Damn liberals!

FIRE MISSION!

President Bushs' fault, too
------------------------------------------------------
www.madison.com
Cindy Jahnke: Concealed carry is unnecessary law
A letter to the editor
Dear Editor: The Republicans are starting the year off with a bang because they can't think of anything better to do for the people. They're really good at spoon-fed propaganda but haven't been effective in getting anything else done except proposing under-funding schools, trying to take away birth control from women and taking away rights from gay people. Thank goodness for the veto pen of Gov. Doyle.
The effort to legalize carrying concealed weapons goes back to the Senate in mid-January. You will read that if this law passes, the crime rate will go down significantly. Hooey! They took a statistic and changed the meaning of it. Wisconsin already has one of the lowest crime rates in the country.

We don't need to have people packing guns everywhere like they're cowboys. Violence begets violence. Talk to Jesus about that. If you want to do something about the crime rate, do something about poverty and keep our children educated and fed for a start.

Most of you are starting to see through the rhetoric of the Republican Party. John Kerry wouldn't have taken away your guns or Al Gore for that matter. Who took away guns last year? The fine folks in the Bush administration. They went door to door and took away the guns from the people in New Orleans. Only the poor people, of course.

The police don't want this law because more guns will be on the street, medical professionals don't want it because more people will be hurt, and the public doesn't want it because having that many weapons around is just plain unsafe. Who does want concealed carry? The NRA because it will lead to more gun sales. The Republicans want the law because they think they can fool the public.

Please call your legislators and ask them to vote against SB403/AB763 today.

Cindy Jahnke
Hudson

Published: January 17, 2006

We don't need to have people packing guns everywhere like they're cowboys. Violence begets violence. Talk to Jesus about that.

Jesus told me to buy a sword.

Violence begets violence.

Yeah, BG tries to attack me, I shoot him.   Violence begets violence begets PEACE and survival

Same song in Nebraska

The Legislature on Thursday gave firstround approval to a bill to permit Nebraskans to carry concealed handguns, the objections and threats of State Sen. Ernie Chambers notwithstanding. While Sen. Chambers' tactics (he already has tried a filibuster and told colleagues he would oppose every bill facing lawmakers) can be extreme, his goal in this case is worthy. The "concealed carry" bill was a bad idea when it came before lawmakers in 1996. It's a bad idea now, and it will be a bad idea if it comes back in the future. The law is not needed. And passing it would be an invitation to trouble. It's not needed because Nebraska law already offers a statutory affirmative defense. That law - which the bill's sponsor, Sen. Jeanne Combs of Milligan, read during legislative debate - states: "It shall be an affirmative defense that the defendant was engaged in any lawful business, calling or employment at the time he or she was carrying any weapon or weapons and the circumstances in which such person was placed at the time were such as to justify a prudent person in carrying the weapon or weapons for the defense of his or her person, property or family." In short, the statute says that anyone arrested for using a concealed weapon to protect himself, his property or his family is protected from punishment. Sen. Combs highlights the first part of the law, interpreting it to mean that the protection extends only to someone acting on business. But the last portion of the law makes it clear that a person could also carry and use a weapon to defend his "person, property or family." Gun ownership is a constitutionally protected right. And many Nebraskans legitimately assert that right, keeping rifles, shotguns and other weapons in their home. In addition, the law allows residents to carry guns openly, if they like - though, as Sen. Combs has said, that is not usually socially acceptable. She doesn't explain why carrying a concealed weapon would be socially acceptable. Nebraska is a low-crime state. What is the day-to-day threat that requires day-to-day firepower? Drunks or Interstate drivers, people waiting in line at the grocery or people getting a candy bar at the convenience store should not be carrying hidden firearms. (A note: Nonresistance is often the safest alternative when confronted by a violent criminal. The National Association of Convenience Stores has said that if someone resists during a robbery, the chances of violence go up by more than 80 percent. Not good odds.) Combs' bill would require an eye test, a training course and a background check to get a permit. It has been estimated that some 64,000 Nebraskans would do so. While the process doesn't make a concealed-carry law any more attractive, at least permits wouldn't be handed out like Cracker Jack prizes. The thoughts of William J. Muldoon, the chief of police in Nebraska City, summarize the case against the law well. In an essay last year on the More Commentary page, he wrote that the difference between an average citizen armed for self-protection and an average citizen committing criminal assault is often simple provocation. Permitting concealed weapons adds fuel to the fire of anger and frustration, he wrote. "In my 27 years of law enforcement experience," according to Muldoon, "I have seen far too many instances where a firearm in the home was not used for self-defense as intended but instead was used in a domestic assault, on a family member in a tragic accident or by a family member to commit suicide." The voice of experience. Combs' Legislative Bill 454 should sink before Muldoon's fears are realized.

This time the bill  has gotten farther than I can remember it getting before.

Cindy, baby. You turn the other cheek. I'll rotate the cylinder. And Jorge didn't confiscate anything. It was a JBChip from a blue state operating under 2 levels of Demtards.

Quoted: Cindy Jahnke: Concealed carry is unnecessary law

I agree completely! We have the RBKA, so we should have open and concealed carry without a law!

