Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

WI panel OKs gun bill; columnist shows bankruptcy of anti-CCW mindset

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Guns Donate to DU
 
PavePusher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-28-11 10:20 AM
Original message
WI panel OKs gun bill; columnist shows bankruptcy of anti-CCW mindset
"WI panel OKs gun bill; columnist shows bankruptcy of anti-CCW mindset


Concealed carry took a huge step forward in Wisconsin yesterday as the Senate Judiciary Committee approved legislation that would allow constitutional carry of defensive sidearms by private citizens without first getting a permit.

Here in Washington State, gun owners can carry concealed with a license (CPL) or openly without a license. Many Northwest gun rights activists, as noted by this column here, are paying close attention to Wisconsin, for reasons that will be explained momentarily.

The Wisconsin bill would allow people to carry firearms into the State Capitol. That provision has raised alarms among Democrats who either oppose the thought of firearms in the capitol, or just oppose concealed carry altogether. A National Rifle Association lobbyist, however, reportedly thinks the measure is "ideal." "


http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-in-seattle/wi-panel-...

More at link...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
rfranklin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-28-11 10:23 AM
Response to Original message
1. More guns for everyone!
That's ideal!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-28-11 10:34 AM
Response to Reply #1
7. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
rfranklin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-28-11 11:10 AM
Response to Reply #7
26. The more guns around the more that will fall into criminal hands...
More people become fearful. More guns. More criminals with guns.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eqfan592 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-28-11 11:16 AM
Response to Reply #26
27. Simple solution to that.
Get rid of the criminals, leave the guns alone.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rfranklin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-28-11 02:33 PM
Response to Reply #27
44. That is very logical...how will you accomplish that?
We still sort live in a nation of laws.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sharesunited Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-28-11 10:25 AM
Response to Original message
2. More proof that the elimination of guns and ammo must be accomplished thru the federal courts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eqfan592 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-28-11 10:29 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. LOL, the courts dont work that way. Nice try tho. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PavePusher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-28-11 10:31 AM
Response to Reply #2
4. If you had said "Constitutional Amendment", you'd at least be on correct legal ground...
if very shakey political footing....

Good luck with that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DonP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-28-11 10:34 AM
Response to Reply #2
6. Of course, because it's obviously against the will of the people
and the only way a rapidly shrinking handful of self important, elitist authoritarians can hope for even temporary progress, is to try use the courts to over ride the will of the people.

Yeah, that's worked well in Heller and McDonald.

You can't possibly achieve your objectives through the electoral process, because of all those poor dumb slobs that think it's actually their right. They just don't know what's best for themselves. They need their obvious self appointed intellecutal superiors to better guide them - for their own good.

Heaven save us from self aggrandizing pompous windbags.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lawodevolution Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-28-11 10:37 AM
Response to Reply #6
9. SU is the poster who proposed employing the Mexican and Canadian armies to confiscate
Guns door to door in the USA.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sharesunited Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-28-11 10:50 AM
Response to Reply #9
18. You are mistaken.
Edited on Sat May-28-11 10:52 AM by sharesunited
And turning off the spigot of new guns and ammunition alleviates the need for "confiscation."

Let the drought begin.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sharesunited Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-28-11 10:40 AM
Response to Reply #6
11. Racial equality achieved in the federal courts was against the will of the People too.
2A enthusiasts will need to be dragged kicking and screaming in much the same way.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eqfan592 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-28-11 10:42 AM
Response to Reply #11
14. LOL!
Yes, RESTRICTING the rights of millions of law abiding gun owners is IDENTICAL to the courts recognizing that the rights that all white people enjoyed extended to people of color as well. Yep, you hit the nail right on the head!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sharesunited Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-28-11 10:49 AM
Response to Reply #14
17. Suffering the injustice of innocents deprived of ALL their Constitutional rights by gunfire?
The scale tips against guns when you look at things from the perspective of the People instead of the NRA.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eqfan592 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-28-11 11:01 AM
Response to Reply #17
23. Except you have no evidence...
..that shows that the gun somehow is the driving force behind the crime. Your argument has zero validity. A court judge would laugh at your face and maybe even charge you with contempt for wasting the courts time.

