(101) comments Back to story

Enlightenment

It's interesting the hype gun rights (second to abortion) get at election time. It seems as though the NRA and other gun activist groups come out in full force prior to elections and claim the Democrats will take away the rights of gun owners.

I'm interested in others' opinion on this topic, specifically if it truly is a concern that gun rights will be greatly reduced or is it simply an opportunity for additional support for the industry? Or, is the NRA and other groups that effective?

[quote]Enlightenment said: "...I'm interested in others' opinion on this topic...quote]

OK, but only because you asked. I would hate to give my opinion unsolicited.....

The Constitution made it plain & simple. Sad thing is activist judges over the years, especially the past 20 or so, have eroded our rights. Good thing about the erosion of our Constitutional rights is that people are waking up and no longer letting the anti-gun people control the discussion.

Enlightenment

thanks for input don. A question for you.......do you believe (in terms of right to arms) the Constitution has been eroded by the judges or do you think it's more about people pushing the limit on the intent of the Constitution?

Enlightenment

I would like to have a better understanding of the gun issues around election time and would like to hear about legitimate examples of how you believe the constitutional gun rights have been compromised/infringed upon? Also, is the new gun legislation necessary for public safety?

Rainbird

[quote]donloew said: "The Constitution made it plain & simple."[/quote]

Sure, it is plain and simple as long as like the tea partiers and NRA only read the second half of the sentence.

Yellow River Rat

Seems like the Constitution is much like the Bible. People read it and then interpret parts of it to justify their own actions. Oh, and please, tell me again how the "Founding Fathers" wanted us to live.

Sand-Blaster

My opinion... (I usually lean to the Moderate Democratic side) The founders' of the Constitution could not forsee some weapons of today. With that, I do not believe the general public need to (or should) own Very Large caliber guns, IE 50 mm cannon, Gatling Gun, Grenade launcher, Or, smaller fully automatic very rapid fire (IE 600 per min.) ... Such weapons would be more than "over-kill" for hunting. And be Dangerous for others. Thus to help protect Idiots fromendangering others, We Legislate.

Further North

The funny thing about guns...is that if you take one, load it, take the safety off...and set it on a table...it'll never hurt anyone.

It takes people with intent, or carelessness to hurt people...and they can o that with just about anything...

...just look at how many people are hurt and killed with vehicles...and how many are killed and hurt by drunks...

On the gun rights...the 2nd amendment - the whole thing - is pretty clear...and most people misunderstand the real reason for it.

Further North

[quote]oldwiseone said: "The founding fathers weren't worried about protecting your hunting rights. They had just finished a fierce battle with their British government. They were trying to protect your right to do this again if need be. One day there may be a need for the people to rise and make a stand. This is what the second amendment is about. I'll be ready. Will you?"[/quote]

OK, there's at least one person who understands what the 2nd amendment is really about....

Truth Serum

[quote]Rainbird said: " Sure, it is plain and simple as long as like the tea partiers and NRA only read the second half of the sentence."[/quote]

I wouldn't ever pretend to know what the framers had in mind for us centuries later. I sleep better at night knowing that our current government is running out of options and wholesale warfare against its citizens is pretty low on the list (mostly in part to all the gun owners).

[quote]Enlightenment said: "thanks for input don. A question for you.......do you believe (in terms of right to arms) the Constitution has been eroded by the judges or do you think it's more about people pushing the limit on the intent of the Constitution?"[/quote]

There is a process for making changes to the Constitution. It's activist judges who have twisted laws to fit their adgendas.

Example: the way judges ruled on civil rights in the 19th century.

[quote]Rainbird said: " Sure, it is plain and simple as long as like the tea partiers and NRA only read the second half of the sentence."[/quote]

Even with the second sentence I still have the right to own a gun WITHOUT the government's permission. What part of the Constitution removes that right?

ChippewaFallsWisconsin

The constitution was written in a far different time than today. The judges change laws based on current situations and the need for them. When it was written, there was a need to have a gun everywhere you went, it wasn't abnormal to have a shoot out over little things. We live in a different time and the majority of shootings aren't over freedom, it's illegal activities (drugs, gangs, burglaries). We're just putting more guns in the hands of people who shouldn't have them.

