WI: hit this anti-CCW editorial


PDA






Monkeyleg
January 3, 2006, 08:41 PM
The editor of the Wausau Daily Herald can always be counted upon to slam any concealed carry bill that's introduced. Yesterday was no exception.

Please take a minute to respond. The editorial is here. (http://www.wausaudailyherald.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060102/WDH06/601020306/1637/WDHopinion)

If you enjoyed reading about "WI: hit this anti-CCW editorial" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
HighVelocity
January 3, 2006, 09:03 PM
So here's the question: If permit-holders are safe and reliable enough to be handed permits, why aren't they safe everywhere? Why can they not go into the federal courthouse in Madison, but they can wander into the Wausau Center mall or through the heart of downtown? And why won't a list of permit-holders be public record, so that journalists can double-check on backgrounds?

So journalists can do background checks? :eek: :banghead:

Gray Peterson
January 3, 2006, 10:32 PM
As sniveling as this editorial is and for the wrong reasons, he does have a point at least as far as the prohibited areas. However, the reasons why the prohibited areas were added was due to political grandstanding and the fact that this law needs a veto-proof majority.

Trip20
January 3, 2006, 10:37 PM
It now will be a felony instead of a misdemeanor to lie when filling out the application claiming to be honest and trustworthy enough to be given a gun so that you can protect yourself from criminals. Enough said.


The notion that you have to "be" anything in order to protect yourself is sickening. :barf:

Trip20
January 3, 2006, 11:29 PM
Dick, heard any good news lately?

Anyway, here's my response:
While this is one of the most irrational opinions on the subject of concealed carry I’ve come across, the letter does bring to light one good question. Why are certain places still off limits to would-be permit holders? Responsible gun owners interested in self-protection agree with the articles author. We should be allowed to carry everywhere.

The author attempts to press the communities panic button by implying the town will be run amuck by a bunch of drunken gun-wielding maniacs (i.e., the .02 legal limit in the bill). Hopefully the population of Wausau is able to think for itself – instead of absorbing this drivel – and will be able to brush this off as nonsense. Having a beer at a friends 4th of July party should not amount to the removal of ones right to self-protection. Period.

The way the author attempts to liken potential permit holders to psychotic community boogiemen – irrational as it is - does bring to light how ignorance and knee-jerk comments can do a disservice to the community.

I’ll state this as slowly and plainly as possible. Responsible law-abiding citizens who carry concealed firearms are not the same segment of society as the CRIMINALS to which anti-gun advocates compare us. When you read or hear someone speak of concealed carry in that Armageddon-ish manner (author - “Heaven help us.”); it’s to make you believe bad people will be running around with guns.

News flash! Criminals already run around with guns! Laws that prohibit concealed carry do not keep guns out of the hands of criminals (see, they’re “criminals”). Laws that prohibit concealed carry keep guns out of the hands of good law abiding members of the community who would like to exercise the right to self-protection.

“Oh, but the police will protect us.” Police have a tough job with out a doubt. This may surprise the author, but our law enforcement men and women are not psychic (gasp). They do not have the luxury of a crystal ball in which to gaze and thwart every crime. Police, more often than not, show up after the crime has taken place. They investigate, and hopefully bring the low-life criminal to justice. A very respectable service – yet not one that guarantees my safety.

There are probably a few things on which the author and myself may see eye to eye: you cannot un-batter a mugging victim; un-rape a rape victim; resurrect a murder victim; and you darn sure cannot revive the feeling of security lost by one who’s life is changed due to any violent encounter. What you can do is arm the good citizens of this state so they may not fall prey to the cowards who harm us daily.

LSCurrier
January 3, 2006, 11:35 PM
Here is the reply that I posted.

Luke


******************************************************
******************************************************


Why is it that anti-gun types claim that the world will end if law-abiding citizens are allowed to carry handguns thru the use of
a CCW license?

With 35+ states now having CCW licenses that allow law-abiding citizens to
carry guns and with many people doing so one would expect that there would be mass chaos if the fears of the anti-gun people were true.

Thankfully these claims of mass chaos and death in the streets and every corner are lies and in truth violent crime is reduced in the states that have
CCW licenses. How do you explain that?

