patriot_original wrote on Jun 14, 2008 4:12 PM:
" notme is correct. Open carry is 100% legal. However, LEOs will often try to stop you from doing what is perfectly legal by trying to claim you are "disturbing the peace" or are engaing in "disorderly conduct" or some other equally vage and trumped up FALSE charge because they are either uneducated, biased, don't like the idea of non LEOs being armed, or any other number of reasons or combinations of them. Not withstanding though, it IS in fact legal. "
HonestAbe wrote on Jun 13, 2008 4:51 PM:
" simpleman, blah blah blah blather blather blather
make sense? lol
thought I'd try speaking your language "
notme wrote on Jun 13, 2008 7:19 AM:
" We can argue the stats and specific cases back and forth forever. The fact is possession and carry is our right as has already been acknowledged. Are there incidents, like this grandma, yes, but many fewer than with autos. Once we acknowledge that fact we realize, that an auto-band is ridiculous, and thus so are firearms bans. The United States government has already shown its inability to protect her citizens, and the courts have held the government is under NO OBLIGATION to do so, leaving only one option, the individual. We choose to exercise our right to carry, simpleman and faase choose not, as is their right, but to force additional restriction of that right in order to prevent us from carrying as suggested here (based on fear/what might happen) is just as ridiculous as suggesting simple and faase be REQUIRED to carry. "
notme wrote on Jun 13, 2008 7:18 AM:
" Seventh, the plan to have less violence is to have an armed public. In that way, the criminal, like the guy in this article, will know he will be met with resistance, and thus not commit the crime. YES, there are stats to show violent crime decreases with an armed public.
Lastly, physical age is an entirely different type of conversation and we could have over 100 posts just on that subject alone. For brevity sake, I will continue to address adult rights only and stick "
notme wrote on Jun 13, 2008 7:17 AM:
" Fourth, I do not deny your bad day argument, but it is canceled out by my good day argument. The TRUE number of times criminals have altered their behavior (not committing a crime) in other states, because of their fear that the potential victim might be carrying is unknown. Carry laws do make for a safer society; again there are many articles/statistics available that show this.
Fifth, you refused to acknowledge the FACT that LEO is under NO OBLIGATION to protect you, me, or anyone else for that matter. That alone is justification to own/carry a firearm for personal protection, and that is why many people purchases firearms. An armed citizenry is a safe and secure citizenry.
Sixth, the stats do show that in unarmed countries, YES firearms crimes do go down, but other violent CRIMES GO UP. "
notme wrote on Jun 13, 2008 7:16 AM:
" First, lets stick to Wisconsin. Your suggestion was that it is OK to carry if I live 15 miles outside of Sparta, but down town La Crosse isnt. That is what I was referring to and in the state of Wisconsin such restrictions are illegal and unconstitutional.
Second, there are already laws on the books to prosecute individuals who are irresponsible with firearms and these individuals are already civilly liable as well. Therefore, no NEW regulation is required. These suggested regulations would simply add to an already overloaded bureaucratic government, filling the pockets of those in the insurance industry, and turning law-abiding citizens into criminals
Third, I again will point out that autos kill many more people per capita than firearms, and firearms possession/use in Wisconsin is much more regulated that autos (background checks, waiting periods, restrictions on when/where/if it can be used, etc.). "
simpleman wrote on Jun 13, 2008 2:24 AM:
" HonestAbe: I agree with kamikazefaase on the issue concerning guns. After his two incidents with guns pertaining to hunting and armed robbery, I can see a need for stricter regulations. And with other incidents reported newswise, the flood of guns is a problem especially the number that wind up in the wrong hands. Obviously, I see an excess amount of guns available to the general public and too loose regulations so they can easily wind up in the wrong hands. And no one is any safer, not even you. We've tried things your way, I think GOALS can do better. GOALS stands for Gun Owners And Liability Standards. Until you come up a plan that inflicts less violence upon the public and still goes after criminals, yet holds gun owners responsible for negligent acts, you're acting like an NRA member whose organization endangers the public. "
simpleman wrote on Jun 13, 2008 2:05 AM:
" Sorry HonestAbe: These proposals have merit. Also, these can be enforced through the county sheriff's or local police departments. One could register the gun or get a permit through their office and pay the fees to the proper treasurer. I think that local law enforcement should have available current state laws and all ordinances pertaining to proper gun carry and use within their jurisdiction. I believe such fees should pay for the needed time used to investigate and issue such paperwork, the cost of providing the legal information previously mentioned, and any related costs to law enforcement or the collection of said fees. I won't exclude any additional funds being used to provide law enforcement with protection like bullet proof vests so those who carry protect those who serve from the carriers need. "
simpleman wrote on Jun 13, 2008 1:43 AM:
" "notme": I must disagree with you on the premise that gunowners carry "out of concern for public safety". Most people carry "for their own protection". Some include themselves and their loved ones in that protection only. This is backed up by an article in a gun magazine relating to handgun sales that more than 4 out of 5 of these sales are for self protection. Not all gunowners try to be as responsible as you attempt to be. You seem to be more of the exception than the rule. However, it's the group as a whole that needs better education and training. While I still have seen no answers concerning how we deal with increased gun mishaps or related crimes, I hope you will continue to work on education and training for yourself and others. I believe increasing restrictions are needed because too many gunowners are uneducated or poorly trained. "
simpleman wrote on Jun 13, 2008 1:20 AM:
" "notme": You stated that, "One CANNOT argue the "needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one"". When arguing cases in general, I see the courts view as being done to secure the entire body, in equality and growth. Children don't have the same rights as adults for lack of maturity in their use and responsibilty. Religious expression is to encompass everyone so no one group dominates. And the same can be said about guns in certain ways otherwise there could be no restictions. Each right has restrictions concerning application and enforcement. How broadly or narrowly the right is interpretted is subject to question individually and as a country. "
simpleman wrote on Jun 13, 2008 12:58 AM:
" "notme": The South Carolina grandmother was one case where a "law abiding citizen"'s action was negligent resulting in injury. And yes there have been incidents of people who for whatever reason were having a bad day and for a moment lost their good judgment resulting in injury or tragedy of the innocent. To deny this existence would be tragic on your part. Not every gunowner is up on current law or restrictions. And all it takes is one unknowledgeable person with a gun to harm public safety. Many countries have more restictions on guns than we do and are in general more safe to live or visit than we are. Various reports are available concerning gun violence in differing countries as compared to the US based on number of incidents, per capita and population. I'm trying to find these reports so you can see my point, if possible. "
simpleman wrote on Jun 13, 2008 12:42 AM:
" "notme": "Suggesting the right to carry varies based on where one lives isn't reasonable or constitutional." I'm sorry to correct you here unless we are misunderstanding one another, but the simple example of carrying concealed weapons is a perfect example of states having laws that differ one from another and still very constitutional. Each states guidelines differ also concerning gun sales, licensing, registration, ammo tax, and various related issues. Only the federal laws are uniformed, but are not so enforced. How laxed one states gun laws does effect anothers as well as proven in the West Virginia University's killings among others. The fact that in some states someone as young as 13 can purchase a gun does show immaturity in the present law. No wonder gangs persist. Unless supervised by a parent, underage children should not be able to own or possess a firearm. "
notme wrote on Jun 12, 2008 4:42 PM:
" I could not find any case study showing how LEO's job became easier with firearm registration/restriction/confiscation. There are stats all over the web that actually show crime rates going up, once citizens are unarmed, making LEO's job more difficult, not easier.