ChippewaFallsWisconsin

When it was written there weren't gangs selling drugs on the corners. These are the people who these guns are winding up with. You may say you have the right to own a gun, constitution or not, but you'r wrong. You can read one passage on one piece of paper and think you can do anything. But each state has it's own constitution and laws to abide by. It's funny how people can pick and choose one or two passages from a piece of paper to fit their needs.

Enlightenment

[quote]ChippewaFallsWisconsin said: " It's funny how people can pick and choose one or two passages from a piece of paper to fit their needs. "[/quote]

Just like they do with the Bible.


Sand-Blaster

[quote]oldwiseone said: "The founding fathers weren't worried about protecting your hunting rights. One day there may be a need for the people to rise and make a stand. This is what the second amendment is about. I'll be ready. Will you?"[/quote]

So... You have RPGs, 105mm Howitzer, Sub-Machine Gun, Gatling Gun, and a Nuclear Bomb. ?? (All are "Arms")

cfuser

[quote]ChippewaFallsWisconsin said: "We're just putting more guns in the hands of people who shouldn't have them."[/quote]

Do you really believe this? The laws of the past few years have made it harder for me, the average person, to legally buy a gun. Criminals do not follow these laws, they will get a gun NO MATTER WHAT. Eventaully, only the criminals will have guns and I might be able to own a single shot rifle for hunting.

cfuser

[quote]Sand-Blaster said: "With that, I do not believe the general public need to (or should) own Very Large caliber guns, IE 50 mm cannon, Gatling Gun, Grenade launcher, Or, smaller fully automatic very rapid fire (IE 600 per min.) ... Such weapons would be more than "over-kill" for hunting. "[/quote]

Guns are NOT just for hunting, some of us use them to compete in shooting events such as distance shooting which uses the .50 cal. And full auto weapons require extra licenses to own.

ChippewaFallsWisconsin

Enlightenment, exactly!

Very Concerned

[quote]donloew said: "Even with the second sentence I still have the right to own a gun WITHOUT the government's permission. What part of the Constitution removes that right?"[/quote]
Maybe the same part that removes our right to vote without a photo id.


youknowme

"You may say you have the right to own a gun, constitution or not, but you're wrong"

I think you may be the "wrong" one is this argument. Please tell me the State or Federal law which prohibits law-abiding citizens from owning a firearm.

youknowme

"Just like they do with the Bible."

Every elected Representative, President, Judge, Police Officer, and so on have one duty that they are first sworn to. "To protect and uphold the Constitution of the United States." It doesn't matter the age of the document or what the Founders had in mind. We live in a Constitutional Republic. If you want to bring the Bible into it, I'm sure the Founders would have a lot to say about that as well.

Enlightenment

In regards to gun rights debated at election time, is it truly a concern that gun rights will be greatly reduced by a candidate or is it propaganda and simply an opportunity for the industry to get additional support? Or, is the NRA and other groups that effective?

ChippewaFallsWisconsin

There are laws that say when you can and can't own a gun. If you're a convicted felon you can't own a gun, where in the constitution does it say that you can't? See, there's parts of the constitution that had to be changed by creating laws pertinant to the the times we live in. Would you want a convicted burglar to carry a gun? There's nowhere in the constitution that says they can't.

ChippewaFallsWisconsin

I don't think anyone would argue the fact that all of our laws are based on the bible. Whether you think they are just a bunch of laws about doing good, that's basically what the bible is, a do good book and history lessons. If that weren't the case, it wouldn't say, In God We Trust on our money. If this country wasn't based on the bible, we would also have other religions on every facet of the governement buildings.

Further North

[quote]ChippewaFallsWisconsin said: "We're just putting more guns in the hands of people who shouldn't have them."[/quote]

...Which would be one of the reasons why the rest of us would need them...not that that's the reason for the right in the constitution, it's just a side benefit.

Further North

[quote]ChippewaFallsWisconsin said: "But each state has it's own constitution and laws to abide by. It's funny how people can pick and choose one or two passages from a piece of paper to fit their needs. "[/quote]

What's funny is how some folks don't understand that the US constitution supersedes state constitutions if there's a conflict.

There was a great big fight about that, back in the 1860s...they called it The Civil War.

ChippewaFallsWisconsin

Further North, it's obvious you don't see my point. So the bad people get the guns, and we should create more to protect ourselves? My point is that we should have more regulations on guns and making sure they don't end up in the wrong hands. The answer isn't to create more, that's just putting more in the wrong hands. The answer is to create less making sure they stay in the right hands of the people who are law abiding citizens.

