notme wrote on Jun 10, 2008 2:08 PM:
" It took some digging, but I located the original source for "gun insurance." The article first appeared in the "Progressive Review" back in 1999.
A web site entitled "Gun Guys" decided to re-publish the article in May of 2008. Gun Guys intern gets a HUGE amount of their funding from the "Joyce Foundation" which is one of, if not THE largest, anti-gun PAC in the Midwest donating millions of dollars to the "Violence Policy Center" in Washington DC, "For general support and its continued research, public education, and technical assistance to promote gun policy reform in 2007, particularly in Illinois and Wisconsin."
It is obvious that this entire concept is coming forth from the "progressive" or extreme left movement serving only one purpose to infringe on our constitutional rights. They (Joyce Foundation) also appear to support limiting free speech. "
notme wrote on Jun 7, 2008 3:41 AM:
" We now agree on another issue, with the exception of Erickson, as he has no historical record, we agree that ALL the rest of the individuals running for local races this fall have made decisions we do not approve of.
As for a background check: ya that gave me a chuckle. Be assured, because of my private sector job, and volunteer work I do, Ive had more background checks than there are fleas on a dogs back.
I would like to thank you for keeping our exchange civil. Too many times on blogs, threads break down to insults and the point gets lost. Ill keep you in my prayers and hope you have a quick recovery. "
kamikazefaase wrote on Jun 6, 2008 2:42 PM:
" "notme": I would be willing to accept your idea of holding informational meetings concernng this issue if it will help deter misunderstandings. To build trust, we must make some kind of effort on both sides of the issue. However, I hope we can somehow work this out while I am dealing with stomach cancer and all its treatment. I don't need to have a background check on you, do I? I hope you can laugh a little at that comment. "
kamikazefaase wrote on Jun 6, 2008 2:29 PM:
" "notme": You must have missed the rally in La Crosse for Bush when Kapaneke and Huebsch were standing side by side with one George W. Bush running for president. They were running for office too and stated that they supported each through exchanged endorsements. I don't see the confusion on my part. Each of them gave blank endorsements causing the problem for both Danny boy and Mikey. I won't forget the liar and his fools concerning Iraq and failing to get bin Laden, CIA or not. It's that kind of failed policy that has America unable to fulfill its obligations to our fellow Americans in all areas: education, defense, social policy including Social Security and health care. We will be paying for this mistake for quite some time. "
notme wrote on Jun 6, 2008 1:35 PM:
" We know Shilling is apposed supporting ALL constitutional rights, her statements and record show this. We know Hancock favors VIOLATING freedom of speech and/or civil rights based on her actions and record. We are uncertain where Johnson stands on constitutional rights issues, but based on the fact that she has been "recruited" by an out of state PAC, it doesn't look good there either. "
notme wrote on Jun 6, 2008 2:44 AM:
" Mr. faase, I invite you to join me to encourage our local officials to hold informational meetings throughout the county. The purpose of which will be to educate the public, regarding their right to carry. We can have representatives from local businesses, local law enforcement, the district attorney's office, the county board, and our state legislature. I am certain that Ms. Johnson, being a county board member, and Ms' Hancock being a school board president should have no trouble organizing such a meetings. I am also certain the Mr. Huebsch, Mr. Kapanke, and Mr. Erickson would be willing to attend.
