Why conservatives are suckers for gun control

Status
Not open for further replies.
TrapperReady said:
Based on the last two presidential elections, the country is almost exactly split along Republican/Democrat lines. It is my opinion that if you aren't willing to work with the opposing side, and instead try to ram everything down their throats, don't bitch too hard when sides eventually shift and they do the same thing to you.

The Democrats were doing it before the Republicans took over, and now that they are in the minority, they are still getting what they want, because they are willing to fight. If the Republicans were willing to force the Democrats to eat it, the 34 GCA would be history by now.
 
longrifleman said:
They're keeping everyone honest, even if you don't want to admit it.

In this case, they aren't "keeping everyone honest."

They are actively working AGAINST the passage of a shall-issue concealed carry law in Wisconsin.

Your example about yesterday's looney left proposal turning into today's law is a perfect example of incrementalism. That's why the left was winning for most of the 20th century; because they were willing to work one step at a time toward their ultimate goals.

These guys aren't willing to work one step at a time. They won't take any step unless it gets them all the way to their destination all at once. Someone else is trying to take that first step forward, and these goofballs are trying to defeat that effort.

This isn't effective, it isn't helpful, it isn't encouraging, and it isn't reality-based. It sure as heck isn't keeping anyone honest, or serving any useful purpose whatever. Whether knowingly or not, these people are doing the anti's work for them.
 
in all honesty, i dont recall much of a push by alaska residents to go 'vermont style' in the years preceding that change.

correct me if i'm wrong, but wasnt that headed up solely by our legislators, a Democrat one at that?

and the recent activity that redefines who can prevent carrying, was also an internal push, because the wording of the law was rather vague.

granted, it helps that alaskan politicians are not anti-gun, and while individual law enforcement officers are rumored to give armed citizens a hard time, the agencys they work for do not cry for tougher gun laws. both of our candidates for senator (L murkowski and T knowles) didnt care when the AWB was dying, state troopers spokesman said 'who cares? assault weapons are not our problem'.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by antarti
You would think things are terrible here in Florida, reading my mail to my rep. Think he's going to push for Vermont style CCW if I tell him how happy I am that we've reached a "consensus" position with the anti-gunners? Sheesh...

You’re clueless. You don't think we intend to fight the rest of the way to VT-style carry, once we get this CCW bill passed? You actually believe that once we get this bill passed, we'll pet our reps on the head and say "good boy, thank you and we don't need anymore from you"? Please……

Huh? Please point out in my post where I said this was not a victory, or that everybody was going to roll over and play dead...

I am telling you (from experience with the CCW movement here) that I vastly prefer a movement full of people who will press for more change than "can be reasonably expected/accomplished", and deal from there, with the strength of a voting block behind them.

Regardless of what state we're in we've lost something from local/state/federal firearms laws.

Here we even had open carry for a short time. What killed that wasn't the predicted "blood in the streets", it was a bunch of business owners (who themselves had guns hidden all over their establishments) deciding that "concealed with a license" is as far as they were willing to trust their patrons. That voting block had a lot of clout, unfortunately.

Recently, even staunch 2A advocates couldn't stop the local Republican "gun club" from losing the "2nd Amendment" moniker and being renamed the "Spirit of 1776" club. That was due to being taken for granted by the R's, a situation that needs rectifying in the next elections.

Bottom line, there is a pyramid, with those on the bottom whose numbers are large who want some reforms, as the reforms come, you will find that, like the pyramid, there are less who are so dissatisfed that they will persevere. I'd rather be with the 1%-ers than the complacent when that push begins.

In the mean time, you can protect yourself from an attacker by bellowing useless and idealistic rhetoric. It's definitely more powerful than a 9mm, but not as powerful as a .45acp.

LMAO! <= thats bellowing!

I'd say for every person posessing a CCW here, there are 2 or 3 that carry without one...

... and I share your enthusiasm for the .45.
 
I'm not aware that states like MT, AZ, CO, AK, etc added new restrictions on guns along with passage of shall-issue CCW permit laws ... :confused:

If I am correct, then these states did not "compromise" (give up) anything to gain a step towards absolutism.

Remember that a couple years ago, when the first firearm manufacturers' protection act was introduced, even the NRA pulled their support after a number of onerous gun control amendments were added.