You are right; change is coming because of Columbine, and the like. That change will be more armed citizens because as I pointed out already: 1) LEO cannot be everywhere and 2) Even if they could, in the US they are under no obligation whatsoever to protect you/me. "
notme wrote on Jun 12, 2008 4:41 PM:
" simpleman: I agree with you, we can read about the mishaps of those who are law-abiding citizens and made an error in judgment, but more often you are reading about criminals, and then trying to punish the law-abiding citizen for the actions of the criminal. Law-abiding citizens cannot be held responsible for the criminal actions of others. If that were the case, society as a whole would be in jail.
Your fear tactic of bringing up Columbine and the like, points to the "mishaps" of individuals who are NOT law abiding citizens (criminals). You consistently refer to a what-if scenario where law-abiding citizen "might have a bad day," but will not consider the "having a good day" scenario whereby a law-abiding armed citizen stops the criminal element preventing a massacre, which HAS HAPPENED and is just as plausible. "
notme wrote on Jun 12, 2008 12:20 PM:
" We, those who carry/advocate for carry, do so out of "concern for public safety." Even if the ratio of LEO to ordinary citizen was 1:1, no one could guarantee ones individual safety, hence we carry. One CANNOT argue the "needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one," either, because the courts have historically upheld the RIGHTS of the few over the objections of the many. In addition, in the United States, LEO is under NO OBLIGATION to protect the citizens, which is another reason, why we NEED to carry. "
notme wrote on Jun 12, 2008 12:19 PM:
" simpleman: glad to see we agree, citizens have a right to keep and bear arms. I appreciate the fact that you acknowledge it is a right. To that end, reasonable restrictions are already in place. Suggesting the right to carry varies based on where one lives isn't reasonable or constitutional. Suggesting increasing the cost of ammunition to the point where only the government or the wealthy could afford it creates a class of citizen unable to exercise that right, again not a reasonable restriction. "
HonestAbe wrote on Jun 12, 2008 11:58 AM:
" re; simpleman wrote on Jun 11, 2008 11:40 PM:
Those are your wants, theres no way all that would be or should be put in place. Those are your wants as an anti, admit it.
All all those restrictions are going to do is put fewer guns in law abiding hands, period. Plus, it would take an army to enforce your wants. Good luck with that. "
notme wrote on Jun 12, 2008 7:21 AM:
" In Wisconsin, the prohibition to carry a firearm within city limits was repealed in 1995. State law allows municipalities to restrict when/where firearms may be discharged, and that is sufficient to protect public safety. Law abiding citizens, who choose to carry, know this, so your fear of those who choose to exercise there rights in unfounded. "
simpleman wrote on Jun 11, 2008 11:40 PM:
" "notme": You have the right to bear arms, but like every other right there are reasonable restrictions even for that right. The question of the day is what are today's reasonable restrictions. Obviously you disagree with both me and kamikazefaase on this issue. His GOALS proposal has some sense to it; maybe it just needs finetuning. However, change is coming in some manner that because of Columbine and other shootings require change. That could mean resticting the number of guns manufactured for public sale. That could mean all transfers of firearm ownership be registered. That could mean increased training be required before a license be issued. That could include insurance being required before an annual license be issued. Once gunowners accept responsibility for their firearms, it should easier to go after those who abuse the right to bear arms. "
simpleman wrote on Jun 11, 2008 11:21 PM:
" "notme": You fear confiscation. I fear your lack of concern for public safety. While your fear has bad history to justify it, I've read the deadly consequences constantly of those with firearms and their mishaps. We must find a middle ground that secures both sides. You propose nothing so far that reaches towards the middle safeguarding both concerns. The reason to register guns is ownership responsibilty. If you have a better idea that helps law enforcement trace stolen or transferred guns that get used in criminal activity, I'm all ears! "
simpleman wrote on Jun 11, 2008 11:11 PM:
" "notme": I love your quote, "As American has started to mature" means the country is changing. With change means certain needs also change. One of these changes includes the need for firearms within city limits. Most civilized countries restrict or prohibit firearms especially within city limits. This started even as we moved westward with local sheriffs or marshals demanding guns to turned in to them while in town. Personally, I don't care if you have guns in your home, use for hunting or sport. But within city limits where the safety of others are involved, I agree with kamikazefaase that there are limits to your right to bear arms. This is not revolutionary times when this second amendment was written. Change is inevitable. Be ready to do so. "
notme wrote on Jun 11, 2008 6:05 PM:
" simpleman, it is undeniable that the RIGHT to keep and bear arms is just that, a RIGHT. Reasonable restrictions (as with speech) apply, but in the end keeping/owning/possessing and bearing/carrying a firearm is an individual's right. As American has started to mature, her citizens learned to tolerate and then came to accept Christians, Buddhists, Muslims, African Americans, Native Americans, etc., and although you may not be willing to do so today, you too must learn to tolerate and come to accept the peoples right to keep and bear arms. "
notme wrote on Jun 11, 2008 5:47 PM:
" You mention, "registering the gun," that is another point of contention, I do not believe law-abiding citizens should be required to register firearms. Why is it so important to know where every firearm in the entire US is located? That would only serve one purpose, confiscation. History shows confiscation will lead to tyranny because there is no defense against tyranny once confiscation has taken place.
I am vehemently opposed to gun registration, for exactly the reasons cited. "
notme wrote on Jun 11, 2008 5:44 PM:
" continued:
[On the evening of Nov. 9, Adolf Hitler, Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels, and other Nazi chiefs planned the attack. Orders went out to Nazi security forces: "All Jewish stores are to be destroyed immediately . . . . Jewish synagogues are to be set on fire . . . . The Fhrer wishes that the police does not intervene. . . . All Jews are to be disarmed. In the event of resistance they are to be shot immediately] "
notme wrote on Jun 11, 2008 5:43 PM:
" History Lesson: http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/registration_article/registration.html
[The Night of the Broken Glass (Kristallnacht)--the infamous Nazi rampage against Germany's Jews--took place in November 1938. It was preceded by the confiscation of firearms from the Jewish victims. On Nov. 8, the New York Times reported from Berlin, "Berlin Police Head Announces 'Disarming' of Jews," explaining:
The Berlin Police President, Count Wolf Heinrich von Helldorf, announced that as a result of a police activity in the last few weeks the entire Jewish population of Berlin had been "disarmed" with the confiscation of 2,569 hand weapons, 1,702 firearms and 20,000 rounds of ammunition. Any Jews still found in possession of weapons without valid licenses are threatened with the severest punishment.] "
simpleman wrote on Jun 11, 2008 3:31 PM:
" "notme": I like your 10:26am post because I think these kinds of questions should be required either at purchase or when registering a vehicle. One way or another, because "driving isn't a right, but a privilege" (either you or kamikazefaase said this I believe), so reasonable rules for public safety should be used. But I can see these same types of applications and more for guns because of their negative impact on society and its safety. Cars, while providing for transportational needs as a positive, can like a gun be used negatively in the wrong hands. Therefore we must try to do more in the prevention stage whenever possible so tragedy is less likely the outcome. "
simpleman wrote on Jun 11, 2008 3:15 PM:
" "notme": To consider a firearm a tool like that of an air nailer seems to show how much you're willing to stretch any definition to fit your purpose. But like I expressed before in a previous post, the nailer has a positive reason for use (constuction); the gun doesn't. Guns don't promote positive outcomes unless you like death and/or destruction. Guns maybe used for hunting or sport, but it must destroy something as a result. Guns serve no other purpose. "
simpleman wrote on Jun 11, 2008 3:05 PM:
" "notme": The law does require that when REGISTRATING the vehicle, not at purchase. The owner is to either prove they have insurance or have an account only to be used for claim against the owner of said vehicle with a minimum of $5000. If you have a loan for it, the lender will most likely require such insurance also. I see that the public should require the proof of insurance when registering the gun as well. Background checks should be done at the point of transfer of ownership. This includes guns purchased or handed down as gifts to family or friends as well. This transfer of ownership should then be properly registered and be annually paid for by said owner. "
notme wrote on Jun 11, 2008 10:26 AM:
" Laws must be followed, and the law states felons may not possess firearms, so YES certain restrictions have SOME merit.