Given that we now agree that we do have the right to bear arms, and that open carry of a firearm is the preferred method as a way to exercise that right, will you join me in educating the public? "
notme wrote on Jun 6, 2008 2:41 AM:
" I am humbled by your acceptance of the fact that we do have the constitutional right to bear arms, and that open carry of a firearm is the preferred method. What remains is the need to educate the populace as a whole, so they too can come to realize citizens not only have this right, but also the correct method for them to exercise their right. Education is necessary so individuals do not panic when they see an individual wearing a side arm. "
notme wrote on Jun 6, 2008 2:41 AM:
" Mr. faase:
The only posts using GOP have been yours. I specifically stated that Erickson, Kapanke, and Huebsch had rounded up no one so I fail to understand that part of your post. You somehow want to link two local politicians and a citizen who wasnt even involved in politics in 2001 to the actions of the executive branch of national government. I can find no record of Erickson, Kapanke, or Huebsch stating they were against citizens exercising their constitutional rights nor can I find any record showing they have ever been part of the federal executive branch of the government, so Im not quite sure where that came from. I used historical examples to show how FEAR has been used to justify violating civil rights. "
kamikazefaase wrote on Jun 6, 2008 12:41 AM:
" "notme": Your June 5 @7:59am posting is the one in error. Your statement that the GOP side wouldn't be apart of the Middle Eastern persons round up is completely in error. Who was in charge of both the White House AND Congress...the GOP! Who did Bush support for local races...Kapanke and Huesbsch. Democrats didn't round up Japanese Americans either, if I recall, Congress was run by the GOP then too. The same party that was responsible for the Red Scare. I'm not out to round up people, I accept people regardless of race, color, creed, or most other means for which they have no control over. However, actions are a different matter. Carrying guns in public is an action that can be regulated by Congress. You can bear arms, but HOW YOU DO SO IS SUBJECT TO LAW. That's why we can say no to concealment. "
notme wrote on Jun 5, 2008 12:52 PM:
" All the gun control laws in the world will NOT deter the criminal who already does not respect the law. A law-abiding citizen, carrying a holstered firearm, poses no danger to "our citizenry." We have the right to free speech, but cannot yell fire in a crowded theater. State and federal law already restrict where we are permitted to carry. If you support an individuals right to protest against the government (an essential liberty) then you must support an individuals right to carry a firearm. Anything less is hypocrisy.
Niemoeller was talking about just that. The hypocrisy of saying "it doesn't directly affect me, so who cares" or "that's OK, we don't need that right anyway." About how allowing an injustice, however small, to stand will erode a free society to the point that there are no freedoms left. "
notme wrote on Jun 5, 2008 12:32 PM:
" Carrying a firearm is a constitutionally protected right. faase pointed out that open carry may cause FEAR resulting in panic, so to avoid the panic, simply conceal the firearm, (out of sight, out of mind) hence concealed carry.
I would also reiterate, "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety" and our constitutional rights by definition ARE our essential liberties. "
notme wrote on Jun 5, 2008 12:27 PM:
" PS, welcome to the conversation.
I will restate my original premise, as it seems to have gotten lost along the way.
The RIGHT to bear arms is an ABSOLUTE EXPRESS constitutional right. The Wisconsin Supreme Court has held, that the citizens MUST have a way to exercise this RIGHT. Further, it is my position that our elected officials should defend ALL constitutional rights, even if they don't agree with them. If they are not willing to do so, then we should CHANGE (get new) elected officials. "
P2 wrote on Jun 5, 2008 11:41 AM:
" Not me...you are partially correct. The person you quote was Martin Niemoeller and you got the quote correct. However...you are taking this quote waaaaaaay out of context to support carry concealed weapons.
I do not and will vigorously fight against any legislation or legislator who supports such initiatives. Gun control has nothing to do with hunting, those who say it does are simply not telling the truth. Gun control is about protecting our citizenry. If you want more protection, push for more law enforcement officers in your community. "
notme wrote on Jun 5, 2008 8:46 AM:
" I believe it was a German fella by that name of Niemller who said, "In Germany, they came first for the Communists, And I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist; And then they came for the trade unionists, And I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist; And then they came for the Jews, And I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew; And then . . . they came for me . . . And by that time there was no one left to speak up."
History shows that standing mute while civil rights are violated is the WORST of all actions. Johnson, and Hancock stand mute, but even more egregious is when individuals like Shilling and faase, condone violating those civil rights they do not agree with. "
notme wrote on Jun 5, 2008 8:29 AM:
" Mr. faase, in your Jun 5, 2008 1:32AM post, you acknowledge our right to bear arms.
So given that we now both agree, it is OUR RIGHT, you must stand together and defend this right as with all others, even if you don't agree with it. Failure to do so condones violating ones civil rights. "
notme wrote on Jun 5, 2008 8:20 AM:
" Let's look at this from another point of view.
The FFRF went after La Crosse and Holmen for violating "separation of church and state" although those exact words are NOT in the constitution. The courts upheld the La Crosse decision even though the MAJORITY wanted otherwise. The courts sided with the minority because of an interpretation of constitution.
By the same token, the rights of the minority is this case out way the DESIRE of the majority. Do you have the right to be safe, yes. Do you the right for recourse should someone misuse a firearm, yes. Do you have the right to prevent us from carrying because of your fear, no.