ChippewaFallsWisconsin

The constitution is extremely vague. The time it was written was a different time where the population was 5% of what it is now. They didn't need to be detailed. Yes, the US Const. supersedes state Const. but we live by our states. Unless you're in a federal grand jury, it doesn't matter. WI has different laws, or else Walker wouldn't have had to create a law about CC. Whatever, it just seems people have their opinion about this one and nothing is going to change that oipinion.

Further North

[quote]ChippewaFallsWisconsin said: "My point is that we should have more regulations on guns and making sure they don't end up in the wrong hands.[/quote]

How are you going to do that? The criminals you want to keep the guns away from, being criminals, are already breaking the laws...and are going to continue to do so.

Further North

[quote]ChippewaFallsWisconsin said: "The answer is to create less making sure they stay in the right hands of the people who are law abiding citizens. "[/quote]

Tell you what - you can go with that...I'm going to protect myself and my family.

...you should probably make sure your will is up to date for that day when the criminal, who's ignoring the new law you helped put in place, robs and kills you while you're waiting for the cops to show up.....

Further North

[quote]ChippewaFallsWisconsin said: "The constitution is extremely vague."[/quote]

No, it's not vague at all.

People who want to change it like to claim it is so they can justify their arguments.

Further North

[quote]ChippewaFallsWisconsin said: "The time it was written was a different time where the population was 5% of what it is now."[/quote]

Population has nothing to do with this.

Further North

[quote]ChippewaFallsWisconsin said: "Yes, the US Const. supersedes state Const. but we live by our states." [/quote]

So? Federal law, and the constitution still supersedes state law...

[quote]ChippewaFallsWisconsin said: "Unless you're in a federal grand jury, it doesn't matter."[/quote]

Yes, it does matter. It matters very much.

Further North

[quote]ChippewaFallsWisconsin said: "WI has different laws, or else Walker wouldn't have had to create a law about CC."[/quote]

1) Walker didn't create the WI CC Law.

2) WI already had an open carry law.

3) For concealed carry to be legal in WI it was absolutely necessary to create a new law because the US Constitution does not address this issue.

4) The people of WI have made it repeatedly clear they wanted a CC law, and representatives from both parties passed such a law three times.

ChippewaFallsWisconsin

Further North, it's great you can pick apart someones statement just to fit your needs and opinions. You claim population has nothing to do with this, I guess that's your opinion. I suppose the crime rate is the same as when it was written? I suppose they had the weapons then that we now have? Did the people use the weapons the same back than as now? All answers are no. We have the right to bear arms, pretty vague I would say, but that's just my opinion.

ChippewaFallsWisconsin

you say Walker didn't create the CC law in #1, but then in #3 you say the law was created, which is it? It was created by Walker. You also say it was mandatory because the constitution didn't cover that law, so again, the constitution is vague so the state must create their own laws to make it more clear. You kind of are making my points for me while arguing that I am wrong. I do understand the majority of people wanted the cc law, but I also disagree with the majority.

Further North

[quote]ChippewaFallsWisconsin said: "Further North, it's great you can pick apart someones statement just to fit your needs and opinions."[/quote]

You can call it picking apart, I'd call it responding to your points.

Further North

[quote]ChippewaFallsWisconsin said: You claim population has nothing to do with this, I guess that's your opinion."[/quote]

It doesn't...unless you've got some unbiased statistics to back it up. I struggle to see how a clearly defined constitutional right is connected to population.

There's no clause or amendment that says "The 2nd Amendment is invalid when the United states reaches "X" population."

Until it's changed, it is what it is.

Further North

[quote]ChippewaFallsWisconsin said: "I suppose they had the weapons then that we now have?[/quote]

Immaterial. Again, there's no clause that invalidates the 2nd Amendment when power, capacity or anything else exceeds "X".

Did the people use the weapons the same back than as now?"[/quote]

Yes. Defense of country, self defense, hunting and recreation being the legal use. Crime, of any sort, being the illegal use.

Further North

[quote]ChippewaFallsWisconsin said: "We have the right to bear arms, pretty vague I would say, but that's just my opinion."[/quote]

Not vague at all.

