This one just left me speachless... can you tell she's a Journalism major?


PDA






Drizzt
October 8, 2005, 02:09 AM
Mac Mouths Off
Conceal carry laws should not include privacy provisions
By Susan MacLaughlin
Published: Thursday, October 6, 2005

When my step-dad died last spring, my family began a long process of clearing out his personal possessions. Some we gave to charity, and others, including family heirlooms, were dispersed among his children, siblings and nieces and nephews.

As we culled through his closet, I was shocked to learn that my family owned a gun.

I deserve the right to at least know they have that power.

What floored me was when my mom nonchalantly asked me to take the gun out to my uncle's truck. I had never touched a gun before.

However, not wanting to make waves, I did it. And, despite being in its case, in poor repair and most importantly unloaded, I somehow worried that I'd shoot myself. I was scared throughout the minute-long walk outside to the driveway.

I never want to touch a gun again.

And I don't know if I'd want a gun in my house again, either.

Last Thursday, state Sen. Dave Zien, R-Eau Claire, and state Rep. Scott Gunderson, R-Waterford, introduced legislation that would allow people to carry concealed weapons. Zien also championed a similar bill two years ago that was vetoed by Democratic Governor Jim Doyle.

The current piece of legislation makes me nervous. I don't like the idea of not knowing if Joe Schmo walking down the street is packing or not.

What's worse is that in its current form, the legislation states this vital information about who is carrying a concealed weapon should be kept totally private - even from law enforcement.

This would mean that in situations like routine traffic stops, officers would not be able to check to see if the vehicle's owner had a permit to carry a concealed weapon.

Despite what the National Rifle Association says, it is in fact guns, not people alone, that kill other people. Those hired to keep us safe have a right to expect a certain degree of protection as well. We owe it to our officers to give them information about potentially dangerous situations, especially if we have it right at our fingertips.

If officers don't know who has a gun or not, they will likely have to treat everyone as if they are carrying a dangerous weapon. And really, would you blame them?

Further, the public has a right to know who is and is not carrying a concealed weapon.

Zien and Gunderson said in a recent Milwaukee Journal Sentinel article it wouldn't be fair to those choosing to conceal weapons, because it would make them targets in criminal investigations, even if they didn't have a reason to suspect them.

You know what? Tough. If people feel the need to conceal weapons, they should expect some consequences. And maybe being questioned now and then will be one of those consequences. If they don't commit crimes, they should have little to worry about. (If that's her opinion, then I guess she won't mind having her home searched occasionally by the police, just to be safe. After all, if she hasn't commited a crime, she should have little to worry about)

When we're talking about something as serious as guns - which can take a life in an instant - a free flow of information is imperative.

I understand guns are a necessary part of life. People use them to hunt. Police officers and the men and women in the armed services use them for protection. I understand the Bill of Rights guarantees we all have the right to bear arms.

I don't understand letting anybody who jumps through small hoops walk through the streets with a gun in their back pocket.

I certainly don't understand not giving the public and the police fair warning. If someone holds the power to surprise me and take my life in a matter of seconds, I deserve the right to at least know they have that power.

If people are given the choice to conceal and carry weapons, the rest of us should be given the opportunity to have an informed choice on weather or not to associate with them.

MacLaughlin is a senior print journalism major and editorial editor of The Spectator. Mac Mouths Off is a weekly column that appears every Thursday.

http://www.spectatornews.com/media/paper218/news/2005/10/06/Editorialopinion/Mac-Mouths.Off-1011913.shtml

yeah, the University of Wisconsin has some real winners on it's student paper's staff...... :banghead:

If you enjoyed reading about "This one just left me speachless... can you tell she's a Journalism major?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Red Dragon
October 8, 2005, 02:24 AM
I certainly don't understand not giving the public and the police fair warning. If someone holds the power to surprise me and take my life in a matter of seconds, I deserve the right to at least know they have that power.

Everyone holds the power to surprise someone and take their life in a matter of seconds.

Maybe I should find this person and every time I walk by her I will yell out, " I can stab you in the neck with a pen!! I won't but I have that power!" or " I have a gun!"
though yelling that out in public tends to cause more panic than be considered "fair warning". Personally, I'm not sure that I would be bothered too too much if when a police officer was running my license it said something about having a concealed carry permit (although I don't have one) but I digress. This story just shows how ignorance is more dangerous than any weapon.

Waitone
October 8, 2005, 02:25 AM
There you have it. Inanimate object forces moral actions. The very presence of a firearm within arm's reach causes the owner of the arm to commit moral outrages. The firearm takes control of the victims judgment and forces immoral and illegal activities.

Somebody call Glen Beck and see if he will loan his duct tape. I've got a headache and I don't think tylenol will help.

This kind of nonsense would be humorous if it wasn't for the fact these people get into position of influence and power. :eek:

Alex45ACP
October 8, 2005, 02:27 AM
If they don't commit crimes, they should have little to worry about.

:banghead:

ReadyontheRight
October 8, 2005, 02:30 AM
What's worse is that in its current form, the legislation states this vital information about who is carrying a concealed weapon should be kept totally private - even from law enforcement.
http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/nazi_p1.gif

She's certainly not a History major. Apparently she can only comprehend one kind of "law enforcement".

Crosshair
October 8, 2005, 07:42 AM
Someone needs to send her a responce and hit her with a clue by four.