The courts have always upheld/protected the rights of the minority. "
notme wrote on Jun 5, 2008 7:59 AM:
" Mr. Erickson, Mr. Kapanke, and Mr. Huebsch have never "rounded up" anyone BUT Shilling, Johnson, and Hancock, like yourself, have openly condoned violating constitutional rights in the name of safety.
As I posted before, "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety" and our constitutional rights ARE essential liberties. "
notme wrote on Jun 5, 2008 7:53 AM:
" In one statement we see "No action that could have left the public exposed to further attacks would have be tolerated." JUSTIFICATION FOR "rounded up Middle Eastern persons, including Americans, for torture and withholding their rights." Does anybody see a contradiction here? "
kamikazefaase wrote on Jun 5, 2008 1:32 AM:
" "notme": Let's get this straight. You don't discriminate, but will subject the public to your need to carry weapons thus discriminating against their need for safety? You can't justify discriminating against others, but supports a party that rounded up Middle Eastern persons, including Americans, for torture and withholding their rights. I have never supported slavery. While I understood America's history concerning Native Americans and Japanese ones, I don't support doing such action either. I don't discriminate against people, but do expect the government to protect the public from wrecklessness created by those willing to spread such panic in society. Guntoters do just that. Neither constitution guarantees anyone the right to carry concealed weapons, just the right to bear arms. How arms are beared are subject to government law and the public has the right to selfpreservation. "
notme wrote on Jun 4, 2008 10:22 PM:
" Mr. Erickson, Mr. Kapanke, Mr. Huebsch, and the voters/readers who have followed this exchange, it is clear that "Progressives" like faase, Shilling, Johnson, and Hancock can justify discrimination and sacrificing essential liberties. "
notme wrote on Jun 4, 2008 10:21 PM:
" I am amazed that anyone can JUSTIFY the discrimination and civil rights violations the Native Americans, African Americans, or Japanese Americans were forced to live through, as I cannot justify discrimination of any kind.
Mr. faase, you and I will simply have to agree to disagree, as it is clear you are unable to see the flaw of your argument.
I think good old Ben Franklin addressed your position best when he wrote, "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." "
kamikazefaase wrote on Jun 4, 2008 1:39 PM:
" To "notme": Let's say Erickson shares similar viewpoints, except on the carry guns issue, with you. Are you not going to vote for him anyway? I'm sure Erickson will learn the Huebsch side of the issuse in an effort to win his party's support, but will not have the guts to be truthful concerning his real viewpoints. Since Republicans have been borrowing the future to pay for our current fiscal mess, I expect more of the same. "
kamikazefaase wrote on Jun 4, 2008 1:30 PM:
" Wow, I cannot believe we agreed somewhat on one of your postings example 9:23 concerning FEAR. I agree the public at times will overly react, but considering what happened Dec. 7,1941 and the events that led up to that do show certain actions had proper justification until proven otherwise. No action that could have left the public exposed to further attacks would have be tolerated. Similar acts were done concerning Native Americans in the fight for the expansion dominance vs peaceful coexistence, but that was a different point within our history. But notice both previous items involved guns and death, didn't they? I have always been against slavery for which was based on dominance and commerce, not fear. "
kamikazefaase wrote on Jun 4, 2008 1:09 PM:
" You assume I travel to Minnesota for any reason. What business do I have there? I would prefer to live in Wisconsin where people don't carry concealed weapons. That way I know who I can ask directions from without fear of getting my head shot off because I didn't see them carrying. "
kamikazefaase wrote on Jun 4, 2008 1:02 PM:
" I don't fear an African American coming down the street because many of them don't carry weapons and want to be accepted in society. I reserve the right to be fearful of anyone carrying a gun in public because they carry the means to kill, injure or cause damage in a brief instant. Denying this makes you foolish regardless of your training. Not knowing if this person is responsible or not adds to this. People using guns caused this mess of distrust. You expect society to say its okay, we forgive you. We don't and are wising up to this concept. You don't make our lives safer; instead you put them at more risk. "
kamikazefaase wrote on Jun 4, 2008 12:52 PM:
" Concerning the police and your training, whether you have had more than them or not isn't as important as they have the public's approval in using even deadly force and can be held accountable for such action. Your one man police act has no jurisdiction or power to act and is quite limited in cases of self defense. The burden of proof is upon YOU to show justification and not all acts meet the proper standards involved. For example, shooting someone for merely touching your child would be consider criminal on your part. Discharging a weapon within city limits is a criminal act unless you are a police officer executing proper cause. You are nothing more than a resident or citizen without this proper cause. To prevent you from losing out, exercise caution, and I require that you have liability insurance in order to have any guns. "