[quote]A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.[/quote]

...regarding opinions...like belly buttons, everyone's got one. Laws are there to make opinions irrelevant and make us be objective.

Even Chicago lost this one....

Further North

[quote]ChippewaFallsWisconsin said: "you say Walker didn't create the CC law in #1, but then in #3 you say the law was created, which is it?[/quote]

Um...both are true.

[quote]ChippewaFallsWisconsin said: "It was created by Walker."[/quote]

No, it wasn't. The Governor does not create laws. Laws are initiated in the WI House or Senate.

Further North

[quote]ChippewaFallsWisconsin said: "You also say it was mandatory because the constitution didn't cover that law, so again, the constitution is vague so the state must create their own laws to make it more clear."[/quote]

No, what I said was:
[quote]Further North said: "3) For concealed carry to be legal in WI it was absolutely necessary to create a new law because the US Constitution does not address this issue.[/quote]

Without the law, CC would be illegal. Open carry was, and is, legal.

Further North

[quote]ChippewaFallsWisconsin said: "You also say it was mandatory because the constitution didn't cover that law, so again, the constitution is vague so the state must create their own laws to make it more clear."[/quote]

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that the 2nd Amendment is about self defense or hunting or shooting.

The 2nd Amendment neither creates nor protects those rights, so separate law is required to protect them if the people want them.

Apparently, the people do.

Further North

[quote]ChippewaFallsWisconsin said: "I do understand the majority of people wanted the cc law, but I also disagree with the majority. "[/quote]

That's great, but to repeat some powerful words:[quote] Barrack Obama said: "Elections have consequences.".[/quote]

...so unless you are willing to organize a movement to return to the days of fewer rights, or run for office, write, promote, and help pass a law that negates the current one, it is what it is.

ChippewaFallsWisconsin

Further North and Oldwiseone, again, this is open to interpretation. What I can't stand is when one person tells me my interpretation is wrong and theirs is the only right one. You sit and tell me mine is wrong, while agruing similar points and contradicting yourself. It doesn't matter, I feel the right to bear arms is vague, that's why we make state laws, but you argue that point. I'm not saying I'm perfect, but for gosh sakes, let's just agree to disagree.

ChippewaFallsWisconsin

And how can you tell me that the right to bear arms was written to once again, in the future, attack the government? I beleive it was written very vague so states can interpret it their way, the way each state is needed. In my opinion, it wasn't written so in the future we can attack the government. Why would the founding fathers of the then current government give the people the right to attack them? Doesn't make sense to me. But go ahead and pick that apart, I'm done arguing.

Further North

[quote]ChippewaFallsWisconsin said: "Further North and Oldwiseone, again, this is open to interpretation."[/quote]

That's the point - it's not open to interpretation. It's specific, concrete law.

Too many people think that legal language is subject to the same vagaries that our common daily language is. It's not. It is precise, every word had a specific meaning and it not open to interpretation.

If you want to change it, work to change it. Until then, it is what it is.

Further North

[quote]ChippewaFallsWisconsin said: "You sit and tell me mine is wrong, while agruing similar points and contradicting yourself."[/quote]

There is not one single contradiction below...you might not understand it, but facts are facts.

You're as entitled to your opinion as anyone, but you're in a place where your ideas are not law right now.

If you want change, act to change. If not, live with it, that's what we do when we don't like something - make a choice.

Further North

[quote]ChippewaFallsWisconsin said: "It doesn't matter, I feel the right to bear arms is vague, that's why we make state laws, but you argue that point."[/quote]

But the problem is...that's NOT why we make state laws, and promoting that thinking is going to effect how other people think about this and get even more people on the wrong kind of thinking.

...and the RTBA is NOT vague....

Further North

[quote]ChippewaFallsWisconsin said: "I'm not saying I'm perfect, but for gosh sakes, let's just agree to disagree. "[/quote]

OK, I'll quit when you quit. But I'm not going to leave incorrect and imprecise thoughts up her for others to be influenced by.

Further North

[quote]ChippewaFallsWisconsin said: "I believe it was written very vague so states can interpret it their way, the way each state is needed."[/quote]

Two problems: One as already stated, it's not vague. Two there is no difference between how states need to interpret anything in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.

...unless your suggesting that WI is a bunch of bloodthirsty savages and can't be trusted the way other states citizens are....