Shear_stress
October 8, 2005, 08:07 AM
I totally agree with her. The Suzuki 1300 GSXR Hayabusa can also take a life in a second. How can someone ever justify owning something so dangerous? What we need is a public list of registered Hayabusa owners. After all, I'm not sure I want to associate with people who own these things. Full disclosure is imperative.

gwalchmai
October 8, 2005, 08:09 AM
And, despite being in its case, in poor repair and most importantly unloaded, I somehow worried that I'd shoot myself. Once we read this part, and see that she's irrational, is there any point in reading any further, other than the morbid curiosity which makes us look at gruesome traffic accidents?

MaterDei
October 8, 2005, 08:15 AM
However, not wanting to make waves, I did it. And, despite being in its case, in poor repair and most importantly unloaded
Rule #1: A gun is always loaded.

Chawbaccer
October 8, 2005, 10:04 AM
I deserve the right to at least know they have that power
college kids should have some familiarity with the second ammendment.

Travis McGee
October 8, 2005, 10:48 AM
What a hopeless nitwit.

Mauserguy
October 8, 2005, 10:48 AM
"...and the men and women in the armed services use them for protection."

Uh, actually, the people in the military don't use firearms for protection. They use them to aggressively promote US foreign policy. Protection is deffensive, our military prefers to be on the offensive.



"I was scared throughout the minute-long walk outside to the driveway."

I suspect that her anti nature could be mitigated if she received some good instruction or range time. This is a statement of ignorance.
Mauserguy

Don Gwinn
October 8, 2005, 11:04 AM
I never want to touch a gun again.

And I don't know if I'd want a gun in my house again, either.

This just struck me as funny. She never wants to touch a gun again, but she's undecided on the issue of having it in the house (apparently, it might be OK to own a gun if she carried it around the house with salad tongs.)



I suggest letters to this genius. Mine's going to start out this way:


Ms. Maclaughlin:

This message serves as legal notice, per your request, that I and every other able-bodied adult you have ever met (well, and the ones you haven't met. . . and most of the children. . . . and certainly every dog you ever petted . . . well, let's just say "everybody" and leave it at that) have the power to surprise and kill you at any time. I wish to note for the record that I am surprised that you would solicit such notice, since you now seem to have set yourself up to get billions of letters, but I do wish to respect your right to know things whether you choose to exercise your right to think about them or not.

I do not have a concealed carry permit; Illinois, like Wisconsin, does not issue them. I am, however, 6'1" tall and weigh about 280 pounds. I have no doubt that if I ever did want to commit physical violence upon you, I could do it. I can't imagine ever wanting to do it, but you didn't ask and apparently have less interest in knowing who INTENDS to harm you as opposed to who COULD harm if he intended it. I also have unfettered access to knives, bricks, pointy sticks, and thousands of other objects, all of which are far more dangerous weapons than that unloaded, cased gun that frightened you so much. Come to think of it, I have several unloaded guns lying around in cases in a locked cabinet upstairs.

I don't think any of them would shoot you, though. They don't seem very bright or very emotional, unlike that dangerous gun you carried out to the truck. My guns just sit around doing nothing until I load one and pull the trigger, which has led to so-far unblemished record of 27 years of not being shot by any of my guns. And since carrying an unloaded gun in a case is legal in Illinois, I've done just that as an alternative to concealed carry for the last two years. My handgun has yet to leap out and shoot anyone, unless it did it very quietly without my knowledge.

I'm asking you to think about this issue rather than simply going along with any fear you happen to feel. Not every fear is rational. That doesn't mean that YOU can't be rational. If you respond to this email with any interest at all in discussing this issue, I'll explain exactly why I believe your position in regards to privacy rights is the wrong one. (That would also show me that you probably read this far.) You probably won't agree with what I say, but at least you will have thought about it.

Don Gwinn

garyk/nm
October 8, 2005, 11:47 AM
Well said, Don! Hope it has some effect on her.

Otherwise <searching for biatch-slap smilie>

Kilroy
October 8, 2005, 12:33 PM
It appears that "Mac" has thought little, if at all, about the responsibility for safety in our society. It seems that she thinks that Law Enforcement is responsible for her protection, when in reality; police have no duty to protect any individual person.

She states, "...in situations like routine traffic stops, officers would not be able to check to see if the vehicle's owner had a permit to carry a concealed weapon." She continues with, "If officers don't know who has a gun or not, they will likely have to treat everyone as if they are carrying a dangerous weapon."

In bursting her naive bubble, police officers should treat everyone as a potential armed danger. They are trained to do so. Any well educated person must expect them to do so. Mac needs to go find a Citizens Police Academy and broaden her views of the world. No traffic stop is ever considered “routine.” Not by those that have to do them.

When a police officer contacts a citizen, they know literally nothing about that person. Handing over some form of photo ID is a start, but still no assurance of the background of that contact. What should the officer think if presented with a permit to carry a concealed firearm? "Oh My God....they have a gun!!" The more rational officer is going to realize that this person is presenting proof that they have already undergone a thorough background check in order to gain that permit. Absent such a permit, that officer won't know if they have the true identity of the person presenting the ID. Also absent in most jurisdictions is an immediate indication that this person has a criminal history, a history of stalking others or should be considered a sexual predator.

Mac continues with "If someone holds the power to surprise me and take my life in a matter of seconds, I deserve the right to at least know they have that power." This is exactly the sort of comment I have had from people I have arrested who were criminals and fearful of armed citizens.

If Mac had examined the history of concealed carry of firearms in recent years, she'd have found that the sort of fearful protests she makes were often echoed in states that changed their laws to allow citizens the ability to protect themselves. Those fears were not realized and crime against persons in those states decreased.