Consider, when a car is sold do we check to see if the purchaser has already insured it? Do we check to see they have a valid license? How do we ensure, they (purchaser) won't lend/give the car to that guy who's been convicted of his 12th DUI? What about searching the purchasers medical records to ensure we aren't selling to someone who is incompetent to the point of being a danger, or visually impaired? I could go on and on, the point is we as a society do NOT do these things because people consider submitting to all those checks before buying a car, to be an invasion of privacy and cars kill many more people than firearms every year. "
notme wrote on Jun 11, 2008 10:11 AM:
" When you get right down to it, not only is the ability to carry/use a firearm an EXPRESS constitutional right, but is also a way of expressing ones self, which is an IMPLIED first amendment constitutional right. "
notme wrote on Jun 11, 2008 10:11 AM:
" A firearm is a tool; its intended purpose is to propel a projectile at a certain velocity. Air nailers, commonly used in the construction industry, serve the same basic purpose. Both can be used to "cause death, injury, or damage to someone or something." So by your reasoning, we need to license every individual who buys one, and make the nails that go in them SO EXPENSIVE that no one can afford to use one.
I get that you don't like/approve of firearms, but to FORCE your beliefs upon those who own/use firearms violates the first amendment of the constitution and everything this country was founded upon. It is the equivalent of saying your Catholic, Buddhist, or Muslim, so you can go to church, and pray, but only IF you pay "$1200" each time you do so. "
simpleman wrote on Jun 11, 2008 7:33 AM:
" "notme": Vehicles are required to be registered by the owner to be driven on public roadways. The driver must have a proper license. Violate either of these and you get a citation minimumly. Why should guns be treated the same way? Vehicles are meant for transportation and owners are required to carry insurance in case of accidents, so why shouldn't guns? Guns only have one true purpose; to cause death, injury, or damage to someone or something. This goes regardless of use: hunting, sportshooting, or protection. The other items like hammers, axes, and what you mentioned have other real purposes beyond what guns have. Therefore, comparing guns to these other areas don't quite meet the same standards. When guns can be used for anything else but their true purpose, I can't wait to hear that one. "
simpleman wrote on Jun 11, 2008 7:16 AM:
" While we both know criminals never really adhere to the law, making it more difficult to obtain guns and/or bullets should be examined and tested. I still like the idea that guns shouldn't be the issue, bullets should be. By raising the cost of bullets, an empty gun is less likely to harm anyone because of the cost of loading it. What a difference it would be if the bullets that can cost as little as $12 be $1200. Such costs plus the 11% tax should make people think twice about their purchase of guns. If the cost of having guns is high enough, then fewer will buy either the gun or at the very least the bullets that do the most harm. "
simpleman wrote on Jun 11, 2008 7:04 AM:
" "notme": Are you saying certain restrictions have merit? Background checks on firearm sales or transfers are okay? This should be done prior to issuing either a license or a permit to carry. BTW, you having any insurance concerning guns is more likely the exception and not the general rule of gunowners from the interviews done by others involved with this issue, therefore I can see the need to require proof of such. I believe that kamikazefaase was making it a valid point that the insurance industry needs to provide a separate policy that gunowners can purchase that provides protection for the gunowner should he/she needs to exercise their right to bear arms whether at home or in public but results in a mishap causing harm to someone else. Not having insurance shows irresponsibility on the part of gunowners, regardless of the rights issue. "
notme wrote on Jun 10, 2008 5:26 PM:
" And YES, to march, one needs a permit, but not to stand on a corner holding a sign protesting the government. We are simply exercising our constitutional right, just like the guy on the corner. "
notme wrote on Jun 10, 2008 5:23 PM:
" As to private gun sales, I ABSOLUTELY agree, an FFL check should be done when a private individual sells a firearm, as long as ALL private firearms owners are able to get an FFL enabling them to do said check. That will require changing all the other laws currently prohibiting me from getting a FFL (store front, conditional use permit, etc.).
Consider, needing to do a background check and having a waiting period before one could sell that hammer at a yard sale, after all, a hammer COULD be used to harm someone if the buyer were having "a bad day."
We have many more death/injuries by automobile, place the same restrictions on private auto sales, shovels, axes, etc. If not all, then none, and as I stated, it is my belief that we are ALREADY OVER-REGULATED. "
notme wrote on Jun 10, 2008 5:12 PM:
" So, YES I already carry said insurance. Again, RESPONSIBLE gun owners have already taken such actions, no need for addition regulation that the criminal element will not abide with anyway. "
notme wrote on Jun 10, 2008 5:09 PM:
" Some insurance agents will argue that it is not possible to cover a defensive gun use (intentionally shooting someone). If you have one of those, it may be time to fire him/her because what they are really telling you is THEY can't do it.
DISCLAIMER: This is by no means a legal or insurance recommendation or advice and should not be used/interpreted as such, as I am neither an attorney nor an insurance agent. This information is provided for reference only and I have no liability for its use. Please contact a licensed insurance agent or attorney for assistance. "
notme wrote on Jun 10, 2008 5:05 PM:
" If there is otherwise Liability coverage available to you for a DGU, there is also money available to pay for your defense. An insurers duty to defend you is broader than their duty to pay damages on your behalf because although you may not be guilty, you may still need to go through the trial.
Intentional acts of assault and battery are rightly excluded. Often however, coverage for self-defense is brought back by way of the specific coverage grant. The coverage grant cannot be endorsed to your policy if it is not printed in the policy form itself. "
notme wrote on Jun 10, 2008 5:05 PM:
" Read your homeowners/renters policy, and the fine print you never bothered to read.
All policies have a "standard" policy language that is included for everyone who bought that particular policy. Go to Liability Section. Go past all the terms and conditions to the exclusions.
Look for the exclusion that says Personal Liability and Medical Payments to others coverages do not apply to "bodily injury" or "property damage" a) that is expected or intended by the insured. It may go on to say something about criminal acts, directed by the insured, other people being hurt, ect.