Quoted: Violence begets violence. Talk to Jesus about that.

And pacifism leads to crucifixion.

(no insult intended by any means, but is she trying to say we should sit back and let evil people do to us as they wish?)

Quoted: Quoted: Cindy Jahnke: Concealed carry is unnecessary law I agree completely! We have the RBKA, so we should have open and concealed carry without a law!

Beat me to it!  

Quoted: Quoted: Violence begets violence. Talk to Jesus about that. And pacifism leads to crucifixion. (no insult intended by any means, but is she trying to say we should sit back and let evil people do to us as they wish?)

Jesus wasn't a pacifist .  It was part of His plan .

I understand what you're saying .  Jesus told me to buy a sword too! Luke 22:36

In Jesus' day, his dudes were constantly armed, open carry to boot!

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Cindy Jahnke: Concealed carry is unnecessary law I agree completely! We have the RBKA, so we should have open and concealed carry without a law! Beat me to it!

Damn, too slow!!    

Quoted: Quoted: Cindy Jahnke: Concealed carry is unnecessary law I agree completely! We have the RBKA, so we should have open and concealed carry without a law!

I was hopeful that this is what the article was actually communicating....then I woke up and remebered how our main stream media operates.

I also agree that concealed carry should be unnecessary due to the 2A

Quoted: Violence begets violence. Talk to Jesus about that.

THIS Jesus?

He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. - Luke 22:36

i wish we could start arguing both sides of the same coin to our benefit like the anti's do.

"XXX is a low crime area. you don't NEED to carry a gun every day."

"XXX is a high crime area. we NEED to get these guns off the streets."

Those who beat their swords into plowshares usually end up plowing for those who kept their swords -Benjamin Franklin

Sorry to say....but hopefully Cindy Jahnke will be the victim of a violent crime.

Then she can cry about not being protected....

Fuck her and all her ilk. Maybe she should focus on other things rather than trying to squash my rights.

Yeah, we eased up the self-defense laws here in the Gunshine State and now blood runs through the streets. Everybody and their dog has a gun, it's horrible!

Mad?  Not as mad as we were when we lost the chance last year at CCW by one single vote at the veto override attempt.

This is a new year.  If this article really makes you angry and you want to do something that aggravate the living hell out of this writer - send a quick, polite e-mail to these 6 critically important Democratic legislators.  

They voted for CCW the first time around and MUST ABSOLUTELY VOTE FOR IT AGAIN WHEN THE VETO OVERRIDE ATTEMPT COMES!

Mary Hubler
Phone: (888) 534-0075 or E-mail:
[email protected]

Barbara Gronemus
Phone: (888) 534-0091 or E-mail:
[email protected]

Marlin Schneider
Phone: (888) 529-0072 or E-mail:
[email protected]

John Steinbrink
Phone: (608) 266-0455 or E-mail:
[email protected]

Terry Van Akkeren
Phone: (608) 266-0656 or E-mail:
[email protected]

Amy Sue Vruwink
Phone: (888) 534-0070 or E-mail:
[email protected]

If you visit Wisconsin, if you have friends and family here, if you're from a State that has CCW - let them hear from you.

If you have people in WI, have them go to 165.189.139.210/WAML/ to find out who their Assembly rep is and have them make a call to them in addition to contacting the above critical Assembly members.

www.wisconsinconcealedcarry.com

Quoted: Quoted: Cindy Jahnke: Concealed carry is unnecessary law I agree completely! We have the RBKA, so we should have open and concealed carry without a law!

+1, it says "shall not be infringed".

Quoted: Mad?  Not as mad as we were when we lost the chance last year at CCW by one single vote at the veto override attempt. This is a new year.  If this article really makes you angry and you want to do something that aggravate the living hell out of this writer - send a quick, polite e-mail to these 6 critically important Democratic legislators.   They voted for CCW the first time around and MUST ABSOLUTELY VOTE FOR IT AGAIN WHEN THE VETO OVERRIDE ATTEMPT COMES! Mary Hubler Phone: (888) 534-0075 or E-mail: [email protected] Barbara Gronemus Phone: (888) 534-0091 or E-mail: [email protected] Marlin Schneider Phone: (888) 529-0072 or E-mail: [email protected] John Steinbrink Phone: (608) 266-0455 or E-mail: [email protected] Terry Van Akkeren Phone: (608) 266-0656 or E-mail: [email protected] Amy Sue Vruwink Phone: (888) 534-0070 or E-mail: [email protected] If you visit Wisconsin, if you have friends and family here, if you're from a State that has CCW - let them hear from you. If you have people in WI, have them go to 165.189.139.210/WAML/ to find out who their Assembly rep is and have them make a call to them in addition to contacting the above critical Assembly members. www.wisconsinconcealedcarry.com

Dang, I hadn't gotten the update.

Best of luck to you in '06 though.