kamikazefaase wrote on Jun 4, 2008 12:34 PM:
" To "notme": While I expected your responses to be what they were, let's straighten you out on some if that is possible. If in the effort of saving your child, you harm any member of the general public or their property by your actions, the public does have a right to throw the book at you. They are the innocent, your child is second in that case by law and there are court cases to back that. It isn't considered self defense when you violate this area. I would expect you to save your child, if possible, but to risk harm to anyone else, you don't have that right, even by accident. You, not society, are required to make both the choice and the sacrifice for the common good. Anything less is deemed selfish on your part and punishable by law. "
notme wrote on Jun 4, 2008 9:30 AM:
" I again will apologize to Mr. Erickson for this thread becoming about our right to carry, as there are many other important issues as well, and I would hope to here from Mr. Erickson in the coming days what his position are on this issue, as well as issues concerning income tax reduction, property tax reduction, balancing the budget without borrowing, health care, K-12 education, continuing education beyond high school, capital punishment, employment (not just jobs, but good paying ones), immigration, and last but not least, unification. "
notme wrote on Jun 4, 2008 9:23 AM:
" Fear of an African American walking down the street is unfounded unless and until he/she does something to substantiate that fear. Like wise, fear of an armed individual, solely because he/she is armed, is also unfounded. Are there those few "bad apples?" Yes, but that is no cause to judge an entire population/class of people. That type of blanket judgment based on fear is called bigotry. "
notme wrote on Jun 4, 2008 9:23 AM:
" Do to the general public's FEAR, (which has been the premise of Mr. faase argument all along) the "general public" and their representative government has persecuted the Native American Indian, supported segregation for over 100 years, and imprisoned Japanese Americans during WW-II. These are just a few of the many examples of where the lack of knowledge on the part of the general population (and their fear caused by that lack of knowledge) caused/allowed the United States and her citizens to violate the civil rights of a select group of those same citizens. Mr. faase is not only suggesting we do the same, but using the same arguments that were used in the past to justify those actions. "
notme wrote on Jun 4, 2008 9:22 AM:
" You again single out police officers ignoring the fact that those of us who carry (advocate for carry) actually have more range time with our firearms that most police officers. We constantly train for various scenarios and we all hope we will never have to use that training, but for you to claim your rights somehow outweigh our rights is an invalid argument and we have the right to carry a firearm for [security and defense.] The fact that you, and others, will over react is justification for concealed carry.
I also noted you didn't address my question from last night. In traveling to Minnesota, or one of the other 48 states that allows for concealed carry, how do you know you haven't been sitting in a dinner with an armed law abiding individual just 15 to 20 feet away? "
notme wrote on Jun 4, 2008 9:21 AM:
" [I won't disagree that you won't protect your child] You misunderstood sir. I stated I WILL protect my child and that I disagreed with your assertion that public safety was paramount and outweighed the safety of my child, ABSOLUTELY NOT. There is nothing more important to a parent than the safety of their child, NOTHING! "
kamikazefaase wrote on Jun 4, 2008 2:48 AM:
" To "notme": Please remember there are limits even on so-called rights, as those to free speech from the first amendment should prove to you. These limitations include public safety concerns as already addressed by the US Supreme Court. Creating panic or suchlike conditions is a reasonable limitation according to the decision. Having firearms in public does create this condition because of Columbine and other related tragedies. Requiring you to either remove the firearm or leave protects society from you imposing unnecessary risks upon it. People fear guntoters unless they're the police who are there to 'serve and protect' them because we no longer TRUST the motive of the person carrying. And you can blame the irresponsible for doing this to you. "
kamikazefaase wrote on Jun 4, 2008 2:29 AM:
" To "notme": While you're right that I don't want you to carry a firearm in public, it's because guns are easily misused and thereby cause harm to others. I won't disagree that you won't protect your child, it's how that will come into question as it should. For me not to would advocate your position which I don't. Guns don't belong in public areas that can create a disturbance. Good gunownership acknowledges that bearing arms has responsibilities that society can impose for its safety and peaceful coexistance based on previous experiences; this now includes those qualified to have guns. Just remember that your advocacy for carrying concealed weapons permits the lawless to think like you do and impose their will on others. Everyone suffers as a result, not just you. "
notme wrote on Jun 4, 2008 1:58 AM:
" What you are advocating though is restricting a constitutional right based on what MIGHT happen, and you will not find a single court in the land that will restrict a RIGHT based on what might happen, that again is succumbing to fear.