What you need is a coverage grant that says something to the effect; "However, this exclusion does not apply to "bodily injury" or "property damage" that arises out of the use of reasonable force to protect persons or property". You may use REASONABLE force, up to and including, lethal force. "
simpleman wrote on Jun 10, 2008 3:42 PM:
" "notme": While I laughed at your post concerning the $10 million cash bond for free speech, I have never heard where free speech killed anyone without a lawsuit. In the case of gunownership, the party with the gun no matter how responsible can simply have a bad day. Having the insurance means you don't lose your home or risk your family over such. Protecting your family from even one incident should be your priority as I remember you blogging to kamikazefaase about protecting your child. I believe you would do so no matter what the cost. Having gun insurance is just that kind of cost. Are you going to back up your words with action or did I misunderstand you as the truly concerned parent you seem to be? "
simpleman wrote on Jun 10, 2008 3:30 PM:
" Sorry "notme": I disagree with you in the following areas. You must register and show ID at polling places in certain states and that is coming to Wisconsin. Also when you attend government meetings, you must register to speak before the government bodies in order to be heard. In other words, you must jump through hurdles to have your first amendment rights of speech and assembly including paying for a permit to march. Your payment for gun insurance and a license or permit is a small price for your right to bear arms. Gunowners don't carry the kind of liabilty insurance that protects themselves from accidental or negligence at the present time and aren't required to, but this must change. Doing such can add to charges for criminal activity and the prison time they get. "
simpleman wrote on Jun 10, 2008 3:14 PM:
" Say "notme", why are you hiding behind what criminals do? If you were worried about what criminals will do, are you then going to support a bill in the US Senate (S 2577) that closes the loophole concerning private gun shows not being required to register their sales, do backgound checks or be a licensed gun dealer. Many criminals obtain such weapons from these places because without a background check the sale is less likely to be denied. The funniest thing came to me though, we should be doing this for purchasing bullets or the making of such done privately. Afterall, a gun without bullets can do a lot less harm. "
simpleman wrote on Jun 10, 2008 3:01 PM:
" Sorry "notme" but the insurance is for victims to pay for the care required by the neglient gunowner like the grandma in South Carolina was. And because you wish to have guns in the public domain, home owners insurance doesn't and shouldn't cover such act. Purchasing gun insurance is something positive owners can show they want to responsible for their willingness to subject the public for having guns. What are you so afraid of because I thought you were a more responsible owner willing to prove such? Even if this a progressive idea, we insure ourselves to prevent lawsuits from taking away our lives. Proof is our homeowners and vehicles insurance policies with liability coverage. By requiring gunowners to do the same for what they can accidently or otherwise inflict on the public promotes trust. "
notme wrote on Jun 10, 2008 2:50 PM:
" I would also like to state that thank the majority of the posters for the civil discourse. Too many times blog discussions can turn into ranting and insults which servers neither point of view. Adult conversation much appreciated. "
simpleman wrote on Jun 10, 2008 2:46 PM:
" HonestAbe: You state that grandma should be held accountable "for not upholding strict rules of CCW". Since when does carrying concealed weapons have strict rules? The NRA would never tolerate such like their constant attempts to water down gun neglience laws. Laws in South Carolina differ from Minnesota who permits CCW and Wisconsin who doesn't. An example of such difference is that Sam's Club didn't post any sign saying you're not permitted to carry firearms in the store. I wonder if they will change that with this incident. The laws here state you must be the owner of the business to carry onto such property unless you have expressed permission from said ownership or of law enforcement status. And the responsibilty for informing its patrons and consequences of its presence lies with said business owner. "
notme wrote on Jun 10, 2008 2:45 PM:
" Let's look at another example: A fifth grader hits a line drive into the stands and the ball injures a spectator. The spectator files a frivolous lawsuit against the bat manufacturer and the ball manufacturer because? . That's right, they have insurance.
If a responsible gun owner exercises proper restraint, there should be no need for additional insurance. Responsible gun owners already have insurance. Criminals will not purchase insurance or register the firearm, so this places additional restrictions on the law-abiding citizen. More regulation on the citizen who has broken no law, and I'm NOT for that. "
notme wrote on Jun 10, 2008 2:35 PM:
" Additionally, "the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Requiring insurance of any kind could be seen as a financial infringement. Sort of like saying, you have freedom of speech, but only if you can POST a $10 Million cash bond with the government first. Same concept, so not accepting the later denies the former.
In other words, if you don't believe you need to register yourself and prove you have insurance BEFORE you can exercise you constitutional right to free speech, then you cannot support registration and insurance for those wishing to exercise their right to bear arms. "
simpleman wrote on Jun 10, 2008 2:28 PM:
" Thanks "notme" for the information concerning gun insurance. I will look at the writing later, but kamikazefaase's GOALS has merit. By making gunowners more responsible for having one to me implies an attempt to secure trust on the part of the gunowner to everyone. As I looked at your previous blogging with him, I think this is long overdue. By requiring insurance in the manner he was talking about, and making it mandatory along with proper training as part of getting either a license or permit seems a logical step towards creating the missing trust element. I'm for all that! "
simpleman wrote on Jun 10, 2008 2:19 PM:
" HonestAbe, do you have an education beyond fifth grade? Can you tell the difference between political and economic systems? Let me tell you we live in a quasi free enterprise economic system because business relies on government to promote and protect their self interests. This has brought serious harm to the American worker through poor trade agreements and not enforce standards established within the better ones we do have. That's how our companies in other countries pay dirt cheap wages without benefits to foreign workers in an effort to avoid paying federal or state taxes. We need to penalize companies so severely that do this to our workers so jobs return to our soil. We also have a political system of democratic republic as I have previously posted. You must watch how loosely you use certain terms because it makes you look less educated than a fifth grader? "
notme wrote on Jun 10, 2008 2:04 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. "
HonestAbe wrote on Jun 10, 2008 11:38 AM:
" notme, I meant the grandma, knowing she was GOING TO BE WITH A KID should have left it cased in the car unloaded, or at home.
This type of crap is what gives it a black eye.
Dont put words in my mouth, or twist my statements, please. "
notme wrote on Jun 10, 2008 9:27 AM:
" Law enforcement over-reacts all the time, and even Abe alludes to it. Strap on a side arm and go downtown 3rd street Friday night, 10:30 PM. Do not enter a bar, as that is a violation of the law, simply walk around the block. It should take about 10 minutes for LEO to arrive, detain, disarm, arrest, and charge even though no law was violated. That is why I am working on educating both the public and LEO when it comes to open carry. The goal to have an educated populace and police force that understands open carry is 100% legal. So when the officer responds, he/she will realize that open carry being legal, means there is no violation and thus no need to disarm, arrest, or charge. "
notme wrote on Jun 10, 2008 9:26 AM:
" I contend, that it is the responsibility of the individual to maintain control of the firearm at all times. If you don't want, or can't handle that responsibility, then you can CHOOSE not to carry, but that should in no way limit my right to carry.
I do not favor additional regulations on law-abiding citizens, whether they are firearms related or not. It is my opinion that we already have too many government regulations. "
notme wrote on Jun 10, 2008 9:25 AM:
" I also agree with Abe, that grandma should have been given a severe penalty. The scenario simpleman posted justifies disarming the child, but not lethal force.