Further North

[quote]ChippewaFallsWisconsin said: "Why would the founding fathers of the then current government give the people the right to attack them?"[/quote]

Asked an answered...but here you go again: They'd just fought a war with their government, because they were oppressed, and they won it. They wanted to make it possible for that to happen again, should the government become oppressive again.

...and again, not attack, defend against the government - HUGE difference....

Further North

[quote]ChippewaFallsWisconsin said: "I'm done arguing."[/quote]

We can only hope.

ChippewaFallsWisconsin

Further North, I guess all the attorneys can quit their jobs now because the constitution is written and all shall obey. Really? What world do you live in? Obviously it's all about interpretation or else people wouldn't challenge it and win. Ever heard of Roe V Wade? Of course people interprete it differently or else Walker wouldn't be in the process of being recalled. Everyone is entitled to their opinions, so I respect yours. I may not agre with it, obviously, but I respect you give it.

Enlightenment

Interesting debate, but are the current gun rights even in jeopardy, or is this topic used for political propaganda?

ChippewaFallsWisconsin

oldwiseone, I must be missing something. First, I was a history major in college, so I do know quite a bit about history. Second, where can I find anywhere in history books that the founding fathers wrote the ammendment right to bear arms was meant for, in the future, defend ourselves against the government? I realize they used weapons to fight the British, but I seriously doubt the then current gov't meant to write a passage about the citizens raising up against them.

old timer

This message is for Steve Lauer, "If business is booming, and you can't keep up with the demand for the product, maybe you should HIRE SOME EXTRA HELP!

Further North

[quote]ChippewaFallsWisconsin said: "Further North, I guess all the attorneys....obviously, but I respect you give it."[/quote]

I thought you were done?

Further North

[quote]ChippewaFallsWisconsin said: "Further North, I guess all the attorneys can quit their jobs now because the constitution is written and all shall obey."[/quote]

No - you need attorneys for a few things:
1) To help write new law and change existing ones if the people want to do that.
2) To prosecute violation of existing law.
3) To perform the duties of defense attorneys when there is an allegation of a violation of existing laws.
4) To deal with civil matters between adversaries

...etc.

Further North

[quote]ChippewaFallsWisconsin said: "What world do you live in?[/quote]

The real one, as opposed to the one you see on TV.

[quote]ChippewaFallsWisconsin said: "Obviously it's all about interpretation or else people wouldn't challenge it and win."[/quote]

The word you're looking for is "application" not "interpretation".

Further North

[quote]ChippewaFallsWisconsin said: "Of course people interprete it differently or else Walker wouldn't be in the process of being recalled.[/quote]

That's got nothing to do with the subject, and is a red herring.

[quote]ChippewaFallsWisconsin said: "Everyone is entitled to their opinions, so I respect yours. I may not agre with it, obviously, but I respect you give it."[/quote]

Same here.

...but I still can't let incorrect info stand here....

ChippewaFallsWisconsin

Further North, please don't correct me on what I mean to say. I meant interpretation, not application. But you as the all knowing should know not to tell people what they are thinking. I could turn much around on you, but I prefer a nice, adult conversation. Obviously you want me to shut up because I actually have to make you think. I'm not perfect, and could actually be wrong, but please act like an adult and stop with the I know everything stuff. We're all sick of it.

ChippewaFallsWisconsin

And don't tell us what our opinions have to do with the subject, unless you are the King of blogs. If I want to speak an opinion, I will. If you don't like to read it, don't. You seem to bash everything I say, and say I am wrong, so I ask that you don't read what I say anymore and go attempt to torture someone else. If you don't agree with what I say, great, you are entitled to your opinion. At least I am involved with the community trying to make things better, can you say the same?

Enlightenment

[quote]ChippewaFallsWisconsin said: "Further North, please don't correct me on what I mean to say. I could turn much around on you, but I prefer a nice, adult conversation. Obviously you want me to shut up because I actually have to make you think. I'm not perfect, and could actually be wrong, but please act like an adult and stop with the I know everything stuff. We're all sick of it. "[/quote]


+1

Further North

[quote]ChippewaFallsWisconsin said: "Further North, please don't correct me on what I mean to say. I meant interpretation, not application."[/quote]

Hey, if you want to use imprecise language, have at it...but this is not a place where "interpretation" works. People who, I suspect, have a much deeper legal background than you have decided your "interpretation" is wrong...as they have often done with things I feel strongly about.