At nearly 2:00AM, our debate will have to continue once the sun is up. I look forward to continuing the debate. "
notme wrote on Jun 4, 2008 1:56 AM:
" We will disagree then, because I place the safety and welfare of my child ABOVE all else, as any good parent should.
Your posts seem to go in two different directions, first I can't carry, then what happens should I misuse a firearm. First, the US Supreme Court will uphold the second amendment as an individual right, and the State Supreme court has already ruled I can carry. That takes us to the second point, liability IF I should misuse the firearm. We already have laws and a court system for that as well. If I am found negligent with a firearm, I will be responsible for that in both a criminal and civil court. "
kamikazefaase wrote on Jun 4, 2008 1:54 AM:
" To "not me": While I acknowledge the state constitution and where it fits into the federal Constitution, you must acknowledge also the state and federal governments have the right and power to limit that expression. Just like there are limits to free speech, there are limits to bearing arms. Without such limits, society fails to protect itself since change is inevitable. Concerning cars, I agree that DRIVING IS NOT A RIGHT BUT A PRIVILEGE! But this area is regulated through the previously posted Commerce clause. I'm for a better, cleaner, safer world; but gunstoting doesn't promote such. I'll continue to advocate for stricter laws concerning guns including licensing, taxing, liability insurance for owners, reducing the excessive supply, increased training and safety, plus preventing guns from being carried concealed. "
kamikazefaase wrote on Jun 4, 2008 1:19 AM:
" To "not me": Yes as a member of society, we can impose a values system upon your action taken. One example is called excessive force. Another is careless use of a firearm. The safety of the general public supercedes your needs because they are the innocent, your child is second and you third. Remembering that priority might engage you into acting quickly, yet safely in the best interest of all concerned. "
kamikazefaase wrote on Jun 4, 2008 1:08 AM:
" To "not me": It's too bad that the term "guntoters" hurt your feelings, but to not use the term here shows prevents you from acknowledging some truths; guntoters are those with guns in their possession. Also, guns in the wrong hands harms someone! The difficulty you have is determining the responsible from the irresponsible. While I would love a world without cars, I'm not unreasonable either. As I posted earlier, guns for hunting and sport have their place. Guns for protection like when an animal attacks people has its place. However, using a gun does place the ultimate power of life and death within reach and does affect those outside your realm. What happens if you misunderstand a situation and feel a threat coming where there is none to be found? Should you not pay the ultimate price? "
kamikazefaase wrote on Jun 4, 2008 12:51 AM:
" To "not me": Concerning the bit on vehicles, I was trying to make a valid point concerning lack of insurance for guns as compared to vehicles. Guntoters should be required to carry such liability insurance for each weapon they own. Doing so permits victims or their families to collect money lost as a result of misuse of guns. Instead of my insurance paying my bills for a gunman's negligence, they should. This should include property damages as well. This is experience I have and you apparently don't. BTW, the District of Columbia case should help determine the next step in the gun debate. Stay tune! "
notme wrote on Jun 4, 2008 12:47 AM:
" Mr. faase:
When an individual attempts to harm my child, it is not only my absolute right but also my absolute responsibility to protect my child. You may not agree with the how I do that, as is your right, but you cannot impose your FEAR based believes upon me and thus limit how I may defend my family or myself; that is not your right.
If you do not acknowledge our state constitutional right to bear arms, then challenge it now, dont wait, file suit tomorrow. Heck, Ill even donate $100 to the legal fund. If you on the other hand, you do acknowledge our right to bear arms as specified in the state constitution, then the only way to exercise that right, for those who choose to exercise the right, without triggering your fear response is to carry concealed. "
notme wrote on Jun 4, 2008 12:31 AM:
" As to not carrying within a city, and certain distances, etc, I will again point out that many MANY more people are killed by incorrect a licensed driver incorrectly using a vehicle than by licensed concealed carry individuals. You didnt address my question now sir: statistically law abiding citizens kill more people with cars than guns, and NO WHERE at all are automobiles mentioned in the federal or state constitutions, so having a car is not even remotely a RIGHT, so lets get all the cars off the road! Just think of all the lives well save and it will be good for the environment as well. "
notme wrote on Jun 4, 2008 12:30 AM:
" I also notice you continue with derogatory terms like guntoters. I am curious as to why you need to continue with these types of comments as they belittle your argument.