Where Abe and I disagree is the "Never around kids, NEVER." Children are present in all facets of society. There are children present in Sam's, Wall-marts, Shopkos, etc. all the time. It is almost impossible to go through the day and not be in a location where children are present. So if Abe REALLY believes what his post says, then Abe supports so many restrictions that carry open or otherwise, would be impossible. "
notme wrote on Jun 10, 2008 9:01 AM:
" I too am concerned with a worthless dollar and the impending depression that is coming. The thing is, history shows when people are down and out, they do change their priorities. Let's have you give up just a few of your rights, and the economy will get better, oops, you didn't give up quite enough rights, so I'll take a few more, and so on. That is EXACTLY how the fascists took control in the '30s in Europe. So every time I see any of our rights challenged, I will stand and be counted. "
notme wrote on Jun 10, 2008 8:27 AM:
" In doind reasearch to reply to the post here I came across this: http://byrd.senate.gov/speech-repub.htm
[James Madison, one of the principal framers of the Constitution, alluded to "the confounding of a republic with a democracy" in the Federalist #14, written on November 30, 1787. He proceeds to delineate a true distinction between these forms: ". . . in a democracy, the people meet and exercise the government in person; in a republic they assemble and administer it by their representatives and agents. A democracy consequently will be confined to a small spot. A republic may be extended over a large region."]
Therefore I submit simpleman is correct, we live in a republic. "
HonestAbe wrote on Jun 10, 2008 7:01 AM:
" simpleman, now you state we dont live in a democracy,,, now we know what type you are (whack). lol
oh man ,,, did I upset you? Need a tissue? "
HonestAbe wrote on Jun 10, 2008 6:56 AM:
" simpleman, yes, that grandma should be made an example of. She messed up and should be held accountable,,, for not upholding strict rules of CCW.
Never around kids, NEVER.
To compare this case against CCW is a laugh, becuause if we were to take every case of mishaps and spotlight it, many things would fall by the wayside.
"Lets stop driving because that murderer was able to drive away, and had an accident causing more damage" eh "
Richard Cranium wrote on Jun 10, 2008 6:54 AM:
" To notme: And I didn't mean to sound condescending before in a previous post. It's just that, well, I'm more concerned right now with a dollar that's not worth much anymore and a President that's worth even less. I really believe our country/state has bigger fish to fry right now than our ability or non ability to open carry. "
HonestAbe wrote on Jun 10, 2008 6:52 AM:
" kamikazefaase, lol
So glad this isn't a popularity contest lol
That's a first for me, a whole post attacking me, glad to know people read what I write and take it to heart.
Funny how you chastize me about the bomb thing T mentioned, but not T for actually suggesting it lol ... lol "
Richard Cranium wrote on Jun 10, 2008 6:47 AM:
" To notme: I certainly don't agree with your comments about law enforcement "over reacting and arresting law abiding citizens". I just don't see that at all. I do agree with simplman's 12:59 post and i think that explains it really well. I'm glad we agree that your against conceal carry. By reading your previous posts on another thread I thought that was the "just" of your arguments. I'm also glad you don't support the NRA. If you really believe your 9:12 post, then what again is "your cause"? You 9:01 post is again answered by simpleman. No need for me to expound on that. Sure glad we agree on most things. We'll get back to the Dems vs Repubs soon enough I'm sure... "
simpleman wrote on Jun 10, 2008 2:29 AM:
" HonestAbe: The United States also shows points of socialism when you consider social programs and other monopolistic ways of performing governmental functions. The free enterprise system is quasi at best, using government at the business level to secure its interests in trade and survival. This is why jobs have gone out of this country in record numbers while our livelihoods have gone into decline. Without good paying jobs with benefits, families are forced to struggle while executives are making outrageous salaries, benefits, and golden parachute bonuses. This is the truthful premise from which the Republican party operates and why I will never be a member of it or vote for any of them running. People over profits because in most cases, workers don't fully sharing in the profits and are easily forced to have government services to survive this inproper nonsharing of profits. "
simpleman wrote on Jun 10, 2008 2:15 AM:
" HonestAbe: I wish to correct you on one concept. The United States is NOT A DEMOCRACY. It's a democratic republic. Why is that you ask? The most important reason is that we don't elect the President of the United States. We indirectly elect electors for the Electoral College who vote for President. This is also the same for selecting the candidates running for President by means of each party's conventions. Democracy means not just one person, one vote; it means directly electing its leaders. And until the Constitution was amended, state governors picked our Senators. With many states and federal judges picked by politicans and not the people directly electing them, this proves the point further. "
simpleman wrote on Jun 10, 2008 2:05 AM:
" Teiresias: I have heard that statistic to over the years and am looking for its sources. And this is for "The Real World": I agree that criminals don't follow the law, but they have the advantage over the public...they don't care either. Most criminals have the drop on the public when committing their crime like what happened to Sean Taylor of the Washington Redskins. Even with a gun close to his bed, he wound up dead anyway because the criminal had the advantage on him. And this was in a "conceal carry state". While in Wisconsin, we have a Packer player who used his best available judgment by using a bed post to knock out the burglar. That's because even in our own home, gun users must prove they were in eminent danger where their lives, not their property, was in danger. "
simpleman wrote on Jun 10, 2008 1:47 AM:
" antieverything: We agree on one thing...Schwartz displays traits of a habital criminal because he resorts to violence as the answer to his problems. But no one, even with your court related experience, has answered my question concerning what is the MAXIMUM sentence Schwartz could have received for those charges. To hold a judge accountable, we need to have this information available for us to judge from ourselves. The same goes to the DA's office. Can anyone answer this?! "
simpleman wrote on Jun 10, 2008 12:59 AM:
" HonestAbe is full of himself. Many Americans can carry and in 48 states, carry them concealed. Wisconsin doesn't permit carrying concealed for various good reasons including trying to protect police officers when pulling over a motorist for a simple violation. You are permitted to carry in Wisconsin but the law does restrict where you can carry them in public and rightfully so. kamikazefaase mentions in another blog of a GOALS proposal to require gunowners to purchase liability insurance to obtain a permit for each gun owned and must prove so annually. Such insurance would provide protection for victims and property owners who are affected by the gunowners use. I agree with him that gun users need constant training and be tested in order to obtain a permit and its annual renewal. Gun Owners And Liability Standards makes sense. We should adopt such legislation immediately. "
simpleman wrote on Jun 10, 2008 12:43 AM:
" To all concern: A 4-year old got ahold of his grandmother's gun, concealed in her purse in the shopping cart, and shot himself in a Sam's Club in South Carolina. The grandmother is a magistrate in South Carolina and was shopping at the time of the shooting. Apparently, even careless government officals can get guns, conceal them from most others and still not be held accountable for this disgrace. Just another reason AGAINST carrying concealed weapons for me. The boy got the gun in public and though he hurt himself, he could have hurt others. Are you gun advocates going to say you would have shot him in self defense? I can't wait to here the answers for this one. "
kamikazefaase wrote on Jun 9, 2008 6:34 PM:
" HonestAbe is a mole who's not as honest as he claims. I had that discussion with "notme" and find offensive that his integrity was being trampled by someone who isn't so honest. Bearing arms and educating the public are his viewpoint. He does prove Gov. Doyle's statement and isn't the crackpot that HonestAbe is. Telling Teiresias to go head with carrying bombs as her right shows lack of responsible thought concerning this issue. Only a fool would advocate allowing bombs into the general public for protection. HonestAbe's statements call into question character issues and in this case aren't funny. Why create fear unless you endorse the Bush version of a powerful president that tramples on civil rights. "
notme wrote on Jun 9, 2008 2:57 PM:
" I've been called many things, but an anti-gun individual has never been one of them. I however, will respect Abe's opinion, as he is entitled to it.