Finally, Mac said, "If people are given the choice to conceal and carry weapons, the rest of us should be given the opportunity to have an informed choice on weather or not to associate with them."

I'd offer two points in reply to this comment. In the real world, you'd be surprised to learn who in public life values themselves and their accomplishments by choosing to have a firearm for personal protection. People you already know do so, but certainly aren't going to tell you for fear of you "outing" them. Others include Diane Feinstein, Chuck Schumer and numerous others who certainly don't want to extend that ability of self protection to you.

Lastly, "weather" is the state of the atmosphere at a given time and place, with respect to variables such as temperature, moisture, wind velocity, and barometric pressure. "Whether" is probably the word you were looking for and what we'd expect from the editorial editor of this newspaper.

Nightfall
October 8, 2005, 12:51 PM
Behold the future of American journalism; a left wing, authoritarian creature, ruled by emotions. :barf:

Werewolf
October 8, 2005, 01:43 PM
However, not wanting to make waves, I did it. And, despite being in its case, in poor repair and most importantly unloaded, I somehow worried that I'd shoot myself. I was scared throughout the minute-long walk outside to the driveway. Irrational fear bordering IMO on the insane. That she could contemplate that old gun in disrepair was going to magically jump out of the case, load itself and then shoot her! :eek:

SOME PEOPLE ARE TRULY JUST TOO STUPID TO LIVE. :fire:

My 4 year old grand-daughter was sitting on the bed by me when I read the OP. I picked up the holstered Sig P220 I keep near my computer laid it on the bed beside her and asked:

Mara - is this gun gonna just jump out of its holster and shoot you all by itself?

She thought about it for a second or two and said No pawpaw... The look she gave me silently asked Are you nuts or something - what kind of a stupid question was that?

Imagine that - a 4 year old with more sense than an adult. :scrutiny:

What a world we live in! :banghead:

Justin
October 8, 2005, 01:55 PM
Guns are icky!

http://www.thehighroad.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=29698&stc=1

Strings
October 8, 2005, 02:13 PM
Where'd you find her contact info? I think we ALL need to be sending her info (and a few range invites might be a good idea too)...

TonkinTwentyMil
October 8, 2005, 03:37 PM
(definition... straight from Websters)

"Intensive political indoctrination aimed at changing a person's basic convictions and attitudes and replacing them with a fixed and unquestioned set of beliefs."

This young lady's bought the whole Academic-Left spitload of politically correct Thought Control -- hook, line, and sinker.

Let her grow up, marry some similarly-bent conflict-averse pacifist/cultural elitist metrosexual... and eventually ditch him when he simulates a turtle some dark night when a horde of socially-disadvantaged methamphetamine street cretins shove some, uhh, Unregistered Semi-Automatic Assault Knives into her naive, Starbucks latte'-tanned face.

Meanwhile, I urge all men posting here to do everything in their power to avoid/shun/boycott ANY female demonstrating the slightest whiff of this babe's mindset. They deserve to have their utopian-hot-house learning slam head-on into the realities of the Street. The only question, my friends, is this: will that be on YOUR (divorce settlement) nickel?

Betcha she gets great grades in journalism school, though.

Brad Johnson
October 8, 2005, 03:39 PM
Restaurants must scare her into a hysterical frenzy, what with all the big, bad scary knives and such. And sporting goods stores are probably enough to make her stroke out...

Brad

demusn1979
October 8, 2005, 03:52 PM
:banghead:

Bobo
October 8, 2005, 04:05 PM
Give her a break - she's a young lady going to school.

Hopefully, if she is intelligent and has an open mind, by the time she graduates she'll have learned some things and will be much smarter!

Like she, I was once young and simple-minded.
Over time things have changed - now I'm old and feeble-minded :)

71Commander
October 8, 2005, 04:32 PM
Just assume that everyone is packing. Just smile and be polite. No problems.

Kilroy
October 8, 2005, 05:34 PM
Their general "reply to editor" address: spectator@uwec.edu

Standing Wolf
October 8, 2005, 05:39 PM
...despite being in its case, in poor repair and most importantly unloaded, I somehow worried that I'd shoot myself. I was scared throughout the minute-long walk outside to the driveway.

Leftist extremists believe their irrational fears trump the nation's civil rights.

ReadyontheRight
October 8, 2005, 05:41 PM
Kilroy and Don G. - Fantastic replies!

KriegHund
October 8, 2005, 05:44 PM
Its this part right here that vexes me...
I understand the Bill of Rights guarantees we all have the right to bear arms.

I don't understand letting anybody who jumps through small hoops walk through the streets with a gun in their back pocket.


So, we all have the right to bear arms-the writer relaizes that. But at the same time, we cant actually...like...ya know..totally have those arms...we can just sorta have em...ya know?

Just caught this other thing too
And, despite being in its case, in poor repair and most importantly unloaded,

How did she know it was "In poor condition" (for all we know it was a blued gun, and all she'd ever seen was movie stainless steel guns) and more importantly, unloaded?

Did she, despite her utter fear of guns, open up the case, rack the slide or bolt, and do a full inspection? Remove the magazine if it wasnt gone already?

Chut1st
October 8, 2005, 06:04 PM
Behold the future of American journalism; a left wing, authoritarian creature, ruled by emotions.

. . . . and with a poor command of the English language. Sadly, this is not only the future but also the present of American journalism.

Further "education" at an institution of higher learning, unless it is one like Hillsdale College in Michigan, will not alleviate this problem.