In traveling to Minnesota, or one of the other 48 states that allows for concealed carry, how do you know you havent been sitting in a dinner with an armed law abiding individual just 15 to 20 feet away? The answer is, you dont hence the need/desire for concealed carry here in Wisconsin. "
kamikazefaase wrote on Jun 4, 2008 12:28 AM:
" To "not me": The question isn't the right to bear arms, but to carry them concealed. I'm looking to make sure Wisconsin doesn't do so, but if that should happen, then I would immediately file suit in FEDERAL COURT to block such. My experiences plus that of others would force Congress to act as well. So yes 48 states can be wrong, as they were concerning slavery, women's rights and many other issues. We no longer live in a society of the frontier. People die in this country from guns at home or during hunting. I choose not to hunt and require you to keep a safe distance to respect the general public. You cannot say that there are not laws concerning these types of issues? Better enforced laws do more good than people owning guns ever will. "
kamikazefaase wrote on Jun 4, 2008 12:18 AM:
" To "not me": How does the general public determine the responsible guntoter from the criminal before the act takes place? Personally, I don't care if you hunt, skeet shoot, or own guns for show. You've failed to prove responsible use for guns over time and the general public demands that their safety be respected. When someone with a gun enters a medical facility, business, school or church, should those there not be alarmed? Only a fool would permit such. Since all it takes is one moment of insanity for someone with a gun to harm the public, then reporting that person and making them remove the apparent danger makes sense. "
notme wrote on Jun 4, 2008 12:13 AM:
" Mr. faase:
Are you saying that gun ownership, possession, carrying, etc. is limited to federal law/constitution only and thus the 48 states that have a permitting system for concealed carry are ALL in violation of federal law?
If such an argument had any validity, I am certain the anti-gun arena would have filed suit many years ago in federal court to have these rights/laws overturned by the Supreme Court. The fact that none of the 48 states allowing concealed carry has ever been challenged at the federal level and more importantly, the Wisconsin state constitutional right to bear arms has also NEVER been challenged at the federal level, shows the fallacy of that premise. "
kamikazefaase wrote on Jun 3, 2008 11:55 PM:
" To "not me": As I referred to in a previous post, unless you have ever been on the victim's end of a firearm, all your training means nothing to me. I've been so TWICE and think your insensitivity shows. There's no reason for you having a firearm in public, especially within city limits. When shots are fired, who pays? The general public. As a member of the general public, the need for common safety supercedes your personal need to carry, especially concealed weapons. The biggest issue here is TRUST and I don't with guntoters that carry them in public. Furthermore, rod and gun clubs should be required to be at least safely away from a city, village, or township that has a populace for their protection from firearm potential discharge mishaps. "
kamikazefaase wrote on Jun 3, 2008 11:30 PM:
" To "not me": The federal Constitution supercedes the our state constitution concerning the second amendment about the militia and firearms. So no matter how you try to phrase the discussion, it comes back to that one. Because Congress can regulate Commerce, your guns do come under their control. By not having you carry concealed weapons, you remain an honorary member of society with nothing to hide and promoting fear. However, when you wish to enter the general public, they in general don't want you to have those guns to help determine who should be reported to the police or not because of robbery and other safety concerns. You can thank those of the Columbine and other massive shootings in why the public should fear guntoters. "
notme wrote on Jun 3, 2008 9:01 PM:
" Mr. Real World:
As responsible firearms owners, our first priority must always be to educate. Thank you for your understanding and be assured I will continue to educate when ever an where ever possible. "
notme wrote on Jun 3, 2008 8:56 PM:
" Mr. kegger:
My position has ALWAYS been having elected officials who support ALL our constitutional rights. Shilling does not, and neither does Mr. faase. You also appear to favor ONLY those rights you approve of.
