| Author | Post |
|---|
gollbladder13
Regular Member
|
Posted: Thu Nov 5th, 2009 02:17 pm |
|
http://www.jsonline.com/news/opinion/68734177.html
Is Concealed Carry a Good Idea? | Peggy Schulz Public safety must be the top priority
Posted: Nov. 2, 2009
Milwaukee Police Chief Edward Flynn and Milwaukee County District Attorney John Chisholm have floated the idea of allowing concealed carry in Wisconsin as part of broader gun law reform.
Is Concealed Carry a Good Idea?
Dec. 15 will mark the 218th anniversary of the enactment of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. The National Rifle Association and others who want to give Wisconsinites the right to carry concealed weapons often cite the Second Amendment as their justification.
Is it possible to know what motivated the framers of the Constitution? Many constitutional scholars believe the Second Amendment was strictly a means to ensure that individual states could maintain the militias that had been formed at the time of the revolution. The Second Amendment states: "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" (emphasis added).
Could the founders of arguably the greatest democracy on Earth really have foreseen that their decision would be used more than 200 years later to justify the proliferation of handguns in American society? I doubt it.
The overall safety of the general public as we move through our lives on a daily basis is - or at least should be - the top priority for lawmakers, both local and national. We live in a fairly well-ordered society, but that order is achieved through a delicate balance of individual rights and the well-being of society as a whole.
Each of us as individuals brings to that equation of public safety our own personal needs, desires and family background. We know from experience that the delicate balance all too frequently is thrown out of whack.
Is it a good idea, for example, to add concealed weapons to the already problematic issue of road rage? When a driver snaps and loses his or her cool, how easy would it be for the driver to pull out a concealed handgun and escalate things further?
And let's think about domestic violence situations, which threaten the very core of our society: the family unit. Is it wise to make it lawful for domestic partners who are at or near the boiling point to arm themselves while out in public, so that when they do boil over, the gun can be used with possibly deadly results?
Throw in overindulgence in alcohol, something our state lawmakers address almost every legislative session, and the mix of concealed weapons, human emotions and intoxication becomes a certain disaster.
Because, let's face it, handguns are intended for one thing and one thing only: to wound and kill people.
Milwaukee's police chief and county district attorney have suggested we, in effect, dangle a concealed-carry law for Wisconsin over the heads of the NRA in order to get it to support a law requiring criminal background checks for all gun purchases, not just those at federally licensed gun stores.
The background check law is a no-brainer. And we shouldn't have to lower our standards on concealed carry to get the too-powerful NRA to support closing a loophole that never should have been left open in the first place.
We live in an increasingly complex, often anxious world of the 21st century, one the founders never could have envisioned. To add concealed weapons to the already tenuous balance of public safety in Wisconsin would be a huge mistake.
|
protias
Regular Member
|
Posted: Thu Nov 5th, 2009 03:27 pm |
|
Yes, because in every other state, they have blood running in the streets and all that jazz. 
Also, we do not live in a democracy, we live in a republic.
In both the federal and state government constitutions, we are granted the right to bear arms and yet our rights are restricted because a few people "feel" uncomfortable around firearms.
|
cleveland
Regular Member
| Joined: | Fri Aug 10th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 45 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 5th, 2009 03:42 pm |
|
The writer expresses views that are widespread through out our state. A large number of people genuinely believe that people carrying guns are going to become enraged and start killing each other. They believe that more people carrying guns mean more bad people carrying guns. This is what happens when fictional TV and the 6 o'clock news become someones only exposure to guns.
I would love to get a hold of the number of CC permit holders that have used their firearm in a crime. My bet is the percentage is lower then non permit holders, but with out real numbers it is only speculation.
|
gollbladder13
Regular Member
|
Posted: Thu Nov 5th, 2009 04:47 pm |
|
pswrites@wi.rr.com
I already sent an email and CC'd the editor.
|
Carcharodon
Regular Member
|
Posted: Thu Nov 5th, 2009 04:57 pm |
|
"Is it a good idea, for example, to add concealed weapons to the already problematic issue of road rage? When a driver snaps and loses his or her cool, how easy would it be for the driver to pull out a concealed handgun and escalate things further?"
This is the same trash i hear at work when we discuss carrying. Everyone is going to get so mad that they'll pull out a gun on the highway and start shooting. Wouldn't these people just use their car as a weapon right now?
|
cleveland
Regular Member
| Joined: | Fri Aug 10th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 45 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 5th, 2009 05:53 pm |
|
Carcharodon, you have no right bringing logic into the debate......how dare you! 
|
protias
Regular Member
|
Posted: Thu Nov 5th, 2009 06:10 pm |
|
gollbladder13 wrote: pswrites@wi.rr.com
I already sent an email and CC'd the editor.
The editor I copied was Chuck Melvin, Assistant Managing Editor/Business.
Oops, should have used one of these:
Editors
O. Ricardo Pimentel, Vice President / Editorial Page Editor
David D. Haynes, Deputy Editorial Page Editor
Ernst-Ulrich Franzen, Associate Editorial Page Editor/Suburbs
Mabel Wong, Perspectives Editor
|
mr. parker
Regular Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 11th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 16 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 7th, 2009 12:17 am |
|
I would tell peggy schulz to please explain why we're so different from the citizens of Minnesota, Michigan and even Iowa's half assed carry law.
Why don't our representatives trust us?
Who died and left them boss? For too long, we've allowed ourselves to become too dependent on government. 9/11 let us know that the government can't protect us. We need to have options. I promise I won't force Piggy Schulz to carry a weapon.
|
conservative85
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sat Nov 7th, 2009 12:49 am |
|
The 2nd is simply stating that it is obvious that a well regulated militia would be necessary but the anti's always forget two things.
First there is a comma, after the well regulated militia segment of the sentence, and second the word militia does not get used in the second segment of sentence, the word people is used, same as the word people is used in the first amendment.
|
TheMrMitch
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sun Nov 8th, 2009 02:08 am |
|
Ohhhhh. I have stated for a loooooong time that pesky 'lil comma means AND! Learned that in school in the 50s.
|
1Grizzly1
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sun Nov 8th, 2009 03:10 am |
|
The Bill of Rights is about individual rights. Are these people trying to say that the 2nd amendment is the only amendment that is about the rights of a group?
|
Master Doug Huffman
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sun Nov 8th, 2009 01:17 pm |
|
TheMrMitch wrote: Ohhhhh. I have stated for a loooooong time that pesky 'lil comma means AND! Learned that in school in the 50s. Perhaps you could cite your schooled rule.
Elements of Style, Strunk and White, for instance, condemn comma splices.
The comma rule that may be appropriate here, and that I prefer, is that in a coordinated list the elements may be conjoined by use of a comma but that the coordinating conjunction should be used to join the last element, designating which the comma 'represents' in its previous uses.
Be careful, the Second Amendment does not use modern English grammar.
|
Current time is 01:03 am | |
|