We need to go after the root causes, not this childish bullshit that you are proposing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sharesunited Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-28-11 11:22 AM
Response to Reply #23
29. Over the counter availability of morphine is not the cause of morphine addiction.
Over the internet availability of child pornography is not the cause of child pornography.

How does your defense of guns and ammo reconcile with public policy in these other realms?

It does not and cannot be reconciled.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eqfan592 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-28-11 11:25 AM
Response to Reply #29
30. Lol, guns don't compare to child porn.
Guns actually serve a useful purpose to millions of law abiding citizens. There, done. You want to stop criminal use of firearms? Then target the criminals.

There, done. Glad we had this talk and could settle this once and for all, shares.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sharesunited Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-28-11 11:29 AM
Response to Reply #30
32. If guns and ammo are available to the law abiding, they are available to criminals.
This is particularly evident when the law abiding lapse and act capriciously.

You are law abiding right up until the moment you aren't.

Obviously, it's never going to be settled for me as long as you can go anywhere in the country and legally buy a gun and ammunition.

Need to make 'em scarce.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rrneck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-28-11 11:37 AM
Response to Reply #32
33. So is air. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eqfan592 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-28-11 11:40 AM
Response to Reply #32
34. We need to make SOMETHING scarce...
...and that something is criminals. Your plan does nothing to address our crime problem. It only targets a specific implement.

We need to target the root causes of crime. And guns is not one of those.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sharesunited Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-28-11 12:07 PM
Response to Reply #34
36. If you don't think that guns enable and embolden crime, then you are in a state of willful denial.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eqfan592 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-28-11 12:19 PM
Response to Reply #36
38. OR I'm paying attention to the evidence available...
...and not living in fantasy land like you are.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PavePusher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-28-11 12:22 PM
Response to Reply #32
39. If we make enough objects scarce, will we eliminate crime?
Heck, will we even make a dent in it?

If you believe so, please present your evidence.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sharesunited Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-28-11 12:38 PM
Response to Reply #39
41. When someone can stand up in a crowd and kill a dozen and wound two dozen around them
we should consider making the means of that crime scarce.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PavePusher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-28-11 12:49 PM
Response to Reply #41
42. Damn. I guess they'll be coming to pick up all my house-hold cleaning supplies.
And nearly everything in my garage.

Your obtuseness has been mildly amusing in the past, but is now well past banal. You and jpak need to bump heads and come up with some new routines.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Oneka Donating Member (319 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-28-11 02:01 PM
Response to Reply #41
43. So you're saying that
We should make boxcutters scarce?
Good plan.

I'll write my congressman right away.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DonP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-28-11 10:52 AM
Response to Reply #11
19. Actually, no it wasn't against the will of the people
You really need to spend more time with a history book in front of you instead of that damn mirror you talk to all the time.

There were a handful of Southern states reluctant to abide by the civil rights act, led sadly by Southern Democrats or Dixiecrats. The overwhelming sentiment in the US was for civil right legislation. LBJ got it passed with a bi-partisan coalition that overrode the Dixiecrats, who morphed into the Southern Republicans after a brief fling at third party status. It was ultimately enforced by Federal Marshalls and the States own National Guard.

Civil rights was a US majority held belief, unlike your wet dream of gun confiscation. But that makes you and your whole "gun confiscation via the courts and foreign armies" thing sound even sillier and more pompous. Sorry.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sharesunited Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-28-11 10:54 AM
Response to Reply #19
20. I know my history. The courts led the way. And the north was no land of enlightenment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DonP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-28-11 11:02 AM
Response to Reply #20
24. This from a guy that thinks the Civil War erased the 2nd amendment? Ha!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sharesunited Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-28-11 11:17 AM
Response to Reply #24
28. The 2A was an appeasement given to skeptics of a federal government to gain ratification.
It was their "opt out" fail safe. It gave them a warm and fuzzy about being able to shoot government oppressors if they ever felt the need to do so.

Secession by the confederacy was a test of that "opt out."

Conclusion: There is no right to armed rebellion.

Therefore: There is no right to the means of armed rebellion.

Conclusion: The 2A was mooted by the Civil War.

