Monkeyleg
Member.
Last month, Wisconsin Governor Doyle unveiled proposals to fight violent crime. One proposal would ban the private sales of guns. Another would prohibit anyone convicted of a misdemeanor offense involving guns from ever owning a gun again (that would include petty charges such as unlawful transport). Another proposal would abolish the state's pre-emption law, leaving cities like Milwaukee to enact any gun control laws the anti's wanted.
Governor Doyle's proposals received a few critical letters to the editor. But today's three anti-gun letters outnumbered the others. And the editor of the letters to the editor column has assured me (and I believe her) that the balance of views is based upon the letters received.
I really, really need to flee Wisconsin. Here are a few sample letters from today:
***********
GUNS
Governor's proposals are important
Community columnist Mark A. Sity attempted to shoot down Gov. Jim Doyle's plans to combat violent crime, but the bullet lodged in his foot ("It's the criminals, stupid," Sept. 7).
He repeated the crazy idea that since criminals will disobey a law, there's no point having the law. Licensing guns is important and necessary, just as is the licensing of cars. Yes, that may involve a cost, but gun ownership is a privilege as well as a right.
Gun traffic is interstate, and a national database fills a gap left open by current background checks. It makes sense. Also, if a community wants more restrictive gun regulations than the state, why shouldn't it have that right?
A misdemeanor involving gun use is serious. People can lose their right to drive for misdemeanor drunken driving, too. This is not open to abuse.
Federal law does not prohibit gun sales to individuals between 18 and 21. Doyle wants to close this gap. Ballistic fingerprinting is strongly supported by law enforcement experts. If crime labs are too backed up to do this, let's improve them.
Finally, I'm not sure what the Founding Fathers meant by putting "well-regulated" in the Second Amendment, but it doesn't sound as though they would be on Sity's (sic) side in this issue.
Jay Beder
Shorewood
What restrictions would be acceptable?
I read community columnist Mark A. Sity's "It's the criminals, stupid" with interest. As a rational-thinking "liberal," I often find myself agreeing with gun advocates' arguments that gun laws will affect law-abiding citizens rather than criminals who'd choose to go outside the law to purchase guns. What we don't hear from gun advocates is what restrictions they are willing to accept to make our community safer.
I agree with Sity; our Founding Fathers were not stupid men. However, we as a society have already agreed to numerous restrictions on that vital and fundamental First Amendment. For instance, I can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater nor, among other things, may I put anything on my front lawn that would be offensive to community standards.
I ask strong supporters of the Second Amendment what restrictions they will accept to reduce the senseless deaths in our community.
Michael Peragine
Milwaukee
More guns out there is not the answer
I realize that gun control measures will do little to curb street violence, since most of this violence is wrought by illegal guns bought on the street. However, I fail to see how more guns on the street equals more safety. I ain't too good at book learnin', but that just don't add up.
Letter writer Thomas R. Eells mentioned a school and mall shooting ("Concealed handguns allow self-defense." Sept. 8). Count on never seeing me in a mall, park or festival if a law passes allowing concealed weapons.
Also, I'm not sure if letter writer Michael F. Gallo knew this, but drug dealers, pimps and thugs don't work the 9-to-5 shift, so just because he rolls through North Ave. twice a day doesn't mean he understands the inner city's problems ("Safety, proper use of firearms are vital").
The only solution is strong, community-driven peace programs, gun turn-ins and educating youth. And one more thing: A person is not a rat if he or she helps the police catch a robber, drug dealer and/or killer; rats live in sewers, not peaceful communities.
Gharrity McNett
Milwaukee
***
Sigh. If I hear one more anti try to qualify the First Amendment by saying that I cannot yell "fire" in a crowded theater, I'm going to set his house on fire, and then remain silent.
Governor Doyle's proposals received a few critical letters to the editor. But today's three anti-gun letters outnumbered the others. And the editor of the letters to the editor column has assured me (and I believe her) that the balance of views is based upon the letters received.
I really, really need to flee Wisconsin. Here are a few sample letters from today:
***********
GUNS
Governor's proposals are important
Community columnist Mark A. Sity attempted to shoot down Gov. Jim Doyle's plans to combat violent crime, but the bullet lodged in his foot ("It's the criminals, stupid," Sept. 7).
He repeated the crazy idea that since criminals will disobey a law, there's no point having the law. Licensing guns is important and necessary, just as is the licensing of cars. Yes, that may involve a cost, but gun ownership is a privilege as well as a right.
Gun traffic is interstate, and a national database fills a gap left open by current background checks. It makes sense. Also, if a community wants more restrictive gun regulations than the state, why shouldn't it have that right?
A misdemeanor involving gun use is serious. People can lose their right to drive for misdemeanor drunken driving, too. This is not open to abuse.
Federal law does not prohibit gun sales to individuals between 18 and 21. Doyle wants to close this gap. Ballistic fingerprinting is strongly supported by law enforcement experts. If crime labs are too backed up to do this, let's improve them.
Finally, I'm not sure what the Founding Fathers meant by putting "well-regulated" in the Second Amendment, but it doesn't sound as though they would be on Sity's (sic) side in this issue.
Jay Beder
Shorewood
What restrictions would be acceptable?
I read community columnist Mark A. Sity's "It's the criminals, stupid" with interest. As a rational-thinking "liberal," I often find myself agreeing with gun advocates' arguments that gun laws will affect law-abiding citizens rather than criminals who'd choose to go outside the law to purchase guns. What we don't hear from gun advocates is what restrictions they are willing to accept to make our community safer.
I agree with Sity; our Founding Fathers were not stupid men. However, we as a society have already agreed to numerous restrictions on that vital and fundamental First Amendment. For instance, I can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater nor, among other things, may I put anything on my front lawn that would be offensive to community standards.
I ask strong supporters of the Second Amendment what restrictions they will accept to reduce the senseless deaths in our community.
Michael Peragine
Milwaukee
More guns out there is not the answer
I realize that gun control measures will do little to curb street violence, since most of this violence is wrought by illegal guns bought on the street. However, I fail to see how more guns on the street equals more safety. I ain't too good at book learnin', but that just don't add up.
Letter writer Thomas R. Eells mentioned a school and mall shooting ("Concealed handguns allow self-defense." Sept. 8). Count on never seeing me in a mall, park or festival if a law passes allowing concealed weapons.
Also, I'm not sure if letter writer Michael F. Gallo knew this, but drug dealers, pimps and thugs don't work the 9-to-5 shift, so just because he rolls through North Ave. twice a day doesn't mean he understands the inner city's problems ("Safety, proper use of firearms are vital").
The only solution is strong, community-driven peace programs, gun turn-ins and educating youth. And one more thing: A person is not a rat if he or she helps the police catch a robber, drug dealer and/or killer; rats live in sewers, not peaceful communities.
Gharrity McNett
Milwaukee
***
Sigh. If I hear one more anti try to qualify the First Amendment by saying that I cannot yell "fire" in a crowded theater, I'm going to set his house on fire, and then remain silent.