Each poster here enjoys the freedoms of the US constitutions 1st amendment, but you, faase, and many others on other threads do not support our EXPRESS right to bear arms, and that says hypocrite like nothing else. "
The Real World wrote on Jun 3, 2008 8:48 PM:
" notme,
Thanks for taking so much time trying to teach people who have not reached the the mental ability to sort out fact from fiction. And with such class. "
kegger wrote on Jun 3, 2008 5:37 PM:
" I wonder what Mr. Erickson's position is on concealed carry - same old dicussion just different story. Don't you know notme has nothing more to promote than good citizens ability to carry handguns but I wonder - what is the use? What is he afraid of? What might he be carrying that others might want that he needs to protect? "
notme wrote on Jun 3, 2008 4:58 PM:
" Mr. Erickson, please accept our apology for this thread turning into a constitutional discussion about the right to bear arms. It is obvious that certain elected officials fit into that paranoid group of citizens who do not support ALL constitutional rights. Therefore, we can/should vote for change and should you turn out to be as hypocritical as some of our current elected officials, then we'll just vote you out next time around. If you take an oath to support and defend our entire constitution, work to lower the income and property tax burden on the average citizen, and work to balance the state's budget then we will invite you to stay for another term. "
notme wrote on Jun 3, 2008 4:50 PM:
" As for a friendly conversation, responsible gun owners meet one another hunting and at the rod and gun clubs. We exchange information, give directions, and otherwise encage in simple conversation. We do not harm one another or other individuals as you continue to contend. "
notme wrote on Jun 3, 2008 4:49 PM:
" The problem Mr. faase, is uneducated, paranoid people such as you seem to be, panic and call the police every time they see a firearm. The police must respond, and your paranoid action takes them (LEO) away from actual victims and crimes. In addition, the criminal element, which we are not, may see an exposed firearm and make an attempt to obtain it. Thus the suggestion for concealed carry, as a means to help those paranoid people, you keep referring to, from going into a panic state.
Using the argument of your 2:11 PM post, automobiles kill many more people than law abiding gun owners. Are you suggesting because of "" that we do away with the auto, motorcycles, trucks, farm equipment? Do you start to see how paranoid your argument has become? "
notme wrote on Jun 3, 2008 4:48 PM:
" Mr. faase:
You again are using the FEAR tactic by using comments such as "gunfight" and "stray bullet." Responsible gun owners do not get into "gunfights" and we spend more hours than most police officers at the range to ensure, should the need arise, that we only hit the intended target.
It sounds to me like the one suffering from "paranoia" is you. You seem to have a great fear of the individual citizen exercising their constitutional rights.
I happen to agree with you, that open (not concealed) carry is already legal in Wisconsin and Governor Doyle stated that this IS the preferred way to carry. "
notme wrote on Jun 3, 2008 4:26 PM:
" Mr. faase:
You again have failed to do your homework, so I will now do it for you. Article 1, Section 25 of the WISCONSIN STATE CONSTITUTION reads:
[The people have the right to keep and bear arms for security, defense, hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose.] It says NOTHING about militia.
Constitutional question has now been answered TWICE! "
kamikazefaase wrote on Jun 3, 2008 2:11 PM:
" Also "not me": You wish to discuss the finer points of legal gun ownership, possession, and use. Great! But not everyone is responsible and its those bad apples that make your cause a problem society has to deal with. Drunks, drug addicts, mentally ill, criminals including abusers and thieves, and simply someone having a bad day easily results in irresponsible behavior. Since no one is perfect, all it takes is one mishap and suddenly there is a victim...an innocent bystander, a woman, a child...who is injured or dead because of it. All the training in the world won't prevent this, so keep your gun exposed so I know not to bother you for directions or make simple conversation. "
kamikazefaase wrote on Jun 3, 2008 1:58 PM:
" Also to "not me": Do you own more than a hunting rifle? Apparently you must. This means you don't have to register it annually as proof of ownership. And such ownership can get easily lost when transfering it to someone else through purchase, gift, or theft. Getting a hunting license isn't adequate proof of responsible ownership. Do you pay a state ammo tax and not just to the feds? BTW, 11% would be cheap considering how many shells one gets in a box. What kind of liability insurance do you have for owning a gun? These are important issues as well. Also, if you don't want people messing with you, an exposed gun says don't faster. It tells the general public you don't respect them either because firearms have no reason to be out in schools, churches, or businesses where others may become victims of your paranoia. "
kamikazefaase wrote on Jun 3, 2008 1:43 PM:
" To "not me": If you need to conceal firearms to feel safe, then who is living in fear? Republicans create fear through supporting the military industrial complex and negligence of reports like those that led to 9/11. I don't need guns and I've been victimized twice: once in the woods while out hunting with my father and as a cashier of a local establishment. Having a gun doesn't make you any safer because the person already with a gun out has the advantage over you. Also, you don't consider the harm to someone else not involved in your gunfight and what happens to them if they get hit by your stray bullet. It's your paranoia trying to supercede those of society. You failed to answer the Constitutional question: which "well regulated militia" do you belong to? Afterall that is what the second amendment does say! "
notme wrote on Jun 3, 2008 11:46 AM:
" I will address Mr. faase's concerns.