Whether you can own a gun and ammo is subject to strict regulation and prohibition. It is not in any way whatsoever a "right." Anyone who claims that it is, including Scalia and Thomas, is simply incorrect and is disregarding one of the most significant and lasting effects of the war.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Oneka Donating Member (319 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-28-11 02:54 PM
Response to Reply #28
45. I really don't follow your logic.
Edited on Sat May-28-11 03:02 PM by Oneka
you conclude that,"there is no right to armed rebellion"

The sole basis of your conclusion stems from the union, imposing its will on the confederacy, THROUGH USE OF ARMS. How is it that the conclusion of a war, is the basis, for any of my rights to be dissolved?

You also conclude that "the 2A was mooted by the Civil War" Then it should be no problem at all for our government, to make it official and
repeal it then, right? Why hasn't this happened in the 150 or so years since the Civil War?

If there is no right to the means of armed rebellion, then are you suggesting that the US military destroy all of its military armaments?

It's not just civilians that engage in armed rebellion.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-28-11 03:00 PM
Response to Reply #28
46. How can you say "The 2A was mooted by the Civil War" ...
that is obviously totally false and is so foolish as to be laughable. I won't even bother to address it.

By the way do you have any understanding of how close the North was to losing the Civil War?

I will start my remarks tonight about the Battle of Gettysburg with what I call "the big question." Robert E. Lee and the Army of Northern Virginia previously had defeated in battle every Union commander brought into the field against them, including four commanders of the Army of the Potomac in succession; McClellan, Pope, Burnside and Hooker. Lee's army, just two months before Gettysburg, had won a masterpiece of a battle against that Union Army at Chancellorsville. The big question is this: how could the Army of Northern Virginia have performed so poorly in comparison with that Union Army at Gettysburg? And, how could Lee lose at Gettysburg when he had won his previous battles against the Army of the Potomac while being outnumbered in every battle? And how could the Union Army of the Potomac defeat such a successful commander as Lee with a commander like Meade who had been in command of the Union Army for only 3 days?

My short answer to that question is: the Confederate Army under Lee was defeated because it made more mistakes at Gettysburg than did the Union Army under Meade. Also chance, which frequently plays an important part in battles, favored Meade and his Union Army more that it did the Confederate Army under Lee. Also, another important factor was that the Union Army managed its defensive role in the battle much better than the Confederate Army did its offensive role. This is just another way of saying that in this battle command and control in Meade's Union Army was much better than it was in Lee's Confederate Army.
http://www.4point2.org/moore-2.htm



It is not hard to picture the following scenario. Jackson survives, and continues to lead a superior force against poorly lead Union troops. At Gettysburg, Stuart warns Lee of Union troop movements, allowing Lee to capture the high ground. The British break the Union blockade, allowing the Southern economy to flourish and the troops to be re-supplied. Key railroads remain in Southern hands, allowing for troop movement and provisioning. And the Mississippi River stays in Southern hands, forcing the Union to fight on two fronts.

Had the Confederacy achieved these five goals, they most likely would have won the war. The Confederacy would probably have become their own country and the United States would today consist of thirty-nine and not fifty states.
http://clevelandcivilwarroundtable.com/articles/society...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rrneck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-28-11 03:32 PM
Response to Reply #28
47. sharesunited Inc. weighs in again...


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinkerton_National_Detecti...
The Pinkerton National Detective Agency, usually shortened to the Pinkertons, is a private U.S. security guard and detective agency established by Allan Pinkerton in 1850. Pinkerton became famous when he claimed to have foiled a plot to assassinate president-elect Abraham Lincoln, who later hired Pinkerton agents for his personal security during the Civil War. Pinkerton's agents performed services ranging from security guarding to private military contracting work. At its height, the Pinkerton National Detective Agency employed more agents than there were members of the standing army of the United States of America, causing the state of Ohio to outlaw the agency due to fears it could be hired as a private army or militia. Pinkerton was the largest private law enforcement organization in the world at the height of its power.<1>