I don't whine about it, I work to change it if I can.

Further North

[quote]ChippewaFallsWisconsin said: "I could turn much around on you, but I prefer a nice, adult conversation."[/quote]

No, you can't.

[quote]ChippewaFallsWisconsin said: "Obviously you want me to shut up because I actually have to make you think."[/quote]

I'd actually prefer it if you kept going.

Further North

[quote]ChippewaFallsWisconsin said: "...please act like an adult and stop with the I know everything stuff.[/quote]

I don't know nearly everything, but I know this particularly topic pretty well...

[quote]ChippewaFallsWisconsin said: "We're all sick of it. "[/quote]

"We"? The evidence here suggests otherwise...other than the "+1" guy....

Further North

[quote]ChippewaFallsWisconsin said: "And don't tell us ...say the same? "[/quote]

Wow...that's quite a lecture. Haven't had one of those in years...

Further North

[quote]ChippewaFallsWisconsin said: "If I want to speak an opinion, I will.[/quote]

...and you should, but when you state them publicly, you need to be be prepared to have your opinions criticized, and your statement countered.

[quote]ChippewaFallsWisconsin said: "If you don't like to read it, don't."[/quote]

I don't like or dislike your writings. They're just there. I just want to keep people squared away on the facts regarding things that are important to me.

Further North

[quote]ChippewaFallsWisconsin said: "At least I am involved with the community trying to make things better, can you say the same? "[/quote]

Absolutely. And thanks for your involvement, things like that make a difference.

Further North

Oops, missed this one:

[quote]ChippewaFallsWisconsin said: "And don't tell us what our opinions have to do with the subject"[/quote]

Only when they are demonstrably incorrect, or clearly diversionary...and who's "us"?

ChippewaFallsWisconsin

If you have any kind of intelligence, you can see you're the only one picking everything apart. WE can see that. I have stated in the past, I don't know everything. Also, like I have said in the past, we must agree to disagree. You feel my "facts" are wrong, I feel your "facts" are wrong. We just plain disagree. I love a good debate, but we have gone way too far off topic accusing the other of wrong facts and wrong opinions. I respect your opinions and I'm glad you give them, many don't.

Further North

[quote]ChippewaFallsWisconsin said: "If you have any kind of intelligence, you can see you're the only one picking everything apart. WE can see that."[/quote]

Hmmmmmm....seems there's a couple of us responding...and you're the only one making arguments against guns....but maybe that's just me...

....I just checked...nope, it's just you....

So...who's "we"?

Further North

BTW, I love arguments that start like this:

[quote]ChippewaFallsWisconsin said: "If you have any kind of intelligence, you can see you're the only one picking everything apart. "[/quote]

That's not-so-subtle code for "If you don't see it my way, you're an idiot."

Nice.....

Further North

[quote]ChippewaFallsWisconsin said: "You feel my "facts" are wrong, I feel your "facts" are wrong.[/quote]

Funny thing about facts...they don't need opinion to back them up.

Something I learned long ago: as soon as someone starts arguing opinion, they've got nothing substantial. It almost always progresses to claims that others are trying to suppress those opinions...see below...

Note that I haven't presented any opinions...

Further North

[quote]ChippewaFallsWisconsin said: "I love a good debate, but we have gone way too far off topic accusing the other of wrong facts and wrong opinions.[/quote]

I don't think we're off topic at all, and I'm not accusing - just presenting things as they are.

[quote]ChippewaFallsWisconsin said: "I respect your opinions and I'm glad you give them, many don't."[/quote]

Thanks, as I do yours...though I don't worry much about if people like facts, they are what they are.

ChippewaFallsWisconsin

Further North, I find it amusing that you are picking apart the very sentence where I mention picking apart and still deny it. It's obvious you just want an argument, not a debate. I say I appreciate a good debate and say I'm glad you give your opinions, and you still put words in my mouth thinking I'm calling you an idiot. Do you see anyone else debating with you? No, that's why I say we. So unless you want to continue to argue, I say good day to you sir or ma'am.

Enlightenment

CFW, I see that you've tried several times to respectfully remove yourself from the circular logic of furthernorth, but furthernorth is bound and determine keep posting until he/she gets in the last post. I too like a good debate, but it doesn't appear that you are going to get that from furthernorth.