One need only check my various posts attacking Shilling and the rest of the Democrats on their hypocrisy when it comes to constitutional rights, and it is obvious that I am not an anti-gun individual. "
HonestAbe wrote on Jun 9, 2008 2:12 PM:
" Richard Cranium, glad we're on the same page on this. When I post comments, I realize I'm going to stir the pot a bit and get some people mad .. not intentionally ... but make them think and evaluate.
If this was a popularity contest, I would never post *grin*
A good debate is always fun.
As well, I don't attack people unless I'm defending myself, I try to keep it civil.
"Stepping on toes since lacrossetribune.com started these blogs" H.Abe ;) "
HonestAbe wrote on Jun 9, 2008 2:03 PM:
" """"notme wrote on Jun 9, 2008 6:30 AM:
" There are many people working, throughout the state, to educate both LEO"""""
Well, they're not doing a very good job, as you are the first one to say it I've heard.
I think you're just an anti that is playing games, this will be my last post to you. "
HonestAbe wrote on Jun 9, 2008 2:00 PM:
" Teiresias, oh my, pick it apart. They are not democracies either, right?
You're anti ... we get it.
If you want to use bombs, go for it, set a precedent for the rest of us, I'm open minded.
The countries you mention that have fewer gun deaths is because they have laws in place to prevent private citizens from acquiring them, similar to communist countries on that topic. Canada is a socialist country, their stances on guns is why I don't live there.
We may have more guns, because we are a free society that allows guns to flow ... only problem is, the law abiding owners can't carry them, only the criminals. Thanks for making my point a little more clear. "
notme wrote on Jun 9, 2008 12:57 PM:
" Teiresias:
With respect to "Right to bear arms," arms is a commonly accepted term for firearms. Should you wish to try and expand that definition/understanding, you will no succeed.
As to the rest of your post, again, please cite your source. "
Teiresias wrote on Jun 9, 2008 11:58 AM:
" Abe, the word "guns" is not mentioned anywhere in the constitution. I could use a bomb for hunting, fishing and security.
And your red-baiting is so 1950's!
We have more gun deaths per day in the US than Canada or England have in a year. Hardly "communist countries." "
notme wrote on Jun 9, 2008 9:12 AM:
" We have the RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. Concealed carry is illegal, thus open carry is constitutionally protected. Governor Doyle stated he supports open carry, and this remains undisputed. Mr. Cranium's statement that "It's not going to happen in today's world," is FALSE. It is already happening. Individuals are open carrying throughout the state, with more people carrying every day. With the support of Governor Doyle, which we already have, I would expect to see more and more individuals partaking of their right to open carry. "
notme wrote on Jun 9, 2008 9:02 AM:
" I contacted several municipalities throughout La Crosse County a few weeks ago. Most have not replied yet, but once they do, be assured I will submit that information to the general public.
As for Abe, that was a request to a fellow constitutional rights supporter, or so I thought, to help educate LEO and the public pertaining to our rights and the law. I invite you Mr. Cranium to continue to exercise your 1st amendment right and do the same. "
notme wrote on Jun 9, 2008 9:01 AM:
" There should be NOTHING more important in our country that standing up for our constitutional rights; after all, that is why we have fought and are fighting a war, to defend ALL our constitutional rights. That is the claim senator Feingold uses to justify NOT voting for the patriot act, which was the RIGHT DECISION.
The mere fact that you so freely exercise you 1st amendment right, but will not defend the other constitutional rights with the same vigor, shows your hypocrisy. "
notme wrote on Jun 9, 2008 9:00 AM:
" Mr. Cranium, I didn't sue anybody because I lack the financial means to do so.
You are wrong, in the statement that this is an NRA issue. The NRA only wants concealed carry, and does not support our constitutional right to bear arms unless it meets with their agenda, which is why I DO NOT support the NRA. "
Richard Cranium wrote on Jun 9, 2008 7:01 AM:
" To notme: What is your "cause" exactly? To educate law enforcement about the constitution? Your looking at an NRA world through rose colored glasses if you think that people are going back to the old west days regarding "open carry". It's not going to happen in today's world. (and as long as Doyle is Governor). And it's not prevalent in other states that have it either. Your wasting your time, at a time, when our country has more important things to worry about than your so called right to "open carry". I agree with Honest Abe which I rarely do. I'm challenging YOU to take the initiative to ask our elected leaders the very same question your asking people here. Report back to us will you? Remember, I'm the one that asked YOU to sue and you didn't accept that challenge either. "
notme wrote on Jun 9, 2008 6:30 AM:
" There are many people working, throughout the state, to educate both LEO and the public as to the legality of Open Carry.
I do not believe your challenge helps our cause at this time, as an uneducated over-reacting LEO and/or public could strengthen the anti gun position. We must first work to educate LEO and the public, which is what I am doing.
Instead, of challenging someone to carry, why not work WITH us by calling your city council and county board representatives and ask them to hold a public educational meeting concerning the legality of open carry. "
HonestAbe wrote on Jun 9, 2008 4:04 AM:
" notme wrote on Jun 8, 2008 4:18 PM:
I'd like to see you do it, walk around downtown for a while ... well, at least until the cops and press get there. Be the trend setter, show us how easy it is and legal... please. "
HonestAbe wrote on Jun 9, 2008 3:57 AM:
" My post to you was after reading your posting sentence of;
"The fact is, you can OPEN CARRY in Wisconsin. " "
notme wrote on Jun 8, 2008 5:55 PM:
" Teiresias & simpleman:
I would appreciate you posting your sources for you comments, otherwise they sound like rantings. "
notme wrote on Jun 8, 2008 4:18 PM:
" simpleman:
As I posted, we already can open carry, no test, permits, or training required and you can thank Governor Doyle for that. "
notme wrote on Jun 8, 2008 2:45 PM:
" Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance there Abe "
notme wrote on Jun 8, 2008 2:41 PM:
" It would be REALLY informative if the Tribune would do an article on this and get feedback from the various law enforcement officials just to see what they know/don't know. It would also be interesting to see what out local judges have to say on this as well.
Ah, but that is a pipe dream, because this is considered a conservative issue, all though I thought standing up for civil rights was a liberal position, the paper will never take it on.
I also find it interesting the an organization like the ACLU, won't defend this civil liberty, only certain ones. "
notme wrote on Jun 8, 2008 2:09 PM:
" Upon review of the Wisconsin Supreme Court case State vs. Hamdan (2003) (especially noted in paragraphs 41, 42, and 71) in order for the state to remain in compliance with Article I, Section 25 of the Wisconsin State Constitution, the state must allow the individual a way to reasonably keep/possess and bear/carry arms for lawful purposes. Since concealed carry of a firearm is prohibited, openly carrying of a firearm (holstered, visible, and in a non-threatening and peaceful manner) is the only way for an individual to exercise this right.
http://www.wicourts.gov/html/sc/01/01-0056.htm "
notme wrote on Jun 8, 2008 2:04 PM:
" During the last election campaign, Doyle was questioned about twice vetoing concealed carry. In response to a question on concealed carry legislation, Doyle said such laws don't make sense. "If you want to carry a gun in Wisconsin, wear it on your hip," Doyle said, patting his hip. Here is a link to a PDF that documents the place and the conversation. The quote was widely circulated around the Internet, and NO-ONE from Doyles office has ever questioned the validity of the quote.
http://www.newstalk1130.com/cc-common/mlib/1176/01/1176_1201797811.pdf "
notme wrote on Jun 8, 2008 1:40 PM:
" OK, here we go
http://www.legis.state.wi.us/statutes/wisconst.pdf
Article 1, Section 25 states: [SECTION 25. [As created
Nov. 1998] The people have the right to keep and bear arms for
security, defense, hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose.]
