hunt with sticks instead of guns. And crime in Vancouver would be as bad as crime in Seattle. But in real life, guns are a brilliantly designed tool that makes killing really really easy. So if somebody gets in a killing mood, he can do a lot more damage with a gun than he could without.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 24, 2009 at 0950 hrs
There was in fact a time when sticks were used tokill. In some places of the world today, people are not allowed to carry a stick because they are still considered a weapon.
What is missing in way too many posts is a little component we cann education. Arguments are mostly emotional which is a lot like nailing jello to the wall.
You are afraid of what you don’t know, and I must say several of you have done a great job sharing your ignorance of the judicious use of lethal force.
You are also too willing to talk trash about those of us who inderstand the law, particularily when conditions exist making it lawful to take someones life without their permission. Two armed men entering your yard without any notice or reason, with their guns drawn and pointed at you comes to mind.
If someone wants to kill (as criminals often do) they are going to do it, if only for sport. You read about it daily.
Those of us who are armed, trained, understand and obey the laws, do not act like criminals with our guns. We understand the consequencesand the responsibilities of carrying lethal force. No training is required to carry a gun in Wisconsin today, but Brad decided that becoming educated before he carried a gun made a good sense.
Posted by ccwtrainer on February 24, 2009 at 1031 hrs
I will say this about guys like Keith and Capper…
I think YOU guys are the ones out of touch here.
There are probably what… 20 neighbors on Brads street. One was “concerned” and calls the cops. I’ll bet if you went and asked the rest you’ll probably find 1 or 2 other people who didn’t like it and the rest did.
JSonline posted an opinion poll. Of the 433 responses with the exception of about 5 of them, nearly unanimously people have no concern over the handgun in the holster on the hip. So who’s really out of touch here?
go ahead, read em for yourself:
http://www.jsonline.com/forums/39730232.htmlI think Keith and Capper have a very myopic view of the world. As is typical for guys like them they assume the rest of the world is as paranoid, fearful and non-trusting of their fellow man as they are. Simple not the case.
I truly hope that you 2 find a way to expand your horizons a little bit. Come out from under the rock so to speak. Pull the blanket off from over your head… whatever. When you do you might finally realize like the overwhelming majority of citizens do, who the good guys and who the bad guys really are. I don’t think you will. I don’t think you have the intellectual process to put logic ahead of emotion and fear, but none-the-less, thats what I hope for you.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 24, 2009 at 1031 hrs
xx, my compliments on your post, except for the last sentence which reeks of superiority. If there was emotion of this string, it didn’t come from cap or myself. We refrained from the insults. Can’t say the same for the other side.
But if I may, I’d like to point something out.
You say:
As is typical for guys like them they assume the rest of the world is as paranoid, fearful and non-trusting of their fellow man as they are.
Then if you trust your fellow man, then why the gun? I don’t own a gun because if am not paranoid, fearful and I do give people the benefit of the doubt, except JJ who did threaten me with his gun. I could suggest some real nice helplines.My house was broken into last week and a gun is the furthest thing from my mind because I know:
1) When the time can to use it chances are I would not use it properly.
2) They probably would have taken the gun.
As for the poll, it is hardly scientific. Stuff like this draws gun supporters like like flies.
Polls show most people want more regulations on guns.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 24, 2009 at 1217 hrs
I think Keith and Capper have a very myopic view of the world. As is typical for guys like them they assume the rest of the world is as paranoid, fearful and non-trusting of their fellow man as they are. Simple not the case.
Neither Keith or Capper have shown themselves to be fearful of society in general. They have questioned the paranoia and fear of society of you and others that are arguing the point. The only argument to the “fear factor” and its relation to open carry is “it is none of their business”. I have said that I don’t care what an individual does on his own property as Brad has done. When the argument carries over to the street then I think the reason to carry is to intimidate others so as to not become a victim thus exposing a fear. That “intimidation factor” causes other “law abiding” citizens to become fearful of the armed person.
I can see the fear and paranoia in those wanting to carry everywhere they go more than in those who are comfortable going into society without being armed. Only by being armed do they feel safe.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 24, 2009 at 1221 hrs
Thanks for posting this Owen.
You ARE living under tyranny and we are doing all we can to change that. It’s taken 137 years to get to this point, but we are finally here.
Many people who are paying attention to this case, realize they woke up with a right they did not know they had all along.
The states “new” 137 year old open carry law needs to be enforced by the states top cop. Every law enforcement officer needs tostand down if a citizen is lawfully carrying an unconcealed gun. No excuses!!!