DelayedReaction
October 8, 2005, 07:14 PM
I propose someone in the area take her shooting. I know that does a wonderful job of convincing people who live near me.

afasano
October 8, 2005, 07:49 PM
Well, it was his choice to carry the gun. His choice is as importatant as her choice.
:rolleyes:

trickyasafox
October 8, 2005, 08:50 PM
well there are two facts we can take from her article:

1-she's ignorant
2-she'll always be ugly

dhoomonyou
October 8, 2005, 09:43 PM
Note to self: she is a yutz!

shotgunner
October 8, 2005, 10:25 PM
Here's my email to her.

I'm writing in response to the article that you wrote about the concealed weapons law in your state.
The old addage, "People are afraid of what they do not know" is really profound in your article. Not only do you make some of the most foolish statements in your article, but also most of the things you stated were purely based on opinion. Let's get a few things straight here for you.
#1. The 2nd Amendment was instituted not for sportsmen, or hunters. It was instituted so that citizens could fight a corrupt government and overthrow it if needed. Our forefathers wanted to make certain that the government could never force its will upon the people. They wanted to ensure that our armed population dwarfs any army that our government could organize.
#2. You make it sound like that if a firearm is within arm's reach to somebody that they will automatically start knocking people off..... Nothing ma'am, could be further from the truth.
#3. 99.9% of people who carry firearms are law-abiding citizens, respect life, and would NEVER EVER even think of using that firearm out of malice.
#4. If I want to carry concealed then it's better that nobody knows. This way, people won't have point me out and say "Hey, stay away from him, he'll shoot you." It just doesn't work that way and it's better for the CCW holder that the information is kept private.

Now I have a question for you to really think about and truley ponder for a moment.
"If somebody attacked you, broke into your home, or was threatening to harm a loved one. Would you rather wait 2-30 minutes for police to show up, or would you rather be holding the suspect at gunpoint while knowing that you, your family or friemds are safe?"

One more thing. Just try this for me one time. Visit your local gun range and approace ANYBODY that you see shooting. Strike up a conversation. Something to the note of "I've never held a gun before, let alone shot one." I bet you one hundred dollars that you'll meet some of the most honest, friendly and down-to-earth people. You'll also walk out of there with a different attitude towards guns and firearms sports in general. You should also try some skeet shooting.

I dare you to try what I've suggested and I guarantee you'll change your tone. Remember, we fear things that we do not understand.
A gun is a tool, and nothing more (unless for nostalgiac purposes). It's how you use that tool that seperates a good person from a scumbag. And hey, I guarantee if you were in trouble and an armed citizen showed up in your defense you'd thank them. =]

Just a few things for you to ponder. I sincerely hope you research a subject before you write an article about it. Especially being so inexperienced in the fields of firearms/sports.

Thanks for your time.
Deleted For Security Purposes

P.S. Go to a range and approach somebody shooting. Guarantee you'll have a great and fun time. Once you do that, you'll see that we, firearm owners are good people. We keep them for 3 main reasons. Sports, Hunting, and self defense. God forbid that I ever have to use it for the third reason. It is however, a comforting thought that mine and my family's safety is in my hands, and not having to wait for law enforcement while we're shot is also a comfort. It's better to have it and not need it, then to need it and not have it. =]
God bless.

Molon Labe
October 8, 2005, 10:29 PM
Sounds like she needs professional help:

http://psychology.about.com/cs/glossaries/g/Hoplophobia.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoplophobia

ThreadKiller
October 8, 2005, 10:53 PM
Perfect example of the state of public "education" in America. Not taught how to think but what to think.

Thank you very much Modern Liberalism!

Tim

Kjervin
October 8, 2005, 11:37 PM
I guess it's pretty aparent why her father never told her he had a gun. Her mother either. Kinda wish they had though; it probably would've gone a long way to straightening her out. I guess they were waiting until she was mature enough to handle it. Unfortunately, her father ran out of time! :neener:

Kj

QuickDraw
October 9, 2005, 12:36 AM
Don't the people on the left always raise the "right to
privacy" issue?
Sorry Toots,can't have it both ways :neener:

QuickDraw

junyor
October 9, 2005, 01:08 AM
shotgunner - Great response!

KJordan
October 9, 2005, 01:11 AM
"The current piece of legislation makes me nervous. I don't like the idea of not knowing if Joe Schmo walking down the street is packing or not."

I agree 100%! We should be allowed to have open carry licenses.

1911 guy
October 9, 2005, 01:15 AM
Man, what sophomoric drivel. She seems to have the intelectual capacity and moral foundation of a six year old. Let's see, where to begin?
She has a right to know who has guns? I want to know if she's on the pill. After all, my tax dollars will send her kid to school.
She was afraid to handle an inanimate object? She seems to have a phobia that goes beyond reasonable fear. It's inanimate, not malicious.
The police need to know at traffic stops? I'm quite sure drug runners and gang members will provide info, too.
She scared that a CCW holder will suddenly and for no reason take her life? Maybe she needs to do some legitimate research and see the examples of permit holders suddenly and for no reason intervening and saving someones bacon. O.K., I'm done venting.

javafiend
October 9, 2005, 01:19 AM
Wait, wait, here comes my favorite line.

If people are given the choice to conceal and carry weapons, the rest of us should be given the opportunity to have an informed choice on weather or not to associate with them.

MacLaughlin is a senior print journalism major and editorial editor of The Spectator. Mac Mouths Off is a weekly column that appears every Thursday.