It is our Constitutional right to have a gun to protect oneself. How can one
protect themself if they are not allowed to have said gun with them to be available for protection? This contradition stems from the fact that the
founding fathers did not mean for men to be disarmed as noted by these several examples where Thomas Jefferson states:

"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that... it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
--Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824


"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms . . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes . . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man
may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
--Thomas Jefferson, quoted by Cesare Beccaria in On Crimes and
Punishment (1764)


It is only right that free men (women too) be allowed to protect themselves from the criminal that would do harm. It is a fact that the police cannot be
everywhere to protect everyone. Even the individual states have ruled that people have no right to expect police protection. If this is the case, then whose duty is it to protect me but mine own duty? How can I uphold this duty with the sufficient means (weapon) to do so?

I suggest that you do research on the subject of CCW licenses and in an unbiased manner review the various states that have this capability and compare them with the states that don't and see for yourself that states with law-abiding people having CCW licenses and carrying handguns
have a reduce amount of crime (violent crime in particular) than non-CCW states.

I would love to hear your feedback on my comments. In fact, I would love to see them posted in your editorial section so that others can comment on
them as well.

Standing Wolf
January 4, 2006, 01:12 AM
...why won't a list of permit-holders be public record, so that journalists can double-check on backgrounds?

Why not a public list of welfare recipients? Why not a public list of women who've had abortions? Why not a public list of people who subscribe to certain magazines? Why not a public list of people who own sewing machines? Why not a public list of... well, journalists, say? Why shouldn't we learn all about journalists?

Henry Bowman
January 4, 2006, 11:22 AM
honest and trustworthy enough to be given a gun so that you can protect yourself from criminals.Let me understand this... In WI they are proposing to give you a gun with your CCW license? Wow. Do you get to pick your model and caliber or is it "one size fits all" supplied by the owest bidder? Either way, here in OH we had to buy our own gun. What's that? You mean this bigot was using hyperbole to promote his agenda? I'm shocked, shocked I tell you!

Mongo the Mutterer
January 4, 2006, 12:53 PM
Why not a public list of welfare recipients? Why not a public list of women who've had abortions? Why not a public list of people who subscribe to certain magazines? Why not a public list of people who own sewing machines? Why not a public list of... well, journalists, say? Why shouldn't we learn all about journalists?
Why not licensing of journalists? The arrogance of journalists in this nation and the world is appalling. Where do they get their power? When did the people give them this overarching power?

You just have to watch them scream about blogging and forums like THR to see that they realize that they have lost their power, and are losing it more each day. While I'm concerned about the vacuum it would leave, I'd like to see every one of these egotistical "professionals" put on the street with a tin cup.

Trip20
January 11, 2006, 02:11 PM
Dick, they printed my letter along with a few others in the Wausau Daily Herald. Click here (http://www.wausaudailyherald.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060111/WDH06/601110373/1636) to read the reader's letters on line.

Here's what they printed of my response (you can view it in it's unedited form above in post #5). They chopped it up pretty bad. It makes me want to :cuss: :

While this is one of the most irrational opinions on the subject of concealed carry I've come across, the editorial did ask one good question: Why are certain places still off limits to would-be permit holders? Responsible gun owners interested in self-protection agree we should be allowed to carry everywhere.


The author attempts to press the community's panic button by implying the town will be swarmed by a bunch of drunken gun-wielding maniacs. Hopefully the population of Wausau is able to think for itself -- instead of absorbing this drivel -- and will be able to brush this off as nonsense. Having a beer should not amount to the removal of one's right to self-protection. Period.


Responsible law-abiding citizens who carry concealed firearms are not the same segment of society as the criminals to which anti-gun advocates compare us. When you read or hear someone speak of concealed carry in that Armageddon-ish manner, it's to make you believe bad people will be running around with guns.


Criminals already run around with guns. Laws that prohibit concealed carry do not keep guns out of the hands of criminals, they keep guns out of the hands of good law-abiding members of the community who would like the right to self-protection.


Bryan Delucia,


Wausau

Mongo the Mutterer
January 11, 2006, 02:56 PM
Good job Trip.

They didn't have too many responses which were pro the article did they??

Mongo

Trip20
January 11, 2006, 03:13 PM
Mongo - thanks. They printed 6 letters and I believe they were all pro ccw. You can read them here (http://www.wausaudailyherald.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060111/WDH06/601110373/1636) if you like.

Monkeyleg
January 11, 2006, 08:19 PM
Trip20, congratulations on getting your letter published, even if the editor did cut it up.

It's very common for editors of liberal newspapers to slice-and-dice letters. Sometimes they do so for the purposes of brevity, and other times they even do so to remove the most pertinent points.

If you enjoyed reading about "WI: hit this anti-CCW editorial" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!