And just recently, a "clean bill" was passed :)

I am ashamed and disgusted at some of the ad hominen attacks on the originator of this thread :( :mad:
 
antarti said:
Huh? Please point out in my post where I said this was not a victory, or that everybody was going to roll over and play dead...

antarti - I took your post to mean, absolutism was the only way (or best way, whatever), and that the so-called "compromise" (which is a matter of opinion) of this current bill is a mistake. I got this mostly from your quote:

antarti said:
The 2A is your damned birthright as an American... what good can the compromise mindset or resting on your laurels bring?

Here, you state 2A is a birthright (agreed, and it sucks that we must fight for it in this manner).

But then you go on to imply (or through my incorrect interrpretation) our "compromise mindset", and resting on past accomplishments (i.e. passage of current bill), will bring us nothing.

Whereas I see our (WCCA and similar) approach as more tactically sound. And like you seem to be doing with your rep - we will then push even further, and do so forever, as this is a never ending battle. Complacency is the enemy. No one who disagrees with WGO is complacent. We have a diffence of opinion on which tactic will get to the end-goal, and do so in the least amount of time.

Right now, we're at the bottom of the hill... when we try to climb the hill, we get knocked down. This bill puts us with in arms reach of the summit. As we sit within arms reach of the summit and look down that hill, I think it will be even more clear how far we've traveled to get to that point. WGO's approach will keep us at the bottom of the hill until the politicians of WI build an escalator. And, that ain't gonna happen.

If my interpretation of your post is correct, I can't really retract my post, and I'm OK with agreeing to disagree. If I'm misinterpreting you at all, please clarify and I offer my sincere apology. :)

PS - glad you took my 9mm vs .45 comment as tongue-in-cheek... as that was my intention.
 
I wasn't going to chime in on this thread, since Executive Director (Cory Graff) was making my points for me.

However, since some "absolutists" have now joined the discussion-- 2A absolutists who conveniently come from shall-issue states--I guess it's time for me to post.

Cory and I had a long phone conversation earlier this year. I had hoped that we could find some common ground on which we could begin to work together.

He had said that we should try for a Vermont-style carry bill first. I told him that I would try to find a legislator whose district was so safe that he could afford to introduce such a "radical" bill. I also told him that I would talk to a good friend of mine, and the most conservative legislator in Madison, about proposing such a bill.

I did contact legislators, and found none who would take the almost nuclear kind of heat that our opponents in the media and elsewhere would rain down.

On asking Tom Reynolds, I reneged. My reason? Tom is already going to be the #1 target by the Democrats in the 2006 elections. He's even a target for some squishy Republicans. If I asked him to introduce such a bill, he just might do so. And he'd be toast. I wasn't about to ask him to commit political suicide for a bill that stood no chance of even being assigned a number. It wouldn't even get a committee vote.

After I got off the phone with Cory, something he had said struck me. He had said that, if we could get a vote on a Vermont-style bill, then his group could "take names."

I took that to mean--and feel free to correct me, Cory--that WGO wanted to go after those who voted against the bill.

That would have meant alienating the majority of legislators we now have for the shall-issue bill, which would have meant the bill would be DOA.

Those of you who don't live in Wisconsin don't know Wisconsin politics. Wisconsin is known as "the Progressive state," home of the Progressive party of Doug LaFollette. IOW, it's history is filled with socialism.

This isn't Tennessee, or Florida, or Colorado. This is a state that has elected Russ Feingold and Herb Kohl as US senators, and Kohl is considered "conservative."

Minnesota is close in its politics, but Minnesota had the distinct advantage of having had discretionary-issue CCW for decades, which paved the way for shall-issue.

Milwaukee is the sixth-poorest city in the country, with a higher percentage of low-income residents than even New Orleans. As such, we have more liberal legislators who wield more enormous clout than the outstate legislators. And, what Milwaukee politicians know about politics, they learned from their friends in Chicago.

I, Hunter Rose, other THR members, and many others have been fighting for concealed carry for over four years. If I ever thought there was a possibility of getting Vermont-style carry, or even getting such a bill introduced and using it as a stepping stone, I'd go for it.

And so would Senator Zien and Representative Gunderson.
 
Tallpine said:
I'm not aware that states like MT, AZ, CO, AK, etc added new restrictions on guns along with passage of shall-issue CCW permit laws ...

If I am correct, then these states did not "compromise" (give up) anything to gain a step towards absolutism.