Further North

[quote]ChippewaFallsWisconsin said: "Further North, I find it amusing that you are picking apart the very sentence where I mention picking apart and still deny it."[/quote]

Glad you're amused. On your "picking apart"...the best way to deal with claims in a discussion is to address them one by one so that everyone is clear.

The only times I find that people don't like it is when their claims can't stand up to scrutiny.

Further North

[quote]ChippewaFallsWisconsin said: "It's obvious you just want an argument, not a debate."[/quote]

Not sure what you think the distinction is, but it call it whatever you like.

Further North

[quote]ChippewaFallsWisconsin said: "I say I appreciate a good debate and say I'm glad you give your opinions, and you still put words in my mouth thinking I'm calling you an idiot."[/quote]

Tell me another way to interpret this:

[quote]ChippewaFallsWisconsin said: "If you have any kind of intelligence, you can see you're the only one picking everything apart."[/quote]

I recognize an insult when I see one, ant though I won't respond in kind, I will call it out....

Further North

[quote]ChippewaFallsWisconsin said: "Do you see anyone else debating with you? No, that's why I say we.[/quote]

So now "we"is you and me...but before, "we" was people who were "sick of it"...but I'm not "sick of it"....I am confused though....

[quote]ChippewaFallsWisconsin said: "So unless you want to continue to argue, I say good day to you sir or ma'am."[/quote]

Please don't get my hopes up again.....

Further North

[quote]Enlightenment said: "CFW, I see that you've tried several times to respectfully remove yourself from the circular logic of furthernorth, but furthernorth is bound and determine keep posting until he/she gets in the last post."[/quote]

As long as CFW continues to make claims that need to be refuted, I'll keep plugin' away.

BTW, people who try to respectfully remove themselves from a discussion...usually stop...

PS: There's no circular logic, just facts...

MsMatch

Let's think critically: The NRA is propped up in part by gun and ammo manufacturers; NRA props up the politicians who write and lax pass gun/arms laws. Rumor is spread that someone in power is going to "take away yer guns." Morons who actually believe this run out and buy all they can, thereby driving up prices.
The winners: The gun/ammo manufacturers, the NRA lobbyists and the politicians.
The losers: The folks who truly believe this has anything to do with the Constitution or their rights.

Enlightenment

MsMatch, thanks for addressing my earliest post. Your post is more in line with the debate I was hoping for on this thread, but it went a different direction, which is fine too.

I really do question whether there truly is a threat by a candidate in an election that is interested in eliminating/decreasing rights of gun owners, or if it is just hype. Or if it is the contrary and that the gun rights groups/people are really effective in thwarting bills restricting gun rights.

MsMatch

It is absolutely hype: hype for profit. It's just like anything else in this country. The powers that be are all too happy to let the little people argue about these trivial things, while they laugh and line their pockets. It's as simple as that. The welfare queen, the overpaid spoiled public worker, the police state and the people who want to take away your guns...all fictional characters made up to scare the ignorant. And clearly, it works.

SRLaBelle

I think people are also buying guns out of fear. Last summer there was a lot of the sort of random violence (Wisconsin State Fair variety) that people fear. It was happening nationwide and I think that that sort of thing can only juice up gun sales.
I wouldn't be a bit surprised to see the bigger cities explode in violence this summer. I think that there are some in the political firmament hoping for just that outcome.

Further North

[quote]MsMatch said: "Rumor is spread that someone in power is going to "take away yer guns." Morons who actually believe this run out and buy all they can, thereby driving up prices. The winners: The gun/ammo manufacturers, the NRA lobbyists and the politicians. The losers: The folks who truly believe this has anything to do with the Constitution or their rights."[/quote]

Pretty close. Stockholders do OK too......

Further North

[quote]Enlightenment said: "I really do question whether there truly is a threat by a candidate in an election that is interested in eliminating/decreasing rights of gun owners, or if it is just hype."[/quote]

It's a tool used by certain groups to try to make gun owners afraid, and thus vote for certain candidates.

There is little danger - a this point in history - of anyone taking away our guns. Anyone who tried would be out in the next election.