Right to bear arms is an EXPRESS right in the Wisconsin Constitution. "
notme wrote on Jun 8, 2008 1:21 PM:
" Abe:
Now Im totally confused about your position. From your posts, I figured you to be a pro constitutional rights kind of guy. If so, why attack a fellow supporter of our constitutional rights? "
HonestAbe wrote on Jun 8, 2008 12:48 PM:
" notme, show some links that prove your point.
If its so right, go do it ,,, I think you're full of **it. "
notme wrote on Jun 8, 2008 10:58 AM:
" I wonder if any of our elected officials, or those running for office, would be willing to start hosting educational sessions pertaining to open carry?
My bet is, they wont. "
notme wrote on Jun 8, 2008 10:57 AM:
" Now I also agree, that choosing to exercise the RIGHT, means you take on extra responsibility and although NOT REQUIRED, I would recommend law abiding citizens take a personal defense class that covers all those things mentioned here already including weapon retention.
The major reason FOR concealed carry is because the majority of the public, including law enforcement, is unaware of our rights; they tend to over react when they see a law-abiding citizen exercising this right. The public calls the police, taking them away from actually doing their job, and then LEO tends to over react and arrest law-abiding citizens. Educating both law enforcement and the public of the individuals RIGHT to open carry, as I suggested on the other thread, is the simplest and easiest solution. "
notme wrote on Jun 8, 2008 10:56 AM:
" I was in a similar discussion over on the Erickson runs for office thread. The fact is, you can OPEN CARRY in Wisconsin. The Supreme Court in Hamdan, stated that concealed IS illegal, AND there MUST be a way to allow the citizens to bear/carry arms, hence Open Carry. Governor Doyle said during his last election campaign, if you need to carry a gun, carry it on your hip for every one to see. The Supreme Court affirmed it, and the Governor encourages it.
OPEN CARRY is 100% legal in Wisconsin. "
The Real World wrote on Jun 7, 2008 9:53 PM:
" Teiresias.
Great question you asked Abe, My answer is you just might do it if you are a nut. Me and Abe will protect others from you if you try. My point is that we cant stop people from doing just what you suggest, but we can try to defend ourselves, if we had the Tools. "
HonestAbe wrote on Jun 7, 2008 8:33 PM:
" Teiresias, arms, means guns.
An equal playing field would be nice and would even help protect you antis ... because you wouldn't get brazon idiots like this guy doing things like this. It may still happen, but not as often, guarantee that!
Did you look at the stats link I posted? Numbers don't lie.
If you want to live where there are no guns, move to a communist country. Could there be a connection there, oh, maybeeeeeeee "
HonestAbe wrote on Jun 7, 2008 8:25 PM:
" I would say, in this case where his girl bought the gun, this is a grave breach of security, I agree with you. Whats the point of the background check, if that person is just going to pass it along legally, private sales are legal with no background check. I don't know all, and have no clue how to cure that problem, other than make it a stiff penalty for this girl, case in point. She knew where it was going when she bought it. A vet selling his service pistol is a whole 'nother situation. Tough to regulate is what it comes down to. But the DA should have put this gal in jail, yes.
Guns don't kill people, people kill people. "
HonestAbe wrote on Jun 7, 2008 8:25 PM:
" simpleman, to answer your 2nd question, , , as a gun collector and NRA member ... there are never enough guns. They are beautiful as well as functional. Each has its own purpose. I can own 50 guns, and each has its own place and time to be used.
They are as unique as coins or any other collectible item. As well, they're a great investment, gun prices NEVER go down. "
HonestAbe wrote on Jun 7, 2008 8:19 PM:
" simpleman, your reply has arrived :)
People who purchase guns pass background checks, as well, if CCW was a reality, there is a background check, as well, you have to take a CCW class and pass the test the sheriff gives you. That tests the laws of CCW, shoot, don't shoot scenarios, and kinda puts you on notice you're held to a higher standard of restraint, and can be held accountable if you don't adhere to these stiff guidelines. It should be as in Vermont and Alaska, if you own one, you can carry it, that is a true right, loyal to the constitution. But... I would welcome any law that even makes you jump through hoops to carry.
The present law in LaCrosse - no CCW .. leave the gun home and be a sheep. "
Teiresias wrote on Jun 7, 2008 5:55 PM:
" OK, Abe, since we have a right to keep and bear arms, I want to carry around bombs. No one would dare attack me or my stuff if they knew I could blow up an entire block. Sure, makes lots of sense to be armed and dangerous at all times. "
CJ wrote on Jun 7, 2008 5:10 PM:
" This marks Schwartzs third stint in prison in the past 15 years. He was sentenced to 30 months in prison and five years of probation in 1993 for punching three 14-year-olds in the chest as part of a gang initiation, according to Tribune archives. Sorry I read to fast before he still had 30 months must have gotten out on good behavior so he could turn around and go back in....what happen to a 3 strikes law??? "
antieverything wrote on Jun 7, 2008 5:10 PM:
" Simpleman... please reread the last paragraph of this article and convince me this guy isnt a habitual. And yes... lets say I have had some courtroom experience and I dont have a record. "
The Real World wrote on Jun 7, 2008 3:18 PM:
" simpleman,
I have talked to closed minded individuals for years on gun control, but here is the simple version of why you are wrong. Criminals don't follow the law, so no law can deter them. We have created the system we have in this country by being lenient on gun crimes. Check out my earlier post, that would help a bunch. "
simpleman wrote on Jun 7, 2008 2:55 PM:
" Just for the record...I wonder if Bjerke was going to make this guy join the armed forces? Bjerke could then use military training to either install some discipline to Schwartz or make him a killer and him sent to fight the war on terrorism. That would be trying to put our taxpayers dollars to work to fight our real enemy while using his talent of surprise attack. "
simpleman wrote on Jun 7, 2008 2:48 PM:
" HonestAbe: Who passes the background checks? What kind of tests or classes should be required? Please answer these questions and compare them with present law. My other question is how would you reduce the glut of firearms produced and deal with the 'black market' sales of weapons? I await your response! "
simpleman wrote on Jun 7, 2008 2:41 PM:
" HonestAbe: An armed public isn't a DETERRANT, because this country is the most violent in the world. This is from the 'cowboy' mentality it still has. It's from sticking our noses into everyone elses business with our military, welcomed or especially when not. Granting the gun lobby unlimited amount of production for its product only makes them cheap to get and creates an even larger supply for the 'black market'. ATF can't get a handle on this kind of open warfare created by such glut of deathmakers. Without adequate regulation, which there isn't, results are this nonsense that self perpetuates their industry. Congratulations! I hope you have the proper license because you have fallen for their effort. "
simpleman wrote on Jun 7, 2008 2:23 PM:
" HonestAbe, your gunning for more aren't you? We agree on one premise, criminals aren't afraid anymore because they doop those with their 'good behavior' and don't serve their entire sentence. Judges need to protect the public better with stiffer sentences for those using weapons, whether its cars or guns. Criminals who misbehave should have their sentences extend and not be rewarded for proper behavior for which they are expect to have in the first place. Sentences don't require change, it only makes the criminals harder to deal with when they get out. Schwartz has anger issues he needs to deal with and should not be returned to the public until addressed and cured. "
HonestAbe wrote on Jun 7, 2008 2:11 PM:
" You said it yourself "desperate criminal activity which leads to even more violence" ... so, if the law abiding citizens were armed, it would help take on the criminal. Not only that, but is a DETERRANT. Criminals want easy targets... they are wolves among sheep.