One might think that a "senior [in] print journalism" would understand the difference between "weather" and "whether."

Hialrious column, I am laughing my a$$ off. :p

Creeping Incrementalism
October 9, 2005, 01:52 AM
Does Jim March want this sort of data to be publicly available in California so he could keep an eye on Sheriffs giving permits to only their cronies, or is it only in agregate that he wants the data?

Zundfolge
October 9, 2005, 02:08 AM
I deserve the right to at least know they have that power
college kids should have some familiarity with the second ammendment.
And the 4th

Despite what the National Rifle Association says, it is in fact guns, not people alone, that kill other people.
One of the second stupidest statement I've read this week (the first is the "heat seeking incendiary ammo" bit). Its been refuted 1E+10 times yet its still repeated.

I guess people beat, stabbed, poisoned, run over with a car etc weren't actually killed.

If people are given the choice to conceal and carry weapons, the rest of us should be given the opportunity to have an informed choice on weather or not to associate with them.
Lets have fun with this one shall we;
If people are given the choice to abort their unborn children, the rest of us should be given the opportunity to have an informed choice on weather or not to associate with them.
If people are given the choice to engage in homosexual sex, the rest of us should be given the opportunity to have an informed choice on weather or not to associate with them.
If people are given the choice to vote for [insert political party here], the rest of us should be given the opportunity to have an informed choice on weather or not to associate with them.

Not too much fun there Mac when its YOUR ox that's being gored is it?

If someone holds the power to surprise me and take my life in a matter of seconds, I deserve the right to at least know they have that power.
If someone holds the power to surprise me and take my life in a matter of seconds, I deserve the right to respond with like power.

deanf
October 9, 2005, 01:52 PM
Could someone post her email address? I don't want to have to register at their site to send her a note.

torpid
October 9, 2005, 01:54 PM
I certainly don't understand not giving the public and the police fair warning. If someone holds the power to surprise me and take my life in a matter of seconds, I deserve the right to at least know they have that power.

Perhaps some sort of Scarlet Letter may be in order then?

:rolleyes:

artherd
October 9, 2005, 03:12 PM
You know what? Tough. If people feel the need to write articles for publication, they should expect some consequences. And maybe being questioned now and then will be one of those consequences. If they don't commit crimes, they should have little to worry about.

rbmcmjr
October 9, 2005, 03:18 PM
Perhaps some sort of Scarlet Letter may be in order then?
How about the reverse? In _Beyond This Horizon_, Heinlein gave his characters who WEREN'T carrying an arm brassard. There were rules about engaging such.

Rick

SB88LX
October 9, 2005, 03:31 PM
Oh, hey, what's the name of this forum again...

Wait, it'll come to me in just a second...

Oh, right, http://www.thehighroad.org/images/thr-bflag.gif

bigun15
October 9, 2005, 05:42 PM
I laughed through the first few paragraphs.

"I'm scared, so I want the rest of the country to be scared too."....whatever.

Zundfolge
October 9, 2005, 06:06 PM
1-she's ignorant

After re-reading it a couple of times, I've come to the conclusion that she's not ignorant ... she just doesn't approve of CCW, so instead of fighting to prevent its passage (which she knows she'll lose) she's decided she's going to try to engineer it to shame people out of getting their permits.

This is calculated strategy, not simple ignorance and fear.

wahsben
October 9, 2005, 06:38 PM
What a fool she is.Just because you might have a list with CCW peoples names on it does not mean you will know if they are standing next to you or not. Does she think they are going to walk up and say hi I'm Joe Schmoe and than she will check her list to see if they are on it? It is very sad to see such irrational drivel printed.

Sistema1927
October 9, 2005, 08:36 PM
What is really scary is the fact that this idiot is allowed to vote!

Strings
October 10, 2005, 01:53 AM
>she just doesn't approve of CCW, so instead of fighting to prevent its passage (which she knows she'll lose)<

Zundfloge... I REALLY want to agree with you. Seriously... I'd love to only be going to gunshows to look at toys. But it's still up in the air wether or not we'll be able to make it this time around. The pols are saying "Yeah! This time, we're gettin' 'er passed!", but they said the same last time. We've got a LONG fight ahead of us...

dasmi
October 10, 2005, 02:06 AM
However, not wanting to make waves, I did it. And, despite being in its case, in poor repair and most importantly unloaded, I somehow worried that I'd shoot myself. I was scared throughout the minute-long walk outside to the driveway.

I never want to touch a gun again.

And I don't know if I'd want a gun in my house again, either.

Irrational fear of an inanimate object. That seems like some sort of mental illness.

SomeKid
October 10, 2005, 06:02 AM
Chawbacker-

college kids should have some familiarity with the second ammendment

Some of us do.

SK, proud owner of an evil black rifle (AR15), and an evil black pistol (Glock) for which he possesses multiple standard (10+) magazines. Worse, he carries the Glock daily. Oh the horror. The Horror. But at least he carries openly, so the sheep can have something to bleet about.

stealthmode
October 10, 2005, 06:47 AM
i already read too much :barf:

TheEgg
October 10, 2005, 12:00 PM
As we culled through his closet, I was shocked to learn that my family owned a gun.

Cultural divide -- in my neck of the woods, we would be shocked to learn that someones family DIDN'T own a gun! :D

Delmar
October 10, 2005, 12:08 PM
"in my neck of the woods, we would be shocked to learn that someones family DIDN'T own a gun!"