I'm not aware that WI has "added new restrictions on guns" along with it's attempts to pass CCW? That is what your implying, correct? That WI is further restricting guns with this bill? Show me.
 
If my interpretation of your post is correct, I can't really retract my post, and I'm OK with agreeing to disagree. If I'm misinterpreting you at all, please clarify and I offer my sincere apology.

I was responding to (and quoted):

I believe instead of resting on our CCW laurels, we need to push on toward Vermont-style carry in every CCW state.

The implication of which was that, indeed, many were going to sit on their hindquarters. No need for your apologies, as I had probably read too much into the quote, and for that I apologize. There is already too much division between between gun-owners, and I don't want to contribute to even more.

The BEST thing that can happen is for half a million or more people to run out and get CCW permits. Nothing screams "voting block", "Don't Tread", and "the way God and Jefferson intended" like a few hundred thousand armed voters with a collective crime rate lower than every police department in the state. That will make further right-restoration (not "gains") possible.

Now go out and make that happen, and my compliments to you.

BTW, a smartcarry is a wonderful way to carry that Government-size .45 :D
 
antarti said:
Nothing screams "voting block", "Don't Tread", and "the way God and Jefferson intended" like a few hundred thousand armed voters with a collective crime rate lower than every police department in the state.

That is so true, so hilarious, and so disturbing all at once. :D

antarti - you are a gentleman, and it was nice chatting with you. ;)
 
The correct way to bargain is to start out asking for more than what you think you will get. If you always start out only asking for what you think you will get you will end up with less every time because you have to start compromising from that position instead of a higher one.
 
I'm not aware that WI has "added new restrictions on guns" along with it's attempts to pass CCW? That is what your implying, correct? That WI is further restricting guns with this bill? Show me.
That was my understanding from the article in the original post - that additional restrictions were being enacted in return for CCW. I never saw that rebutted, with the possible exception of the "rogue police" clause ...?

I'm not really familiar with the new Wisconsin law.

IIRC, some states do seem to have taken a step backward, where previous open carry was rescinded for CCW only carry. Is that Georgia, maybe? :confused:
 
Executive Director said:
They claim gun owners must accept a central registry list of gun owners, a criminal background check, an excessive fee, an
application (waiting) period, an expanded NICS check on handgun purchases, the creation of no-carry-allowed areas, a rogue-cop amendment, and possibly even fingerprinting of gun owners - that's at least 7 gains for gun control.

The math doesn't add up for me here, so I'd like to take it one-by-one:

"Central registry list of gun owners" - (Note: by 'gun owners' do you mean CCW applicants?) Previously, there was a list of legal civilian CCWers, it was a blank page, right?

"Criminal background check" - Previously one couldn't CCW with or without a background check, right?

"Excessive fee" - (Note: what's the exact fee amount?) Previously one couldn't CCW for ten billion dollars, right?

"Application (waiting) period" - (Note: what's the exact number of days?) Previously one had to wait forever before they could CCW, right?

"Expanded NICS check on handgun purchases" - Okay, this one is actually a compromise.

"Creation of no-carry-allowed areas" - Previously, all of Wisconsin was a no-carry-allowed area, right?

"Rogue cop amendment" - I have no idea what this one is, could someone explain it?

"Fingerprinting of gun owners" - (Note: again, by 'gun owners' do you mean CCW applicants?) Previously, you could provide your fingerprints and still not CCW, right?

So at least four (probably six) of the eight items listed are hardly "steps backward" equal in magnitude to the legalizing of CCW itself, since they amend/restrict CCW. By definition it can't be one step forward and seven back - people can now carry concealed legally in circumstances where previously they simply could not.

You can legitimately debate compromise vs all-or-nothing tactics, but painting this legislation as a step backward is simply lying, if nothing else it is a half-step forward instead of the full step forward that you advocate.
 
(Note: what's the exact fee amount?)
AFIK - $75, but I'm not sure of term.

And no. I believe that $10,000,000,000 still wouldn't have made you legal. Though certainly, it's enough to buy a law or two in most places.
-
"Creation of no-carry-allowed areas" - Previously, all of Wisconsin was a no-carry-allowed area, right?
Yup. This specific admendmant was due to heavy lobbying pressure from the criminal groups. They wanted a clear set of rules as to where the victim dissarmament zones were going to be.
-
"Rogue cop amendment" -
Again, AFIK, this one deals with issues surrounding an LEO that may abuse knowledge that a citizen is carrying, or hold the CCW against them or some such.

That, or it's rules of deadly force engagement against an LEO that has lost his mind and is stampeding through the village knocking over buildings and spilling soup.
-
 
Tallpine said:
That was my understanding from the article in the original post - that additional restrictions were being enacted in return for CCW. I never saw that rebutted, with the possible exception of the "rogue police" clause ...?

We'll start out with the obvious, and often pointed out use of the words "gun owner" by the original poster. What he’s really talking about are "permit holders" (should the law even pass). Taking his words to heart… everyone that owns a gun should believe they’re going to be slammed with all of these horrible new regulations. Much more of an impact in favor of his agenda wording it his way.

He goes on about the “half a dozen anti-gun provisions (by Republican conservatives)”.

Executive Director said:
They claim gun owners must accept a central registry list of gun owners…
There’s that “gun owners” thing again. As Igloodude points out that there was a list of CCWers before the bill, and it was blank (I thought that was funny).

Ok, so there’ll be a list w/my name on it. Is this a “step backward”? I mean, there is really no way to go “backward” from nothing. And, if you still insist that this is a step backward, is it such a problem that you will not accept the CCW bill? Not for me.

Executive Director said:
…a criminal background check…
I'm not a criminal - tell me how this is going to hurt me? They check me as it is when I purchase firearms... big deal.

Executive Director said:
…an excessive fee…
How about “a fee”. Excessive? Whether or not it’s actually “excessive”… well that’s a matter of opinion. I don’t mind paying for the costs involved with running this system, and it’s certainly not a point of argument large enough for me to flush this entire endeavor down the toilet. Again – utterly ridiculous to throw this all away over a fee.

Executive Director said:
…an application (waiting) period…
I’ve waited 130 years. I can wait a couple weeks (days maybe?) while my application is processed. Throw it all away over a waiting period? Nope.

Executive Director said:
…and expanded NICS check on handgun purchases…
He does not define “expanded”… so I’m not really sure what the big deal is here. My own personal circumstance (nothing to hide) makes this not matter much, at least until “expanded” is defined.

Executive Director said:
…the creation of no-carry-allowed areas…
Igloodude nailed it. You can’t create a “no-carry-allowed” area… it’s all no carry right now! So, it can only get better, right? A step backward? Nope. Ditch the bill over it? Nope.

Executive Director said:
…a rogue-cop amendment…
I believe (could be wrong) this is where it’ll allow a LEO to access your CCW status when pulling you over for a traffic violation (or other offense), or something along those lines. This is not a deal-breaker for me. I talk to a number of local LEOs... they're for CCW.

Executive Director said:
…and possibly even fingerprinting of gun owners…
There it is again. “Gun owners.” Ok, reality: “possibly” fingerprinting CC Permit holders. Definitely not a deal breaker for me. They can take my finger print, blow it up, hang it in their foyer, and remark over it's beauty during a dinner party. If it’ll help catch a criminal, or catch you as a CC Permit holder should you choose to become a criminal… GOOD.

Executive Director said:
…- that’s at least 7 gains or gun control.
No, it’s not.

So far, nothing has been brought to my attention, which makes me turn my back on this bill.
 
Trip20 said:
We'll start out with the obvious, and often pointed out use of the words "gun owner" by the original poster. What he’s really talking about are "permit holders" (should the law even pass). Taking his words to heart… everyone that owns a gun should believe they’re going to be slammed with all of these horrible new regulations. Much more of an impact in favor of his agenda wording it his way.

That's the part of Executive Director's behavior that irks me, and leads me to question his intentions. He is using extremely misleading language and scare tactics in an attempt to erode gun owner support for the proposed concealed carry law.

This legislation is not imposing all these restrictions on gun owners. It is imposing some restrictions on people who elect to get carry permits. The carry permits are voluntary - no gun owner has to apply for one if he doesn't want to.

If this law passes, gun owners will have a choice:
a) stay where you are, keep doing what you are doing, living with the same gun laws you're living with now
b) apply for a carry permit, and deal with the requirements thereof

If the law is defeated due to Executive Director's divisive scare tactics, option b) disappears. And this benefits gun owners how?
 
Aquaholic said:
Still pretty sharp for an old-timer! :neener:

I do a lot of yoga, and use tons of moisturizer.
I was hoping someone would get a kick outta that. :D

antsi - exactly.
 
OK... regarding the "rogue cop" thing...

A statement was made by the Appleton Police Chief that, if his officers stopped someone who was CCW, they would prone 'em out and handcuff 'em (clearly in an intimidation tactic). So... when the State Trooper's Assn asked for CCW's to be tied to car tags, the worry was expressed that anti cops might sit and run plates, hoping to "catch" a CCW to bother. The Trooper's Assn suggested the amendment, making it a misdemenor for an officer to "fish for CCWs" that way...

Ok... everything clear as mud now?
 
Is it too early to be optimistic and ask about reciprocity with other states? Was that addressed in the bill?

pwolfman
 
The initial version of the 2003 bill gave reciprocity to permit holders from every shall-issue state.

This year's bill provides that the DOJ establish reciprocity with other states, based upon substantially similar training requirements. I'm not certain why the authors changed that portion of the bill.

And now, for Corey Graff's latest attack on Zien, Gunderson, the NRA, and the WCCA:

Subject: [WGO-TECH] CCW EMERGENCY! GUN CONTROL ALERT!

STATE REPUBLICANS BETRAY GUN OWNERS IN HOUR OF GREATEST NEED

CCW bill will create gun owner registration list, criminal safe zones,
nightmare
bureaucratic "system"

Monday, December 12, 2005

Dear WGO Activist:

The State Assembly will vote tomorrow on the Personal Protection Act (PPA),
the
Shall-Issue concealed carry bill before our state legislature.

The State Senate passed its version of the bill - SB 403 - last week by a
23-10
vote.

But anti-gunners should be celebrating even more than gun owners. That's
because
hidden in the bill are at least six major gun control provisions which will
be
passed along with the bill unless you do your part today.

Those provisions* include:

1. Creating a massive, centralized, gun owner registration list administered
by
Department of Justice (DOJ). The FBI and BATFE - and the Working Group of
the
Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF) law enforcement agencies - operates under
DOJ
and investigates and spies on suspected "terrorists" - who are mostly
law-abiding citizens. A recent Associated Press report, in fact, said the
FBI's
"Watch lists" have grown from just 16 persons on that list prior to Sept.
11,
2001, swelling to over 80,000 people on the Watch list today! It is naïve at
best to believe DOJ will just serve in a secretarial capacity with a
newly-acquired CCW list of gun-carrying permit holders.
2. Creating a patchwork of locations (No-Carry-Allowed Areas) which you, a
FREE
AMERICAN, will not be able to even walk into if you carry a gun under the
law
this legislation would create. While this creates dangerous "Criminal Safe
Zones," it also ushers in an eerie atmosphere of gun owner
sit-at-the-back-of-the-bus segregation.
3. Charging gun owners excessive fees to apply for and receive a carry
permit -
over $200 including the state-mandated training - making getting a permit to
carry a weapon for self-defense unaffordable for many of the people who have
an
immediate self-protection need. In addition - but no less important -
charging a
fee to exercise an inalienable right destroys that right.
4. Forcing you to undergo an additional criminal background check with DOJ.
You've already undergone one background check under NICS when you purchased
your gun, but apparently you still haven't proven you are a lawful citizen.
They will check you AGAIN (and because the permit expires after 5 years,
expect
future legislation to create recurring criminal background checks - over and
over again - to renew the license).
5. Creating the state-level legal framework to implement federal legislation
known as "Cops-Only-Carry" (HR 218). Retired cops should be able to carry
concealed handguns, but because they are citizens and it's their right - not
because they were cops by career choice.
6. EXPANDING the NICS background check done on handgun purchases to include
a
broad, undefined new category of "new crimes."
7. Rep. Scott Gunderson struck a "compromise" deal with the historically
anti-gun Wisconsin Troopers Association. The result: A Rogue Cop Amendment
gives cops instant alert that you have a permit to carry when they pull you
over for a traffic violation. Police Chiefs have admitted they will order
their
officers to draw their weapon on any permit-carrying gun owner pulled over
under
any pretense (even if you are pulled over for a defective taillight). You
could
be forced to the ground, on your face. Other law enforcement officials have
admitted they will use the DOJ list to investigate all permit holders in the
vicinity of a crime - just because they hold a CCW permit!
8. Both NRA and staffers in Rep. Gunderson's office have denied there will
be a
fingerprinting requirement added to the PPA. While WGO uncovered the
possible
deal-in-the-works at the Joint Hearing earlier this fall, it looks like
activist-pressure has spoiled the deal as politicians have responded
predictably: denying any fingerprinting deal now that the spotlight is on
them.
NOTE: THIS IS A FAVORABLE OUTCOME. Without your pressure on this issue,
insiders
would have been able to sneak a fingerprinting provision right past gun
owners.
Still, be on the lookout for this atrocious concession to come up as a last
minute floor amendment if politicians feel they need to scrounge up a few
last
votes for the bill. They'll tell you it's "political reality" that you must
accept such an amendment. Sound familiar?

To give you an idea of just how important the information in this e-mail is,
your action today will likely be the most important thing you've done all
year
long for your gun rights.

The status quo gun groups - who have given their silent support to the gun
control provisions - have left the Second Amendment in a perilous position.

Tomorrow, Tuesday, December 13, 2005, comes the vote. Today, Monday, is the
day
we alert the legislature that gun control must be removed from this bill.

We won't get a second chance: the bill (if passed) will go to anti-gun
Governor
Jim Doyle - who will veto the legislation regardless of how many anti-gun
deals
spineless Republicans have struck - and our chance to clean up the bill will
then be over (at least for this round).

If that happens, you'll be shoved in between a rock and a hard place:
forcing
you to choose between passing concealed carry along with a major gun control
package OR killing concealed carry to prevent yet another massive erosion to
your firearm freedoms.

Our analysis proves conclusively the institutional gun lobby - NRA,
Wisconsin
Concealed Carry Association, and others - and their compromise-at-all-costs
strategy is responsible for two stumbling blocks, 1) dividing gun owners who
should be united for the Second Amendment and 2) providing political cover
to
politicians who are pushing their own (anti-gun) agendas through the bill.

NRA lobbyist Darren LaSorte has been trying to woo gun owners by claiming
these
concessions are the "political reality" and the only way to pass the bill.
Yet,
out of the other side of his mouth, LaSorte boasted at the Joint Committee
hearing on this bill that NRA was the most powerful lobbying organization in
the country.

QUOTE:

"Forbes magazine ranked NRA as the top lobbying organization in the country
and
polls among staffers on Capital Hill indicate that's the case also." -
Darren
LaSorte, NRA State Liaison, November 2, 2005

We've told you all along that these groups seem to be fighting against the
drafting and introduction of clean pro-gun legislation from the inside.
Well,
if NRA leadership is so tough, they should be able to ram through good
concealed carry - especially with a Republican-controlled legislature.

It seems the liberals have the neo-conservatives well-trained and on very
short
leashes.

In fact, in the last 130 years or so, some 20,000 gun laws have been passed
with
the institutional gun lobby doing the driving. Do you feel more free?

ACTION:

We have a BOLD plan of action - and a brand new e-mail system.

We've made it easy for you to TIP THE SCALES in this battle. All you have to
do,
is use the pre-written message below, send to
[email protected], and we'll forward it onto your
legislator
plus their entire staff (and a few of their colleagues.)

1. CRITICAL - Simply insert your name, copy and paste, and e-mail the
pre-written message below to [email protected] We must
make
sure that everyone working at the capital is aware there are detrimental gun
control provisions in the PPA - to hold them accountable for it - and so
they
can't claim later they failed to offer amendments because they weren't aware
of
the problems. Your one e-mail will bullet proof our long-term strategy of
advancing gun rights by not giving politicians any wiggle room.
2. VITAL FOLLOW THROUGH - After you've sent your e-mail, call the Capital
switchboard at 1-800-362-9472 and ask to be put through to your state
representative. Tell them to amend the PPA by removing the objectionable gun
control provisions* (see above). You shouldn't be forced to accept gun
control,
especially in what should be a pro-gun bill. Tell them the bill takes six
steps
back for gun owners and only one step forward. Tell them the Republicans
should
not be giving up the fight when they are in control in the legislature. They
are
practically handing anti-gunners a smorgasbord of gun control advances - for
FREE (if this is a true compromise as the apologists want you to think, what
inalienable rights are anti-gunners giving up? Answer: ZERO).

PRE-WRITTEN MESSAGE

Subject line: GUN CONTROL WARNING! CLEAN UP THE PPA!

E-mail to: [email protected]
------------------------------------------------
December 12, 2005

GUN CONTROL WARNING

Dear Legislator:

Are the gun owners in your district aware that you are about to pass a gun
control bill?

The Personal Protection Act (PPA) - AB 763/SB 403 - contains several
disastrous
ANTI-GUN concessions which must be removed by amendment right away.

I urge you in the strongest terms to REMOVE BY AMENDMENT the following:

- The PPA's centralized Department of Justice registration list of
permit-holding gun owners. I oppose gun owner registration. It always leads
to
abuse and confiscation.
- The PPA's excessive fees (over $200 including the mandatory training)
which
shouldn't be charged in the first place to exercise an inalienable right.
- The PPA's laundry list of No-Carry-Allowed areas which will be off limits
to
gun owners who are carrying concealed even with a permit - creating
"Criminal
Safe Zones."
- The PPA's criminal background check, which treats law-abiding gun owners
like
me as criminals.
- The PPA's creation of the legal framework to implement federal law
"Cops-Only-Carry" (HR 218). When cops retire, they should not be given
elevated-Special Citizen treatment.
- Rep. Scott Gunderson's anti-gun provision to allow cops instant access to
the
DOJ list of permit holders during routine traffic stops. Given that
Wisconsin
police chiefs have admitted they will draw their weapons on citizens with
permits who are detained, it is downright dangerous (to drivers) to give
cops
this excessive authority.

I expect that you will remove by amendment the above gun control provisions
within this bill in a timely manner.

Wisconsin Gun Owners, Inc. (WGO) will keep me informed of your actions.

For Freedom,


[Name]
-------------------------------------------

This is so serious we simply can't sit by today, hoping others will do our
work
for us to clean up this bill.

We must act.

And it's so simple.

Again, just insert your name, copy and then paste the pre-written message
above
and e-mail it to [email protected]

We ask that you forward this alert to every freedom-loving American in your
address book as quickly as possible. They can help us send an even stronger
message.

Wisconsin Gun Owners, Inc. is counting on you holding the line. Don't wait
to
act.



Corey Graff, Executive Director

Wisconsin Gun Owners Inc.
P.O. Box 338
Green Bay, WI 54305

http://www.wisconsingunowners.org

[phone] 888.202.1645
[fax] 866.208.1346
[e-mail] [email protected]

"Wisconsin's Only No-Compromise Gun Rights Organization"
 
With his latest email, I am now convinced that Corey Graff's ultimate aim is not to achieve Vermont/Alaska-style CCW in Wisconsin, but to undercut any CCW legislation via peeling away a percentage of the pro-gun support. The logic in his announcement simply isn't... well, logical. It isn't creation of 'Criminal Safe Zones', it is the reduction of the existing Criminal Safe Zone that is roughly the size of Wisconsin, and his other points fall into the same vein.
 
Igloodude: you win the prize!

Think about it: if racism were to vanish in the US today, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and a whole other host of "poverty pimps" would be out of a job.

If crimes involving guns were to disappear tomorrow, Sarah Brady and a whole host of other anti-gunners would have no incomes.

And, if WI should get shall-issue concealed carry, my guess is that Corey Graff will take a financial hit.

For now, that's just my conjecture. But I'm very certain that I'll be able to prove that statement true within the next couple of months.
 
I'm amazed and utterly confused how anyone could fall for Corey Graff's trumpeting that this bill is bad for people who want to lawfully defend themselves.

And frankly, except for a couple cut and paste jobs, he's said NOTHING to make me even to begin to understand his position here.

Anti in disguise? I am starting to think it might be the case here.

We aren't "adding gun control" here. We're REMOVING it, well at least some of it. There are only steps forward at this point.

The way I see this legislation is that the glass is half full, not half empty as Mr. Graff would like me to believe.

And I'm getting sick and friggin' tired of you, Mr. Graff, using misleading language(does the term "gun owners" ring a bell) to attempt to fool people into crossing over to your side on this issue. Frankly, my 2 year old nephew could fool me easier.
 
>The way I see this legislation is that the glass is half full, not half empty as Mr. Graff would like me to believe. <

I think that's the wrong analogy. A better might be:

Your View: the glass is half empty

C.G's View: OH, MY GOD! THE GLASS IS FULL OF POISON, BEING OFFEREED BY THE DEVIL'S HAND!!!!!


I think that more accurately sums up...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top