December
2006
Conceal Carry an Unconstitutional Wild West Fantasy for Gun Nuts
"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."
That's what the second amendment to the Constitution says. It doesn't say that anyone who wants to pack heat, anywhere and at any time can wear a holster or wear a gun under their suit coat. But that's what many Republicans are saying it means.
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state" is always conveniently omitted when gun extremists (not to be confused with hunters) talk about the constitution and the second amendment within the Bill of Rights.
No, they just like guns and they don't like the restrictions to their "rights".
Here's the problem with that. Those restrictions are constitutional restrictions. They were built into the Bill of Rights. These folks aren't part of a well regulated militia. Quite the contrary — they oppose any regulation of their guns. The want to shoot them off whenever they want. That's called Anarchy. Those "rights" they claim the have to pack heat wherever and whenever they want — it was not a right that was ever given to them by the framers of the constitution.
In short, they don't support the constitution. They don't support the document which is the basis of our republic. Now I'm no brain surgeon, but if they hate the document that makes us the United States of America, why do they stay?
Despite their flying of the flag, they don't love this country they do not love what it (and our constitution) stand for. So why do they stay?
###
Jim McGuigan is a hunter, sportsman and gun owner who supports hunters rights.
LINK: Not Welcome in Wisconsin: An Analysis of Conceal Carry Legislation
Jim McGuigan
Jim McGuigan, Watchdogging Constitutional Abuse
RSS feed
Link
It boggles my mind how inaccurate your article is.
What gun owner has been quoted as to ever saying that he/she cannot wait to fire off their guns in the middle of shopping malls or sporting events? Find me that quote and I’ll acquiesce to you.
In the 48 other U.S. states that allow conceal/carry, please show me an example of a licensed, approved gun owner who used conceal/carry to perpetrate a crime?
The images of the ‘Wild, Wild West’ are so grossly wrong but that is what the wing-nut left needs to do in order to prevent law-abiding citizens to defend themselves. Why don’t you just come out and say that you are for the banning of all guns? That would solve the problem wouldn’t it?
The fact of the matter is that conceal/carry already occurs in our state…it’s just used by those who choose to use guns for committing crimes, most of whom cannot legally possess a gun anyway.
People who go on shooting sprees at events or in public areas don’t go on the record with quotes saying they want to fire off a few rounds in public areas. They wouldn’t do that anymore than Ted Kacinski (sp?) would have announced his intentions with his bombings.
Once again, you’re missing the point here and once again you inaccurately portray my (a hunters) opinion.
I have no problem with hunting guns or hunting ammunition. It is the military stuff that’s made for killing people that I have a problem with. There’s no reason why anyone needs to go hunting with bullets that splinter on impact.
But your article is about having a problem with conceal/carry, not bullets that splinter on impact. If you want to write about that, go right ahead and I may be inclined to agree with you.
I’m still awaiting an answer to my query about the 48 other states in the U.S. that allow conceal/carry having no significant spike in gun crime.
You want stats. Here’s stats. Have at ‘em.
http://www.legis.state.wi.us/senate/sen23/news/PPA/012506%20Rep%20Richards%20anti%20CCW%20REPORT.pdf
How about a non-biased report? I might as well read the Shepherd Express for an equally biased article/report.
If we can’t trust law abiding citizens with something as potentially deadly as a gun, then why allow law abiding citizens to drive vehicles or drink alcohol? Both are potentially lethal if used improperly, just like a gun.
Why am I allowed to protect myself and my family inside of my home but the second I leave my home I am not allowed, legally, to protect myself? Makes little common sense to me as a law-abiding citizen.
Did you read it?
It’s pretty straight forward and has some good anecdotal info. As a bonus, it’s backed up with facts.
And you are allowed to legally protect yourself after you’ve left your home. You just shouldn’t be allowed to carry a concealed gun.
How am I supposed to protect myself with a firearm outside of my home if I’m not legally allowed to carry it passed my property line? Advantage: criminal
And yes, I read the whole report, what gives? Whereas you look at that report as iron-clad proof, I see it as opinion from people pushing a certain agenda. I wouldn’t just read a pro-conceal/carry piece put out by the NRA, they have an agenda to push much like the authors of said report.
You can’t assume that everyone outside your home is packing heat and you shouldn’t assume everyone else is a criminal.
The piece wasn’t simply opinion. It gave iron-clad examples of instances where conceal carry didn’t work.
Did the authors have an agenda? I’m certain they did but sine they backed their claims up with facts, what is the problem?
Funny how the report failed to mention the countless cases where conceal/carry saved lives or reduced crime in some cases. Wouldn’t a non-biased report include those types of things? Why should I only accept, as the gospel, a one-sided/biased report?
And you’re right, I can’t assume that everyone outside of my home is packing heat…but what I CAN count on is that a criminal will NOT follow the law and therefore will carry a concealed weapon regardless of what law is/is not in place.