Guess you don't live in Austin :D

Lupinus
October 10, 2005, 12:09 PM
wish there was an email link to mail her.

Either it will result in a good debate and her with better knowlage of thing's.

Or it will tick her off....in which case hey can occasionaly be a little fun to see a liberal scamper and whine when they know they have lost.

beaucoup ammo
October 10, 2005, 12:22 PM
Hope her Minor is in something that will generate some meaningful revenue. Plop this piece of shamefully biased crap on ANY Editor's desk ( with a Liberal or Conservative slant) and her pathetic attempt will be handed around, as it is here, laughed at and then shredded.

Take Care

pete f
October 10, 2005, 12:29 PM
I have no idea of her home state, but this was in WISCONSIN, The whole freaking state goes nuts for deer hunting. Duck and goose hunting has be a state resource along the length of the Mississippi Flyway. I have never met a Wisconsinite who does not hunt. UWmadison used to not schedule classed on the monday of deer opener. Where the hell has this woman been for her college career., Certainly not in the english comp classroom.


How did she know that the gun in the case was in disrepair? unloaded?

the horrors

johnnymenudo
October 10, 2005, 01:09 PM
Hey - no need to post her picture and make fun of her appearance. That has nothing to do with this.

JM

junyor
October 10, 2005, 01:19 PM
I agree with johnnymenudo. No need to make fun of her appearance, it isn't relevant to the discussion and it is needlessly cruel.

TheEgg
October 10, 2005, 02:48 PM
Guess you don't live in Austin

Nope (The Free State of Van Zandt!), -- although I do have some super-liberal yuppie cousins that live in Austin -- I avoid them and the area whenever possible! You know the type -- "Ward Churchill is our hero." :barf:

Carl N. Brown
October 10, 2005, 03:00 PM
Poor Susan: if you do not know that a person you meet is
armed or not, how can that be a problem or any of your
business?

DISAGREE:
"Not taught how to think but what to think."
Sorry but anti-gun lefties don't think, they feel: Susan's article
is all about emotional reaction, not abstract reasoning. Liberals
react to guns the way I react to unexpectedly finding a snake.

DO AGREE:
Poking fun at her current looks is not fair. I got pictures
of me at that age which I would not want you to see.

I looked at the original article at the Spectator (U of Wisconsin):
she does write "weather or not" for "whether or not" ANOTHER
CHILD LEFT BEHIND by our dysfunctional educational system.
Is their no copieditor at the Spectator?

JMag
October 10, 2005, 03:15 PM
Journalism major, eh? It's "whether" not "weather" in your article, Mac. BTW, grow up and get real...after more spelling lessons.

Nando Aqui
October 10, 2005, 03:19 PM
It would be interesting to see her reaction if she would read the following:


Britain – The Times September 19, 2005
Scotland tops list of world's most violent countries
By Katrina Tweedie

A UNITED Nations report has labeled Scotland the most violent country in the developed world, with people three times more likely to be assaulted than in America. England and Wales recorded the second highest number of violent assaults while Northern Ireland recorded the fewest.

The study, based on telephone interviews with victims of crime in 21 countries, found that more than 2,000 Scots were attacked every week, almost ten times the official police figures. They include non-sexual crimes of violence and serious assaults.

Violent crime has doubled in Scotland over the past 20 years and levels, per head of population, are now comparable with cities such as Rio de Janeiro, Johannesburg and Tbilisi.

The attacks have been fuelled by a “booze and blades” culture in the west of Scotland, which has claimed more than 160 lives over the past five years. Since January, there have been 13 murders, 145 attempted murders and 1,100 serious assaults involving knives in the west of Scotland. The problem is made worse by sectarian violence, with hospitals reporting higher admissions following Old Firm matches.

David Ritchie, an accident and emergency consultant at Glasgow’s Victoria Infirmary, said that the figures were a national disgrace. “I am embarrassed as a Scot that we are seeing this level of violence. Politicians must do something about this problem. This is a serious public health issue. Violence is a cancer in this part of the world,” he said.

Detective Chief Superintendent John Carnochan, head of the Strathclyde Police’s violence reduction unit, said the problem was chronic and restricting access to drink and limiting the sale of knives would at least reduce the problem.

The study, by the UN’s crime research institute, found that 3 per cent of Scots had been victims of assault compared with 1.2 per cent in America and just 0.1 per cent in Japan, 0.2 per cent in Italy and 0.8 per cent in Austria. In England and Wales the figure was 2.8 per cent.

Scotland was eighth for total crime, 13th for property crime, 12th for robbery and 14th for sexual assault. New Zealand had the most property crimes and sexual assaults, while Poland had the most robberies.

Chief Constable Peter Wilson, president of the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland, questioned the figures. “It must be near impossible to compare assault figures from one country to the next based on phone calls,” he said.

“We have been doing extensive research into violent crime in Scotland for some years now and this has shown that in the vast majority of cases, victims of violent crime are known to each other. We do accept, however, that, despite your chances of being a victim of assault being low in Scotland, a problem does exist.”

svtruth
October 10, 2005, 03:54 PM
If I follow her "argument", she would endorse open carry.

Strings
October 10, 2005, 05:49 PM
Hi Pete! How ya doin'?

There... now you've met a Wisconsinite who doesn't hunt...