Quoted: Same song in Nebraska The Legislature on Thursday gave firstround approval to a bill to permit Nebraskans to carry concealed handguns, the objections and threats of State Sen. Ernie Chambers notwithstanding. While Sen. Chambers' tactics (he already has tried a filibuster and told colleagues he would oppose every bill facing lawmakers) can be extreme, his goal in this case is worthy. The "concealed carry" bill was a bad idea when it came before lawmakers in 1996. It's a bad idea now, and it will be a bad idea if it comes back in the future. The law is not needed. And passing it would be an invitation to trouble. It's not needed because Nebraska law already offers a statutory affirmative defense. That law - which the bill's sponsor, Sen. Jeanne Combs of Milligan, read during legislative debate - states: "It shall be an affirmative defense that the defendant was engaged in any lawful business, calling or employment at the time he or she was carrying any weapon or weapons and the circumstances in which such person was placed at the time were such as to justify a prudent person in carrying the weapon or weapons for the defense of his or her person, property or family." In short, the statute says that anyone arrested for using a concealed weapon to protect himself, his property or his family is protected from punishment. Sen. Combs highlights the first part of the law, interpreting it to mean that the protection extends only to someone acting on business. But the last portion of the law makes it clear that a person could also carry and use a weapon to defend his "person, property or family." Gun ownership is a constitutionally protected right. And many Nebraskans legitimately assert that right, keeping rifles, shotguns and other weapons in their home. In addition, the law allows residents to carry guns openly, if they like - though, as Sen. Combs has said, that is not usually socially acceptable. She doesn't explain why carrying a concealed weapon would be socially acceptable. Nebraska is a low-crime state. What is the day-to-day threat that requires day-to-day firepower? Drunks or Interstate drivers, people waiting in line at the grocery or people getting a candy bar at the convenience store should not be carrying hidden firearms. (A note: Nonresistance is often the safest alternative when confronted by a violent criminal. The National Association of Convenience Stores has said that if someone resists during a robbery, the chances of violence go up by more than 80 percent. Not good odds.) Combs' bill would require an eye test, a training course and a background check to get a permit. It has been estimated that some 64,000 Nebraskans would do so. While the process doesn't make a concealed-carry law any more attractive, at least permits wouldn't be handed out like Cracker Jack prizes. The thoughts of William J. Muldoon, the chief of police in Nebraska City, summarize the case against the law well. In an essay last year on the More Commentary page, he wrote that the difference between an average citizen armed for self-protection and an average citizen committing criminal assault is often simple provocation. Permitting concealed weapons adds fuel to the fire of anger and frustration, he wrote. "In my 27 years of law enforcement experience," according to Muldoon, "I have seen far too many instances where a firearm in the home was not used for self-defense as intended but instead was used in a domestic assault, on a family member in a tragic accident or by a family member to commit suicide." The voice of experience. Combs' Legislative Bill 454 should sink before Muldoon's fears are realized. This time the bill  has gotten farther than I can remember it getting before.

Ernie's always been a militant bastard.  He wanted the Huskers to get paid for playing football and now this.  The point is this: Concealed Carry IS an unecessary law...it should be the right of everyone to carry and we don't need laws giving us permission to do so.

I've listened to Chambers for almost 40 years, and he's worthless.

HH

Quoted: The point is this: Concealed Carry IS an unecessary law.

So what?

Pound on the "It's Alaska/Vermont or nothing" drum all you want and I'll dance right along with it.

But the fact remains:  These laws have a proven negative effect on rates of the Big 4 (rape, aggravated assault, kidnapping, and murder) in every state that has passed a "shall-issue" law.

The reason concealed carry laws work in reducing rime is not due to the fact that bad guys are being piled up like cord wood down at the city morgue thanks to a public skilled-at-arms – that would be nice, but no, they work in reducing crime because they force a rewriting of the mathematical equation criminals use to determine the gain/risk of their chosen career field.

I’m not singling out the HoustonHusker, I hear this very same line from a lot of my shooting buddies; “If they don’t pass a Vermont-style carry, I just can’t get behind the PPA.”  Well, if you’re against CCW laws, stop with the “how it makes me feel” argument, and explain to me why utilizing hard data*, otherwise check your self-centered “feelings” into the Hotel Chilltown and get on the horn to your elected rep in the State capital.



* An example of a logical argument to be against shall-issue:  “Since ?? state passed their shall-issue CCW law, more restrictive state-level gun control laws have come out.”  Something like that – I’ll be here waiting for some hard facts about why I shouldn’t support this bill.  Thank you.

Most of you are starting to see through the rhetoric of the Republican Party. John Kerry wouldn't have taken away your guns or Al Gore for that matter. Who took away guns last year? The fine folks in the Bush administration. They went door to door and took away the guns from the people in New Orleans. Only the poor people, of course.

So it is now Bush's fault that the NOLA police cheif (I suspect with orders from Nagin) decided to take guns away from the citizens?

Jeez theese people do not stop with the 'It's Bush fault' and 'Bush hates poor people'.

Yes it's true Wisconsin has a low crime rate, yet at the same time both Milwaukee and Racine set or tied record highs for murders in 2005 (117 IIRC in Milwaukee and 15 in Racine again IIRC) Sure we have a lower crime rate, but that doesn't mean there are not fuckers out there that would do us harm.

If we had zero crime I could see the argument, but we don't have zero crime and we never will.
To quote FMD, I reserve the right to be my own first responder.