During the labor unrest of the late 19th century and early 20th century, businessmen hired the Pinkerton Agency to provide agents that would infiltrate unions, to supply guards to keep strikers and suspected unionists out of factories, and sometimes to recruit goon squads to intimidate workers. The best known such confrontation was the Homestead Strike of 1892, in which Pinkerton agents were called in to enforce the strikebreaking measures of Henry Clay Frick, acting on behalf of Andrew Carnegie, who was abroad; the ensuing conflicts between Pinkerton agents and striking workers led to several deaths on both sides. The Pinkertons were also used as guards in coal, iron, and lumber disputes in Illinois, Michigan, New York, and Pennsylvania, as well as the Great Railroad Strike of 1877.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ed Suspicious Donating Member (336 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-28-11 10:33 AM
Response to Original message
5. Hang your gunbelts at the door at the local taverns? :wildwest;
This really seems insane to me. I support gun ownership but I don't want some hot tempered jackass carrying pistols around me and my kids. Road rage is about to get much more dangerous I think.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eqfan592 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-28-11 10:36 AM
Response to Reply #5
8. It hasn't in the states that already allow it.
So why would it be any different in Wisconsin or any other state? Getting pissed at somebody does not equate to a willingness to use deadly force on somebody.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nebenaube Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-28-11 10:41 AM
Response to Reply #8
12. Well, the baseline blood-alcholol concentrations perhaps?
We sort of have a rep for drinking.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PavePusher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-28-11 10:37 AM
Response to Reply #5
10. Surely you can point to statistical data, yes? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ed Suspicious Donating Member (336 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-28-11 10:41 AM
Response to Reply #10
13. It's just a gut feeling. Christ sake.
Maybe instead of concealed carry we could do wide out in the fucking open carry so I know who to stay away from.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eqfan592 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-28-11 10:44 AM
Response to Reply #13
15. That's already legal in Wisconsin.
Many open carriers have food drives and open picnics in parks on a semi-regular basis. They do so to give people a chance to gain a better understanding of them and to combat the knee jerk reactions of people such as yourself.

But please, stay away if you feel it is necessary.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ed Suspicious Donating Member (336 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-28-11 10:46 AM
Response to Reply #15
16. I hope to.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DonP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-28-11 11:00 AM
Response to Reply #16
22. Wow! Where are you going to go to hide?
After Wisconsin the only state that doesn't have CCW yet is safe and secure Illinois. There are affordable apartments available in "gun free", safe Englewood, Pilsen and Chatham in Chicago.

All those CCW related shootings in Minneapolis and Grand Rapids. The death toll climbing in Des Moines, Topeka and Duluth. Oh, wait, none of that has happened. In fact violent crime is at a 40 year low following 4 years of record gun sales and it's pretty obvious that more guns, in the hands of the law abiding, doen't mean more crime or violence.

Let's see we have "your gut" - and we have reality, with FBI and DoJ statistics. Tough call. Tell us more about "your gut" and what it uses to make decisions.

Or ... you could actually do a little tiny bit of research on the issue and have an informed opinion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PavePusher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-28-11 11:27 AM
Response to Reply #22
31. For the "gut", I recommend lots of cabbage.
Or any other high-fiber food...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gejohnston Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-28-11 12:17 PM
Response to Reply #22
37. Don't forget the daily shoot outs in Burlington, VT
Morning duels in Casper, Wyoming
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PavePusher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-28-11 12:26 PM
Response to Reply #37
40. We still have shoot-outs in the streets here in Arizona every day...
http://www.ok-corral.com /

Oh wait... That's a re-enactment of a singular incident, that was very rare, for the benefit of tourists, to fleece them of their hard-won silver.

Not reality at all then, I guess. Bugger.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PavePusher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-28-11 10:54 AM
Response to Reply #13
21. Or maybe you could look around at the available data....
and not resort to hysteria and/or hyperbole and bigotry.

Your choice, of course.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cleanhippie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-28-11 11:07 AM
Response to Reply #13
25. And that is the problem. People are proposing laws based on nothing more than "gut feeling"
and most of the time, those "gut feelings" do not mirror reality in any way.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MicaelS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-28-11 11:41 AM
Response to Reply #13
35. Bush used "gut feelings" all the time to make judgements
Look where that got us. I value your "gut feelings" as much as his.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Sep 02nd 2014, 05:35 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Guns Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC