Another clueless dolt on WI CCW


February 5, 2006, 11:53 PM
This from the Letters to the Editor section of today's Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:

Try another angle

With all the concern about concealed guns, the crime rate, how to reduce crime and who's buying and selling guns, why not just stop selling ammunition? You can't buy certain cold medicine without an ID. You can hardly buy spray paint.

Just stop selling bullets except during hunting season and only to people with a valid hunting license. If people want to target practice, sell bullets at shooting ranges and only what is used that day. Make it hard for kids to use the guns they have, and make it a crime to sell ammunition to kids or anyone outside of hunting season.

Kathy Galvan


Yeah, Kathy, I'm sure that all the gang-bangers will get a valid hunting license first, and make sure they buy their ammo at approved shooting ranges.

Kathy, you just gave me an idea! Let's require a permit for anyone to commit a crime with a gun! Require them to go through a background check, take a training course, pay a fee, and carry that permit whenever they're about to commit a crime.

That should solve all of Milwaukee's problems.

To quote our own THR/TFL member, Pax: "Bottom line: this woman couldn't get a clue if she smeared herself with clue musk and did the clue mating dance in the middle of a field full of horny clues at the height of the clue mating season."

If you enjoyed reading about "Another clueless dolt on WI CCW" here in archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join today for the full version!
February 6, 2006, 01:05 AM
I've yet to find a gun that was THE criminal.

February 6, 2006, 11:05 AM
Never heard of reloading, eh?

Someone ought to tell her about it, just to see her expression!

February 6, 2006, 01:11 PM
There sure are a lot of clueless people in this world!!

AJ Dual
February 6, 2006, 03:09 PM
Monkeyleg has repeatedly posted about how everyone in Wisconsin bows down to the hunters.

Apparently, after a fashion, so does the anti-CCW Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. Of course, I'm skeptical. This is merely a condescending "See, [sic]you filthy unwashed paranoid rednecks[sic] we're not after your deer rifles!" kind of editorial, but it's still illustrative. Has there been any major consternation over the child hunting regs in the news recently? Why is this worth a Monday headline editorial all of a sudden? Is it just a coincidence it falls right after the defeat of the PPA?

The timing is laughably transparent.

However, it still illustrates nicely that the hunter vote in WI is so incredibly powerful. Even the uber-biased Journal Sentinel feels the need to give lip-service, however patronizingly, to the hunters. Can anyone here seriously believe that the downtown Milwaukee mass-comm majors who form the Editorial board care about the next generation of deer hunters?

Please. Go check out the nice bridge in New York City I'm trying to sell on eBay...

I'm still wracking my brain trying a bulletproof way to tie CCW to get 100% support from hunters. If we could do that, it wouldn't matter who was in the governor's mansion, the Assembly, or the Senate. CCW would get passed, or get enacted on an override like grass through a goose…

Original URL:

Editorial: Yes to lowering the hunting age

From the Journal Sentinel

Last Updated: Feb. 4, 2006

Normally, we're not big advocates of getting more guns into the hands of minors. But when the proposal involves safe ways of getting more kids involved with hunting, we're willing to listen. More than that, we're willing to support the idea, being pushed by legislators such as Rep. Scott Gunderson
(R-Waterford) and groups such as the Wisconsin Wildlife Federation, that it's time to lower the legal age for hunting in Wisconsin.

A bill approved by the Assembly and now in the Senate would lower the age to 8 if the hunting youth was within arm's reach of an adult mentor and as long as there was only one gun shared by the mentor and the youth. There's room for compromise here: Maybe change the age to 10, as originally proposed last year, although we're not opposed to 8. Maybe require that every new hunter in Wisconsin take a safety course before setting out into the woods for squirrel or deer.
Ultimately, of course, parents are the best judges of whether their kids should hunt. Some might be ready at 8; some won't be ready at 15. The proposal recognizes the need for flexibility and leaves the decision in the best hands. But the bottom line is: Lowering the hunting age makes sense as a way of replenishing the ranks of hunters, who are so necessary to the state's conservation and wildlife management efforts.

The first concern, of course, must be the safety of hunters, which is a good reason to require a hunter safety course. Still, advocates of the bill argue that the safest hunter category is youths hunting with adults and that states with lower hunting ages or no age limits report good hunting safety records.

Critics point out that more hunting accidents took place among 12- to 17-year-olds (29%, or 13 incidents) in 2004 than in any other age group, according to the state Department of Natural Resources. But in 2003, the DNR reported that the rate was 6% (two incidents) for that age group. And nationally, in 2002, there were 20 reported hunting-related shooting incidents among more than 1.7 million supervised young hunters, according to figures supplied by advocates of a lower age.
So youth hunting is relatively safe. So what? Well, the problem is that while hunters may not be a dying breed, they apparently are not a rapidly replenishing breed. For every 100 hunters who quit the sport, 53 hunters start. Kids who start playing soccer or football or baseball at 8 or younger may not have much time for or interest in hunting four years later. That wasn't the case before 1973, when the current age limit of 12 was enacted. Many of today's adult hunters started before they were 12 and developed a lifelong interest in the sport.

The state needs that lifelong interest. The state's deer herd, for example, is right now about as big as it has ever been. Without hunters, the state couldn't come close to keeping the herd's numbers in check. And without the money from the fees paid by hunters and anglers, many of the state's conservation programs would die of starvation.
People other than hunters also enjoy the state's great outdoors, of course. And the state could do more to promote other recreational activities - from all-terrain riding to cross-country skiing to bird-watching.

But skiers and bird-watchers don't cull deer herds. Hunters do. Keeping their numbers up is in everyone's interest.

Raven Jeff 2003
February 6, 2006, 05:11 PM
This weekend I had the misfortune of interacting with another citizen of Wisconsin. In the course of our business he mentioned he was an NRA Life Member and a significant collector of lever action rifles.

Then he proceeded to tell me how if the PPA had passed that he was afraid there would be "blood in the streets" from all the road rage. He basically parroted the WAVE party line word for word.

I nearly barfed on his shoes. I spent 30 minutes trying to correct his many misperceptions without success. People wonder why I am so cynical regarding Wisconsins chances for CCW.

Then I read where it might be time for an open carry march. Might be time?

We have been kicked in the balls three times in four years: Chavala, Sherman & now the Booby twins. This is progress? At some point there might be a need for open carry?

What have we got to loose? I can hear it already, "we can't do it now because it may cause Doyle to get re-elected".

I feel like puking again.


Standing Wolf
February 6, 2006, 09:22 PM
Maybe it's something in the milk?

February 6, 2006, 09:48 PM
She probably got that from Chris Rock, who rants about not selling anyone bullets in his stand up routine.

February 6, 2006, 10:44 PM
Three times in four years, eh? At a minimum you'd be getting numb. :D

If you enjoyed reading about "Another clueless dolt on WI CCW" here in archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join today for the full version!