Just do your job JB before a cop who seriously over reacts to the sight of a gun get’s themself shot or they shoot an innocent person. Why are you in hiding instead of providing much needed guidance to all officers?
There is no turning back now.
Posted by ccwtrainer on February 24, 2009 at 1225 hrs
Keith,
I applaud you for recognizing your lack of experience with guns. I don’t mean that to sound bad. I truly appreciate it when people who don’t know how to use a weapon recognize that fact and act accordingly. I have a high degree of confidence that if you did ever want to use a gun that you would take the appropriate training. Thank you for that.
I’d like to respond to your two points from my perspective.
1) When the time can to use it chances are I would not use it properly.
I would. I grew up shooting and have probably fired hundreds of thousands of rounds over the years. I know my own guns very well and have full confidence that I know how to operate them even in a stressful situation.
2) They probably would have taken the gun.
Statistically, this is very unlikely when the gun owner is experienced. Yes, it happens, but it is quite rare. The most common situation is that a homeowner shows a gun and the bad guy runs away. In my mind, that is the ideal situation. I don’t want to shoot anyone.
When I took training for my concealed carry license, we spent a lot of time on the appropriate use of lethal force. Essentially the instructor told us (he’s a ex-cop) that if you pull the trigger - even if you are completely justified - it will cost you $30k or more. I’d shoot someone to protect myself or my family because in the balance of things, my life and the lives of my family are more important than almost any amount of money, but it’s not a decision I would ever make lightly.
Posted by Owen on February 24, 2009 at 1229 hrs
One or two last comments.
Being on ones own property has nothing to do with anything. The state carry law applies boarder to boarder as does the states constitution. Get over it.
“When the argument carries over to the street then I think the reason to carry is to intimidate others so as to not become a victim thus exposing a fear. That “intimidation factor” causes other “law abiding” citizens to become fearful of the armed person.
I can see the fear and paranoia in those wanting to carry everywhere they go more than in those who are comfortable going into society without being armed. Only by being armed do they feel safe.”
This is total BS. Being armed I am safer. That is all I care about. You can take care of yourself or not, I don’t worry about your safety. When sheep see me armed in public, no one has ever gone screaming and running the other way. I have been openly carrying for 5 years, 7 months and 23 days more or less. Your comments are simply your irrational fantasy.
BTW, every time you see “I think” together in a sentence, it means you are not stating facts but your best guess.
Carry on.
Posted by ccwtrainer on February 24, 2009 at 1238 hrs
Statistically, this is very unlikely when the gun owner is experienced. Yes, it happens, but it is quite rare. The most common situation is that a homeowner shows a gun and the bad guy runs away. In my mind, that is the ideal situation. I don’t want to shoot anyone.
I believe that conceal carry would have passed if more training were required. Most people are not afraid of the gun but of the potentially volitile situation that may happen because of the presence of one.
I would have full confidence being around someone like Owen knowing that he has had considerable training and experience. That requirement was not written into the law. It also put the responsibility on local sheriffs departments to issue the permits which was a liability they did not want.
Law enforcement would still have to have a right to check the permits without question which might rile up some permit holders but how else would they know if the person carrying has one.
Protecting your property and family has never been questioned. That is the root of the 2nd Amendment.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 24, 2009 at 1247 hrs
The emphirical data from the 433 responses to the Milwaukee Journal on what people would do if they saw their neighbor planting a tree with a hostered gun are most interesting. Overwhealmingly, they say that they would not be disturbed by that.
In this respect, the criminal jury instructions on Disorderly Conduct are instructive. They speak of “loud, profane, boisterous ...” conduct, and note that conduct that would disturb an “overly sensitive” person is not disorderly conduct.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 24, 2009 at 1253 hrs
It’s interesting, but it’s certainly not a scientific study. My guess is that it’s probably stuffed with irate gun enthusiasts—the only people likely following the story at all.
Posted by scott on February 24, 2009 at 1256 hrs
This is total BS. Being armed I am safer. That is all I care about. You can take care of yourself or not, I don’t worry about your safety. When sheep see me armed in public, no one has ever gone screaming and running the other way. I have been openly carrying for 5 years, 7 months and 23 days more or less. Your comments are simply your irrational fantasy.
I think that you helped me make my point.
I think you are an arrogant ass for referring to your fellow human beings as “sheep”.
I think you carry a gun and refer to sheep as a means to intimidate people to stay away from you.
Good for you!!
Carry on.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 24, 2009 at 1256 hrs
Scott,
No one claimed it was a scientific study. The “feedback” question was posted on the homepage of JSOnline on the day of the hearing in West Allis.