STW
October 10, 2005, 05:55 PM
It says a lot about journalism school that my daugther recently got a degree in public relations from her university's school of journalism. Spin reigns supreme.

trickyasafox
October 10, 2005, 06:29 PM
she attacked my values. me pointing out an asthetic shortcoming is not nearly as bad as me saying the equvilent of: i dont trust women who drive cars, i get scared when they drive and its really dangerous. i want a list of all women who drive cars.

thats how i felt her article attacked me. based on virtually nothing with "pour" grammar *making fun of her whether or weather*

i'd much rather be called ugly then say im not trustworthy

Randy in Arizona
October 11, 2005, 02:16 AM
Hopefully, if she is intelligent and has an open mind, by the time she graduates she'll have learned some things and will be much smarter!The bad news:
MacLaughlin is a senior print journalism major and editorial editor of The Spectator. This to me means that she has had 4 or 5 years of PC drivel poured into her vacant skull and has been able to regurgitate it in a fashion pleasing to her professors, whom now allow her to proclaim the party line through the office of her column. She will no doubt go on to a job with a major daily fishwrapper such as the New Yawk Slimes or Washington Compost.

What a hopeless nitwit.Never EVER give up hope! She may live long enough to learn the error of her ways!
I hope! :(

beaucoup ammo
October 11, 2005, 08:43 AM
Neither of the papers you mentioned would hire this hack. She's waaay too "over the top"...lacks the subtlety these rags require.

To even attempt getting a point across, you must get the reader past the first graph..which this lass seems incapable of doing.

Take Care

sturmruger
October 11, 2005, 10:49 AM
YOu know what really burns me up she is writing this for the school paper that is supported by my WI tax dollars!!!

johnnymenudo
October 11, 2005, 11:48 AM
I doubt she has what it takes to become a professional journalist. She will end up either employed in retail or become a professional mom. UW Eau Claire is not known as the breeding ground of fine journalists - and her column seems more on par with a high school publication. We don't need to worry about her as a professional journalist writing against CCW.

JM

Sportcat
October 11, 2005, 11:51 AM
Anyone gotten a response from her?

Chrontius
October 11, 2005, 01:13 PM
If officers don't know who has a gun or not, they will likely have to treat everyone as if they are carrying a dangerous weapon. And really, would you blame them? Bleeping duh, woman! If they aren't already, they've got a rather short life expectency.


You know what? Tough. If people feel the need to conceal weapons, they should expect some consequences. And maybe being questioned now and then will be one of those consequences. If they don't commit crimes, they should have little to worry about. (If that's her opinion, then I guess she won't mind having her home searched occasionally by the police, just to be safe. After all, if she hasn't commited a crime, she should have little to worry about) LOL, good one. Pity she'll never see any of this.


I certainly don't understand not giving the public and the police fair warning. If someone holds the power to surprise me and take my life in a matter of seconds, I deserve the right to at least know they have that power. baka, baka, baka. Anyone with a modicum of physical fitness could do that barehanded.



Perhaps some sort of Scarlet Letter may be in order then? Actually not a bad idea. Anyone remember the 'glock tucked in waistband' shirts? ^_^ Maybe make it a voluntary thing to serve as a deterrent in place of open carry.

MachIVshooter
October 11, 2005, 11:29 PM
"If officers don't know who has a gun or not, they will likely have to treat everyone as if they are carrying a dangerous weapon."

Find me a cop who doesn't. Why else would they search people before placing them in custody?

And when was the last time a police officer was shot by a permit holder? :banghead:

Carl N. Brown
October 12, 2005, 01:03 PM
How our Susans have changed!

from The Raid by Thomas R. Ramsey, Jr.
(Kingsort, 1973) about the Union
General Stoneman's raid from Knoxville
Tenn. to Saltville, Va.
[Dec 1864]
"Another incident of the bravery of
youngsters happened near what would
now be the eastern city limits of
Marion [Virginia]. There was a covered
bridge across the middle fork of the
Holston River....
[Major General Stephen] Burbridge
dispatched troops to burn this bridge.
They set it afire; however, nine year
old Susan Allen started pouring buckets
of water on the bridge. Seeing what she
was doing, the Union troops came back
and set fire to it again, and again
Susan saved the bridge. The third time
it was set afire, and Susan [was] warned
not to touch the fire; however, as soon
as the Yankees were out of sight, she
again put out the fire."

Susan Mac would probably have fainted
at the sight of all those soldiers with guns.

beaucoup ammo
October 12, 2005, 01:20 PM
If you click on the addy in "Drizzit's" original post #1 and scroll down, there's a "Contact Us" option to utilize. Believe it goes to the editor.

I'm not.. in any way.. going to direct them to the THR sight. However, if you feel compelled to make YOUR feelings known to the "author" and the Editor..go for it!

I intend to drop'em a line.

Take Care

bigun15
October 12, 2005, 02:12 PM
If someone holds the power to surprise me and take my life in a matter of seconds, I deserve the right to at least know they have that power.

I think that everyone here who has a drivers license (or drivers permit, in my case) and a car should notify her that they have the power to run her over or crash into her and take her life in a matter of seconds, because she deserves to know that we have that power.

ghost squire
October 12, 2005, 02:19 PM
authoritarian creature, ruled by emotions

I think thats called a woman!


:D :evil:

strambo
October 12, 2005, 02:59 PM
What bothers me the most is not her silly, irrational fear of an inanimate object. It is that she is so weak and spineless that she didn't even have the courage to tell her mom "I don't feel comfortable around guns and I'd rather not take it out." How hard is that? She lacks even the most basic ability to assert herself in real (as opposed to printed) social situations, yet feels morally superior enough to want to dictate how everyone else should live. :rolleyes:

Working Man
October 12, 2005, 03:38 PM
:banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

How amazingly, incredibly, :cuss:. For some reason I thought people that
stupid did not exist.