First, sir, you spread FEAR by automatically implying law-abiding citizens misuse firearms, so FEAR is a tactic on your side of the argument. In Wisconsin, we have the EXPRESS (written in the constitution) RIGHT to bear arms. No mention of militia or anything like that at all.
Second, all individuals who purchase firearms, ammunition, and most types of bows and arrows ALREADY pay an 11% tax that is used by USFWS for conservation and restoration programs.
Therefore Mr. faase, if you would like to discuss the finer points of legal gun ownership, possession, and use, I respectfully suggest you spend many hours, as responsible gun owners have, reading, researching, and learning these finer points so we can have an educated discussion, not just FEAR mongering as you have done here. "
Crackerjack wrote on Jun 3, 2008 11:24 AM:
" Maybe he won't be rude like Jennifer Shilling. I watched her step in front of a line of people waiting to get coffee, and get hers first. She bumped into someone, did not excuse herself, but just walked away. In a hurry???? Maybe. But the whole line commented on her arrogance and lack of coutesy. "
andy k wrote on Jun 3, 2008 8:44 AM:
" An unemployed student wants to lower taxes? How much lower can his taxes be? "
andy k wrote on Jun 3, 2008 8:38 AM:
" He reminds me of Otter from the movie 'Animal House'. "
OhWow wrote on Jun 3, 2008 8:30 AM:
" Ms. Schillng sat and listened to us in the meeting room below the library. Her face showed concern in her furrowed brow, as she agreed how wrong the scenario was. She even spoke how the system was unfair to women in our midst. That was the last we heard of her, ever. I guess asking the Attorneys in the State to even 'consider' changes in the System they were involved in would be too risky for her political career. 'Politics', checks and balances. In this case, hers. "
unpolitical_correctness wrote on Jun 3, 2008 8:24 AM:
" Mr. Erickson, oh STUDENT at UW-L...Please tell me your views on the rising cost of higher education? What is your plan to balence the budget. Surely you can't cut back on education to balence the budget. That idea would be too liberal and supported by your opposition. Are you willing to take a tuition hike for the Republican party? Oh, wait, you could care less because when it goes into effect, you will be out already. Smart thinking wise guy!! Off to screw the state over on some power trip, ingenius; yet contridicting jargon. "
kamikazefaase wrote on Jun 3, 2008 4:06 AM:
" I see the 'CON' man is out there wanting our great state to give him his 'concealed' weapons. His need for fear is like all Republicans...if there is nothing to be scared of, create some. I wish those like you had to register each gun you possess plus be required to insure it without deductibles or exceptions like a car or vehicle that can be used to cause damage or death. That way you can be held personally liable for your weapon(s) misuse. Prison doesn't help innocent victims of the hardship caused by those with guns. In addition, you should have to pay an annual ammunition tax and be so regulated that you cannot own more than a single hunting rifle. BTW, which "well regulated militia" do you presently belong to? Retired doesn't cut it here, either. "
wisCONsin wrote on Jun 3, 2008 2:17 AM:
" It will be interesting to see what Ericksons stand is on our right to protect ourselves like 48 other states allow with a CCP, that in its self will put him over shilling!!! But realistically anything would be better than shilling including a displaced monkey from the zoo!!!!!!! "
bailey58 wrote on Jun 2, 2008 11:57 PM:
" Well it is NICE t see your being ONE SIDED as usual Mr. Magney! Your attempts to b fair to both sides are nothing more then a joke! I'm glad the young man is running, even though Shilling is probably going to kick his butt!!! "
Advertisement