Of the 433 responses that were on there as of this morning, about 300 of them came on that day while it was posted on the home page. The audience was whatever the audience of the online version of JSonline was that day.
You have nothing other than your desire to dismiss the responses as evidence that it was “stuffed by irate gun enthusiasts”.
In that regard? Who’s irate? We won that morning. I was there. There wasn’t an irate person in the bunch.
As for being “stuffed” you are in denial. You’re going to try to tell me that all the people who see that on the front page of JSOnline and only the “irate gun enthusiasts” read it or respond. Please… There is no logic in that assumption, but I guess you guys have no choice. Accepting the reality that you guys are on the fringe of this issue and the overwhelming majority of people have no problem with it whatsoever is too much to wrap your head around.
I suppose in some ways its not totally your fault. As I’ve mentioned before, we live in one of only 2 states (us and illinois) that by their utter refusal to allow citizens to conceal carry have fostered an intelligence void in a part of the general public with regard to guns that does not exist in other states.
Thats what I mean in my earlier post when I refer to guys like Keith and Cappers view of guns and their utility vs. “danger” as myopic.
There is all the data “all the scientific”
studies in the world AND real life experience to demonstrate the inconsequence of their objections/fears/criticism of guns, their supposed danger in the hands of law-abiding citizens, and the decision of people to go armed as they please without having to demonstrate a “reason” deemd worthy by 2 anti-gun fear-dwellers.People in Minnesota don’t need to specualte “what would happen” if law abiding citizens went armed as they pleased. THEY NEED JUST WALK DOWN THE STREET AND KNOW.
People in 48 other states don’t have to speculate on increased “impulse killings” because the gun is “there”
They need just go about their life and SEE that IT DOESN’T HAPPEN because guns are being carried by people ALL AROUND THEM.
Unfortunately for you guys who live in a sheltered state like wisconsin, your fears of what “might be” have a petri-dish of lack of knowledge to proliferate in.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 24, 2009 at 1330 hrs
Oh, but I will add… Thanks to guys like Brad Krause, that will change. Thanks to guys like Brad and others who are willing to educate others through conversation or through practice (of open carrying) the intelligence void in wisconsin will shrink.
People will be made aware that it is and has ALWAYS been completely lawful to carry a weapon so long as it isn’t concealled. And as people continue to open carry, the fearful will realize there is no increased danger. There is no risk of the gun “falling out of the holster and going off” people don’t suddenly “resort to violence because the gun made it so easy”
We have a long way to go, but last week went a long way to beggining to drive the fear and ignorance out of wisconsin. And then we will truly have something to celebrate and we can be comforted knowing only illinois is the laughing stock of the rest of our law-abiding gun-owning, freedom-practicing country.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 24, 2009 at 1336 hrs
I believe that conceal carry would have passed if more training were required.
Concealed carry did pass, twice, did it not…. only to be vetoed by our ass of a governor.
Most people are not afraid of the gun but of the potentially volitile situation that may happen because of the presence of one.
What a bunch of shit.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 24, 2009 at 1351 hrs
We have a long way to go, but last week went a long way to beggining to drive the fear and ignorance out of wisconsin.
By continuing to call people fearful and ignorant, you only cement those thoughts in their mindset. I am not sure how you became so confident and all knowing that the rest of us are lesser beings in your presence.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 24, 2009 at 1354 hrs
Well moveforward “the rest of us” being you capper and keith is a relatively small group.
And lets be real… You know as WELL as I do your mindset was already cemented regardless of what I say no?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 24, 2009 at 1420 hrs
xx, I’m in favor of concealed carry. I just think whether we pass it or not will have no real impact on public safety or crime. I’m in favor of it because nobody has a compelling interest in preventing people from doing it.
And I didn’t say someone said it was a scientific study. I’m just pointing out that it wasn’t. And, no, the respondants were not whomever was reading the front page of the JS that day. The respondents self-select. And I stand by my guess—which I do not hide the fact that it is a guess only—that the people most likely to self-select themselves to respond are almost certainly people who are the most passionate about second amendment rights issues, thus skewing the result.
The beautiful thing about this guess is that it could be disproved. A valid survey could be conducted which would either show that I’m right or wrong.
Posted by scott on February 24, 2009 at 1432 hrs
Concealed carry did pass, twice, did it not…. only to be vetoed by our ass of a governor.
Maybe he would have if the bill would have included more training and safeguards. There are many “law abiding” citizens who do not have the mental capacity to handle guns. The law was not specific enough. They should have put it up for referendum.Well moveforward “the rest of us” being you capper and keith is a relatively small group.