Guns can prevent "destruction, pain and death" as you put it too. You're too soft and its people like you that eventually become a victim. "
HonestAbe wrote on Jun 7, 2008 2:08 PM:
" simpleman, you want gun ownership and CCW to be a privilege, it's a right ... that is infringed upon.
Back in the day people had fist fights, rumbles etc .... today the thugs and gangs carry guns, so in a sense, we are moving back in time to the old westward ho type mentality, in that carrying is a great preventative.
Read the stats link I posted in my earlier post. "
simpleman wrote on Jun 7, 2008 2:02 PM:
" antieverything: Do you happen to know the maximum sentence Schwartz could have gotten for his acts? Your soft on crime in the DA's office doesn't wash either. How many juries have you served on? Have you ever faced charges yourself or known anyone who has? The problem is increased desperate criminal activity which leads to even more violence. And here comes the more guns to inflict more destruction, pain and death. Gee, isn't the second amendment great! "
simpleman wrote on Jun 7, 2008 1:49 PM:
" HonestAbe: you seem to be advocating more guns. This country is still pretty violent for a country based on laws, not men. The major componet to this is our military industrial complex and its weapons based industries including firearms. When we were a young country, the second amendment made sense. While we were expanding westward, there was potential need in that area. Today is a different culture and the need for citizens to bear arms has come into question. No one should receive a license for a firearm without displaying they are competent in using and maintaining such. Besides paying for a license to carry, they should pay an annual registration fee for each gun and be required to purchase insurance for such liabilty like we do with our vehicles. Also such insurance must be paid for with proof of such prior to issuing either license or registration. "
antieverything wrote on Jun 7, 2008 1:48 PM:
" Simpleman. I assure you there was no cooperation to chase down the gun sale. He said she said. Prove that I sold a felon a gun. Its impossible. What is key here is that the continiung soft on crime policy of the LAX CTY DA's office continues. While the public defenders chuckle.This guy is a classic habitual criminal. and he will be back. I would love for one of these judges look me in the eye and tell me this is the right call. "
HonestAbe wrote on Jun 7, 2008 1:44 PM:
" simpleman, perfect name.
There are manufacturers making guns 24/7 legally, you aren't going to take them all away, hitler.
It comes down to making the criminals afraid and allowing law abiding citizens to protect themselves.
When this happened, if both were armed, the criminal would not have been as bold, as well, he may not have known the other was armed anyway.
Better law inforcement? LOL They're the cleanup crew, they write reports after the crime happens. "
HonestAbe wrote on Jun 7, 2008 1:40 PM:
" Teiresias, nanny county, no R.
Yes, I am serious. The reason the gun crimes are so high, is because only criminals carry them. They know this, and it emboldens them, fact.
I don't live in a fantasy land, , , but if you think disarming law abiding citizens helps, it is you living in fantasy.
Numbers don't lie; http://www.kc3.com/CCDW_Stats/why_vermont_ccdw.htm
These stats show you, that when CCW is allowed, crime rates go DOWN. (the criminals are afraid they may be challenged instead of having the upper hand) "
simpleman wrote on Jun 7, 2008 1:35 PM:
" CJ: Please reread your post. Schwartz got 5 years PROBATION, not prison. And yes it could've been worse, HE COULD HAVE PULLED THE TRIGGER! While I notice a pattern of disrespect for law by Schwartz, I wonder what the maximum sentence he could've received. I also want to know how this FELON got his gun and whether he cooperated with the DA on this issue. Will this supplier be prosecuted for providing a felon with a firearm? Incidents like this aren't helping those with second amendment issues pertaining to rights to bearing arms in public, concealed or not. No amount of training by the victims will ever prevent this, and think if the victims had guns that could have been taken away so easily because the criminal had the upper hand. More guns on the street isn't the answer...better law enforcement with less guns in supply is. "
Josie wrote on Jun 7, 2008 11:30 AM:
" This is his third stint in prison and he only gets 2 years? I can't believe it. His victims may not carry a physical scar, but they will certainly carry a mental scar for the rest of their lives. "
Teiresias wrote on Jun 7, 2008 11:12 AM:
" Abe, are you serious? A "lack of laws" in a "nanny country"? Give me a break!
We imprison more people than any other country in the world. We have more guns on the street than any other country. We have the highest gun death rate in the world.
What kind of fantasy land do you live in? "
CJ wrote on Jun 7, 2008 9:26 AM:
" How does one get 5 years in prison in 1993 and already be out in 1994??? "
Frank wrote on Jun 7, 2008 9:09 AM:
" 2 years is a pittance, what a joke. This scum has nothing positive to contribute, send him to the gallows. Remeber this losers name because you know his next crime is going to be much more severe. Fairyesque sentencing by Bjerke. "
antieverything wrote on Jun 7, 2008 9:07 AM:
" Todd Bjerke... you are so out of touch. I want to scream about that idiotic comment that this wasnt the worse case scenario. You should step down immediately. Total strangers, felon with a weapon, and you minimize the severity. And to Ms. Skemp... start doing probate or something less threatening to the public. You have no business being a ADA. "
The Real World wrote on Jun 7, 2008 8:36 AM:
" This is a perfect example of a time to warn him that his next gun crime will result in automatic execution. He will know the consequences before his actions. "
Sully wrote on Jun 7, 2008 7:58 AM:
" Todd Bjerke, The next time this worthless thug hurts someone it is one you. Thanks for nothing. Have you even looked at his record? So much for campaign promises. Liar. "
Sully wrote on Jun 7, 2008 3:08 AM:
" Weak. Another reason I wish I could get my vote back. "
HonestAbe wrote on Jun 7, 2008 2:23 AM:
" Our lack of laws in this nanny county, that allow qualified people to obtain a CCW (carry concealed weapon) permit, emboldens these types.
They know they're the wolves among sheep. It should be a level playing field ... everyone should be able to carry ... that pass background checks and testing (classes). "
HonestAbe wrote on Jun 7, 2008 2:22 AM:
" Todd, this is not sending a very strong message, these thugs brag they can do 2 years standing on their head.
Im amazed it was anything less than 10 minimum.
It's also amazing to me how drunk drivers and drug dealers get the max, with much more time than this, and this is a lot more dangerous. Next time you sentence this kind of case, think of the victim as though it was your spouse, and sentence accordingly.
Yes, I support guns/gun ownership, but this was a FELON with a gun holding to someone IN PUBLIC.
Amazing "
Advertisement