Further North

[quote]MsMatch said: "The welfare queen, the overpaid spoiled public worker, the police state and the people who want to take away your guns...all fictional characters made up to scare the ignorant. And clearly, it works."[/quote]

Again, pretty close. A little digging around might find an example or two but by and large those characters don't exist.

...of course...neither do their opposites: The fat cats, the oppressed government or union worker...

Further North

[quote]oldwiseone said: "I personally know many pepople that have purchased new guns this year because of a few Wisconsin gun laws that have loosened up. People are buying more guns as a result of looser gun laws. They aren't buying more because they are scared they will be taken away. "[/quote]

True of WI , but not other states, and gun sales are up everywhere. The local phenomena can be traced to WI CC, a lot of the rest is paranoia just like 2008.

Further North

[quote]SRLaBelle said: "I wouldn't be a bit surprised to see the bigger cities explode in violence this summer.

I would...or if it does happen it's not going to be related to gun sales. Criminals don't often use legal guns....[/quote]

[quote]SRLaBelle said: "I think that there are some in the political firmament hoping for just that outcome. "[/quote]

The only ones hoping for that would be the ones hoping to use it as a way to restrict gun rights. That'd be sick thinking.

SRLaBelle

Last summer was particularly violent, I think that this summer will be more so. Not in CF but in North Mpls, Detroit, Atlanta, LA, Miami..... Milwaukee, Chicago.
I think that everyday folks, black and white, buy guns out of fear of violence.
In 2008 I voted for Obama, I had hoped that he would work to ease racial tensions... To me it seems that everything has just gotton worse. I don't own a handgun but I bet that a lot of Milwaukee soccer moms are strapping on personal protection.

Further North

[quote]SRLaBelle said: "In 2008 I voted for Obama, I had hoped that he would work to ease racial tensions... To me it seems that everything has just gotton worse."[/quote]

I also had that hope and agree that racial tensions have increased.

It's more than a little cynical of me to say so, but there is very little political benefit to Obama to ease those tensions. He can own the minority vote AND blame much criticism and opposition on racism...win/win for him.

Further North

[quote]Eric Holder said: "As President Obama indicated during the campaign, there are just a few gun-related changes that we would like to make, and among them would be to reinstitute the ban on the sale of assault weapons."[/quote]

Holder's nuts, and capable of about anything to advance his agenda...anyone who wants to verify this just needs to check out the "Fast & Furious" scandal that most of the media is so studiously ignoring.

Ugly, ugly stuff.

Further North

The whole "Assault Weapons" ban is classic gun grabber strategy: create fear, then try to control they are the antithesis of the NRA and use the exact same tactics from the opposite side.

...Automatic weapons are already tightly controlled via Class III licensing, and the rest of what they are trying to classify as dangerous are simply on the list because of how they look.

SRLaBelle

Ms match says people who fear government overreach are "ignorant"..
I think that we picture the local police force in terms of Andy and Barney of Mayberry and 99% of the time that is an accurate depiction.
In a time like the present things are a bit less idyllic. The economic fabric of the nation is under great strain. As the fiscal pie shrinks the folks who make up the government cast about for new revenue streams. The same thing happens in every empire......

SRLaBelle

Eventually the people begin to groan under the weight of the bureaucracy. When push comes to shove the bureaucrats have many tools in their belt, not the least of which is the various police structures.
In 1955 the pie was big enough and the state security apparatus was small, now the pie isn't big enough and the state has expanded the security dramatically. The fight against "terror", the war against drugs...these marquee events have left in their wake massive expansion of security at......

SRLaBelle

Every level of government. Our real enemy here is fear, if we become convinced the sky is falling some enterprising bureaucrat will propose a tax funded fix.
The road to hell is paved with well meaning government programs and bureaucrats who are convinced that the average Joe is "ignorant". I have nothing against these folks, if I could pull down $60k a year and a million dollar retirement at the local government center I would echo their sentiments and call the taxpayers "ignorant" too.

Further North

[quote]oldwiseone said: "Obama has said that he wishes to reinstate the ban on those items. Why is it paranoia to buy them before he does what he said he would do? "[/quote]

Probably...and it's only probably...because he can't do it by himself. He needs both houses of congress, and he'll never get them to agree to go along because it'd be political suicide.

Obama simply does not command the political gravitas to restrict gun rights to any meaningful degree on his own. He's a lightweight.

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.