If the group is so small then why haven’t our legislators put it up for referendum? This should have been done several years ago as it does not have much of a chance right now.
And lets be real… You know as WELL as I do your mindset was already cemented regardless of what I say no?
I am in favor of a law that requires more safeguards to improve public safety. “Law abiding” is only a reflection of not being caught. Mental tests should have been included as it is for most law enforcement agencies.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 24, 2009 at 1504 hrs
Hey Keith -
I hate to burst your paradigm a bit but
1) I did not threaten you with my gun
2) I don’t actually own a gun
3) I don’t belong to the NRA
4) I am not a manI won’t wait for an apology.
All that, and I still think the 2nd amendment trumps your (and capper’s) feelings.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 24, 2009 at 1509 hrs
Maybe he would have if the bill would have included more training and safeguards.
Let’s try it this way. What specifically would have to be added to the bill that passed both the House and Senate in 2005? From what I can see there were a number of safeguards. And from the statements of Jim Doyle over the past years, there is no way he would have passed it in any shape or form… so your argument is BS.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 24, 2009 at 1524 hrs
This should have been done several years ago as it does not have much of a chance right now.
I agree… Doyle will veto any cc bill that gets to his desk. Which is fine with me. Open Carry is LEGAL and I don’t have to pay King Doyle a user-fee in the form of a license.
I do suspect, however, that between the SUPREME COURTS edmonishment of the legislature to create a permit system, COMBINED with the proliferation of open carry (since its the only legal means) Doyle will probably realize in a very short time that Concealled Carry is the best option they are going to get. Except now they have lost leverage as many just would as soon open carry and won’t support the PPA anymore.
I will much prefer to open carry. RIGHT NOW open carry will not net you arrest in most places in Wisconsin. (west allis may not be one of them) but open carry won’t even get you stopped or detained in most places. In the meantime rogue police chiefs like they have in west allis will soon have no choice but to stop raping citizens of their rights when police departments face civil judgements against them from private citizens.
Maybe he would have if the bill would have included more training and safeguards. There are many “law abiding” citizens who do not have the mental capacity to handle guns. The law was not specific enough. They should have put it up for referendum.
Well I guess they should have taken what they could have then. Open carry requires NO license, requires NO training, requires NO application, only that you aren’t a felon and follow other prohibitions (school zone etc)
Maybe you should call doyle and BEG him to pass concealled carry so you can have at least SOME of your desired restrictions on our right to keep and bear arms. It may be too late though. The cat is out of the bag now. I supported PPA back in the day. I don’t now. Why would I?
How ironic will it be when republicans BLOCK PPA or other CCW legislation if it places restrictions on peoples right to open carry?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 24, 2009 at 1631 hrs
XX said: “How ironic will it be when republicans BLOCK PPA or other CCW legislation if it places restrictions on peoples right to open carry?”
The next carry law is a blank piece of paper today. I can tell you that it will not look anything like the last two PPA’s.
First, we do not want concealed carry. We want carry.
If there are too many restrictions added like mental health checks, high fees, and fingerprints just to name a few, we’ll just kill the bill ourselves and just keep constitutional open carry with very few restrictions, no training, no background checks, and no lists.
You can thank Jim Doyle for making this possible. He is getting what he wished for.
Posted by ccwtrainer on February 24, 2009 at 2011 hrs
XX, I do not expect any serious talk of writing any sort of carry bill for at least several years. That’s okay.
Let’s give constitutional carry a chance to catch on first and log a few years of good experience with a couple hundred thousand people carrying guns every day all over the state, with maybe a few (or a lot of) examples of defensive gun uses where intended victims successfully stopped a bad guy’s attack.
When the time to consider the next carry bill finally arrives, we will be armed with actual historical experience specific to Wisconsin to argue our points.
There is no reason or need to write another carry bill right now but it’s time will come. When the time finally arrives, we will not be the ones bending over to grab our ankles though.
Posted by ccwtrainer on February 24, 2009 at 2041 hrs
This post is really a good one in respect of general awareness. thanks for the information
ThanksPosted by Smith -Massachusetts Personal Injury Lawyer on March 19, 2009 at 0205 hrs
Total Entries: 20000
Total Comments: 134051
Most Recent Entry: 05/25/2012 06:26 am
Most Recent Comment on: 05/25/2012 10:25 am
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 144
Total anonymous users: 1
Most Recent Visitor on: 05/25/2012 10:54 am
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).