Throughout the concealed carry debate, which is nearly 10 years old now in the state, neither side has been able to prove their case through stats. States that have concealed carry [all but four] have seen decreases in crime, and states with concealed carry have seen spikes in crime. Generally, crime is driven by demographics and other factors; reported crime can be driven by police recognition of drug conduits or street gang retaliation drama.
The two big cities with far and away highest spikes in violent crime [aggravated assault and armed robbery] are #1 Minneapolis and #2 Milwaukee. Minnesota has concealed carry; Wisconsin does not.
In neither city can you fire your concealed gun if accosted. Concealed carry is a wash, but for the fact the NRA wants it so bad. This will be an issue again, maybe in five years.
Why wouldn’t the NRA support conceal/carry? They support the right for citizens to LEGALLY use firearms, whether it’s for hunting or for self-protection. If more law-abiding citizens are allowed to protect themselves, the better the chance they may become NRA members.
Can 46 out of 50 US States be so completely wrong? Even those controlled by your fellow liberal brethren?
How about looking at the other end of this question: law enforcement. Trying to determine good guys from bad guys becomes much more difficult. Historically, the bad guys have the guns and the innocent don’t.If citizens can carry - Police have to decifer the warning signs and act upon them. That delay could be the difference between life and death. How many complaints will come in against police drawing on “innocent” civilians who are carrying before police are told NOT to draw their weapons- that is where cops will get killed and the bad guys win.
In a time of road rage and increased violence, I’m not so sure adding a concealed weapon to the mix, at this moment in time, is a good idea. People are so willing to run others off the road or stop altogether and ingage in physical confrontations. People are dumb- in a rage they become dumber. You may think I’m against concealed carry, but I’m not. I’m actually for it. BUT NOT RIGHT NOW…not today… not with society in this confrontational-in your face- mentality.
So if you can’t fire the gun to protect self and property, what’s the point of carrying it around? There is no point. The NRA is not really selling personal safety (which they can’t prove) but is instead selling a culture of guns that serves their agenda (gun sales).
For example, as you walk into the Mariucci Center on the campus of U of Minnesota for a hockey game, you are greeted with a government-approved sign that says “No guns allowed on premises.” It’s fundamental intrusion on families just wanting to watch a hockey match. Under CC’s prior notification, you’d have to post a sign in your home to keep the damn things out. Like the 2nd Amendment, it’s just lousy law.
At the end of the day, the NRA’s argument, in fact, is that “almost every other state has it — but the liberals in Wisconsin are preventing you from having it.” Not much of an argument, really, more a statement of reality that is not going to change anytime soon.
Deputy insider’s concerns as a law enforcement officer hit home, and it’s important to mention road rage in the context of concealed carry. MPD officer Alphonso Glover and William Prado would almost certainly be alive today if Glover had not the legal option of carrying his gun off duty. Tragically, both men are gone.
Well deputy insider, this is where you and I differ…you assume all law-abiding citizens are dumb and incapable of being trusted…I on the other hand feel completely the opposite about law-abiding citizens. I imagine that you also feel it’s government’s job to protect the dumb citizens from themselves because they will ingest trans fatty acids until they’re blue in the face without government intervention to stop them.
mkelover: I never said anything about trust. IF you read everything I wrote you\’d see I am FOR concealed carry. Or maybe you should re-read my note then make your appology. My point is simply, in todays world, as unsafe as it is, placing guns on the hips of TRUSTED citizens IS NOT a positive. Citizens carrying guns DOES NOT stop crime. Take whatever stand you want mkelover, it does not matter. Know this: should you be carrying a gun- even legally- if you have contact with law enforcement, be PREPARED to be treated as a criminal… at least until it\’s proven otherwise. Remember this - YOU WANTED TO CARRY and I WANT to go HOME after my shift.
Apologize for what? I can read what you wrote, I know that you support conceal/carry but evidently you only support it if it doesn’t happen today. So effectively, you’re against it. Tell me in what situation, epoch, or era you would support it.
And you assume that if given the chance, every law-abiding citizen would run right out and get a conceal/carry permit if legally allowed to do so. I fall into that category and if legalalized, I would NOT run out and get one. I have no use to arm myself with a gun based on where I live, shop, go out, etc. But I can tell you that I like the opportunity to make that choice, at least that a criminal *may* think twice when trying to rob, stab, and otherwise kill me or my family.
The point is that concealed carry doesn’t supercede the law against using deadly force say you don’t have the right to fire the damn thing even if threatened. Alphonso Glover was facing serious felony/wrongful death charges in the death of Prado when he took his own life; in Racine, the guy who shot another guy in defense of his girlfriend’s safety was convicted by jury. In both cases, if there was no gun, no one would have been shot.
And, no, mkelover, you’re not paying attention to what deputy insider is saying. Cops don’t “assume” anything - they are trained to use deadly force to protect themselves if somebody’s got a gun drawn. It’s not really a debatable point — the cops are legally allowed to shoot your dog if they feel it’s threatening them.
We are trying to regulate debate on this site to ensure that comments stays on topic, that people are responding to what is actually written, and that people don’t get upset and personal in their responses.