If someone holds the power to surprise me and take my life in a matter of seconds, I deserve the right to at least know they have that power.

The ones who are going to kill you will not be the ones getting the license.

Missouri Mule
October 12, 2005, 04:34 PM
Yeah well.....she shouldn't be allowed to have confidential sources either when she gets her dream job with the national enquisitor.....

afasano
October 12, 2005, 04:56 PM
She's all for the right to bear arms but just for cops, that's like haviing the right to choose, but just for nuns. :rolleyes:

mathyoo
October 12, 2005, 05:13 PM
Rule #1: A gun is always loaded.

Unless ofcourse its unloaded...right? :scrutiny:

Mongo the Mutterer
October 12, 2005, 05:19 PM
Dear Ms. MacLaughlin:

I had the opportunity to read your article "Conceal carry laws should not include privacy provisions" which was referenced by a forum I belong to. I am sure you have been contacted by several persons regarding your article, so I am going to make this respectful and brief. There are two quotes which I will challenge you to think about;

"The current piece of legislation makes me nervous. I don't like the idea of not knowing if Joe Schmo walking down the street is packing or not."

As Joe Schmo, I'd like to challenge your idea. (by the way I'm sending you this under my blog name so you won't know I'm packing).

Here is the challenge. Do you really think that someone who is licensed to carry a concealed firearm in 29 states, who has passed both tactical and practical training, who has been fingerprinted and checked with the FBI, is a threat to you? In every state where shall issue concealed carry laws have passed crime has gone down. Fact.

Recent UN reports have found that Scotland (possibly the land of your ancestors?) has the highest murder rate per capital. Scotland has very stringent gun control. Hmmm. Maybe the guns aren't killing after all…

I personally believe that it is more important for a woman than a man to be licensed and trained. My fiancee is. There are few out there who would want to rape me, who would try to rob me, or who would attempt to mess with me in any way. My lady is a different story.

Your second quote … "What's worse is that in its current form, the legislation states this vital information about who is carrying a concealed weapon should be kept totally private - even from law enforcement."

Okay, why the privacy? Because a citizen deserves it. Would you wish that your CCW be publicized to your abusive ex-husband? To neighborhood thugs who want to hold up your shop?

Police officers treat everyone they stop as potential threat now. If they don't Darwin will catch up with them with a vengeance.

If you are interested in the police's role in protecting you as an individual person, I would suggest you review two legal cases -- Warren v. District of Columbia and DeShaney v. Winnebago County. You will find that the police, by Supreme Court decision, have a duty to protect the "public", not any individual.

I would urge you to research firearms and concealed carry laws. I believe you will find that you can become quite comfortable around both, once you realize that your initial response could have been emotional not logical.

I am certain there are folks in Eau Claire who would be most happy to take you to a target range or introduce you to several shooters.

Best regards,


Mongo

Carl N. Brown
October 12, 2005, 05:22 PM
Mongo- good response.

JImbothefiveth
April 21, 2009, 04:30 PM
Despite what the National Rifle Association says, it is in fact guns, not people alone, that kill other people. I guess the FBI lied, there are no other mruders

If officers don't know who has a gun or not, they will likely have to treat everyone as if they are carrying a dangerous weapon. And really, would you blame them? Criminals will carry illegally anyway, so cops should never assume they aren't.
Further, the public has a right to know who is and is not carrying a concealed weapon. Says who? And, I doubt this person's an OC supporter.
Zien and Gunderson said in a recent Milwaukee Journal Sentinel article it wouldn't be fair to those choosing to conceal weapons, because it would make them targets in criminal investigations, even if they didn't have a reason to suspect them.

You know what? Tough. If people feel the need to conceal weapons, they should expect some consequences. And maybe being questioned now and then will be one of those consequences. If they don't commit crimes, they should have little to worry about. Why should I have to be a suspect when I did nothing wrong? Maybe we should include liberals like this in investigations of any crime involving bombing, Bill Ayers, etc.
When we're talking about something as serious as guns - which can take a life in an instant - a free flow of information is imperative. Bill Ayers has killed more peopel than I have.
I understand guns are a necessary part of life. People use them to hunt. Police officers and the men and women in the armed services use them for protection. I understand the Bill of Rights guarantees we all have the right to bear arms.

I don't understand letting anybody who jumps through small hoops walk through the streets with a gun in their back pocket. Why not? They've gone through a background check, probably had some training, and a criminal probably wouldn't get the license anyway.
I certainly don't understand not giving the public and the police fair warning. If someone holds the power to surprise me and take my life in a matter of seconds, I deserve the right to at least know they have that power. Criminals don't, and I don't want criminals to know. And we still need to search all liberal college student's houses, because I deserve to know whether or not they are going to bomb my neighborhood.
If people are given the choice to conceal and carry weapons, the rest of us should be given the opportunity to have an informed choice on weather or not to associate with them. I'm not breaking any laws. And, if we know who is armed, then we can conclude who isn't. Therefore, CCW wouldn't reduce crime as much because the criminals wouldn't have that unknown.

buckeye8
April 21, 2009, 04:35 PM
Even if it takes 3 and a half years, Jimbo will rebut your anti-gun nonsense. ;)

Justin
April 21, 2009, 04:36 PM
This one's a bit past the sell-by date, I think. :)

If you enjoyed reading about "This one just left me speachless... can you tell she's a Journalism major?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!