concealed carry (Oakland, Forest, Mason: schools, college, quality of life)

[jjacobeclark]

Originally Posted by NowOrNever

Well let's see the good guys get the guns. If you are in a place where everyone has guns it's going to be hard to commit crime, that's why people go to Chicago where there are total gun bans and people are treated like slaves, where odds are 30 times more of getting your home broken into, and people their home and cars broken into when their in them.

If there is no gun control it makes it harder for the criminals to blatantly get their way and they are not going to stay in a place where they can't get what they want.

Criminals will be criminals. All gun control does is take the guns out of the good people's hands.

Violent crime is generally a result of extreme desperation and poverty. Eliminate poverty, simultaneously eliminate violent crime. Of course crimes of passion will still exist and the occasional rapist or serial killer, but for the most part the problem is solved. More guns are not the answer.

[rso092]

Originally Posted by jjacobeclark

Violent crime is generally a result of extreme desperation and poverty. Eliminate poverty, simultaneously eliminate violent crime. Of course crimes of passion will still exist and the occasional rapist or serial killer, but for the most part the problem is solved. More guns are not the answer.

Since you wanted to be a smug *******, here are some court cases:

Warren v. D.C.
Warren v. District of Columbia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

DeShaney v. Winnebago County (already posted)
DeShaney v. Winnebago County - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is a repost from another forum regarding this issue, and if the worthless anti-guns crowd wants to keep trying to disarm the gun owners there will be consequences.

I am hoping to craft a letter that: 1.) Can be used by anyone after the officials have been informed or received the letter. 2.) Informs officials that our 2A rights are being denied through illegal statutes, rules and regulations as stated in Article VI of the U.S. Constitution. 3.) Informs officials that they are liable for injury due to their denial of our 2A rights under the U.S. Constitution by the Civil Rights Act 1983. 4.) The Supreme Court maintains that the Civil Rights Act 1983 holds government officials liable for injury. 5.) No reply to this letter is admission to the continuation of denying 2A rights under color of law. 6.) We expect the repeal of all statutes, rules and regulations to take place immediately since, they are illegal, conflict with our Constitutional rights, there is no duty to protect us and you will be held liable until all conflicting statutes, rules and regulations are repealed.

Two heads are better than one so let's get organized in WI and around the U.S.

FYI: Judges are held to this too and seem to be the biggest problem. I just read in todays paper that a judge ruled that CCW permit holders in GA can not carry at the airport even though the Governor agreed to allow carry on mass transit systems. The judge decided that it was too dangerous...legislate from the bench, again.




Article VI of The United States Constitution states that the "Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all treaties made or shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the Supreme Law of the Land." See The Supremacy Clause: U.S. Constitution, art. VI, § 2. Furthermore, all federal, state, and local officials must take an oath to support the Constitution. This means that state governments and officials cannot take actions or pass laws that interfere with the Constitution, laws passed by Congress, or treaties. The Constitution was interpreted, in 1819, as giving the Supreme Court the power to invalidate any state actions that interfere with the Constitution and the laws and treaties passed pursuant to it. That power is not itself explicitly set out in the Constitution but was declared to exist by the Supreme Court in the decision of McCulloch v. Maryland.





[SIZE=1]CIVIL RIGHTS ACT
42 U.S.C. Chapter 21
SUBCHAPTER I--GENERALLY
Sec. 1983 Civil action for deprivation of rights
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.

(R.S. Sec. 1979; Pub. L. 96-170, Sec. 1, Dec. 29, 1979, 93 Stat. 1284.)



[/SIZE]

[SIZE=1]In 1856, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that local law-enforcement had no duty to protect individuals, but only a general duty to enforce the laws. (10) In 1982, the U.S. Court of Appeals held that "there is no Constitutional right to be protected by the state against criminals or madmen. The Constitution does not require Federal or State government to provide services, even so elementary a service as maintaining law and order."(11)[/SIZE]

[rso092]

Oh, and since I forgot to address the point about poverty:

You are absolutely correct that poverty is a major cause of crime. However, unless you've got some kind of magical plan to make everyone upper class, it will be a lot easier to allow people to be armed if they so choose. Also, in case you haven't noticed, we've had extensive social welfare for 40+ years in this country, and there are still poor people. That will never change; society functions with lower, middle, and upper classes and it has always been that way. Unless, of course, you advocate communism, which has never been implemented successfully.

[jjacobeclark]

Originally Posted by rso092

Oh, and since I forgot to address the point about poverty:

You are absolutely correct that poverty is a major cause of crime. However, unless you've got some kind of magical plan to make everyone upper class, it will be a lot easier to allow people to be armed if they so choose. Also, in case you haven't noticed, we've had extensive social welfare for 40+ years in this country, and there are still poor people. That will never change; society functions with lower, middle, and upper classes and it has always been that way. Unless, of course, you advocate communism, which has never been implemented successfully.

Compared to Western Europe, the U.S. looks like a totalitarian dictatorship. In the past folks like Ronald Reagan, who I'm sure you absolutely love, did their best to weaken organized labor and blame all of the country's problems on the government (which he was in charge of). Finally, we have a new president who believes the government is supposed to function for the people and hopefully issues like unemployment and poverty will get the attention they deserve.

Would you give up your guns for free health care?

[rso092]

Originally Posted by jjacobeclark

Compared to Western Europe, the U.S. looks like a totalitarian dictatorship. In the past folks like Ronald Reagan, who I'm sure you absolutely love, did their best to weaken organized labor and blame all of the country's problems on the government (which he was in charge of). Finally, we have a new president who believes the government is supposed to function for the people and hopefully issues like unemployment and poverty will get the attention they deserve.

Would you give up your guns for free health care?

Not a snowballs' chance in hell. I have not, nor will I ever, rely on another person (or entity) to be responsible for my personal safety. Beyond that, I enjoy shooting. It is a great hobby; I recommend trying it some time.

Way to go assuming, BTW. I am not a republican, nor a democrat. I guess if you wanted to nail it down I'd call myself a libertarian, although there are sections of that platform I disagree with as well.

That's just great that you think the government should provide all these BS benefits and social programs. Unfortunately for you, this country has a little thing called a Constitution, which limits what the federal government can do (it's supposed to, anyway). I like to think I'm pretty well versed on the various sections and amendments, and I don't recall seeing providing universal health care on the list of things the feds are allowed to do. Of course, because of people like you, people like Obama and nearly every other politician in Washington continually **** all over what is supposed to be the supreme law of the land.

Furthermore, your overzealous attempt to regulate my rights out of existence violate one of the most explicit amendments to the U.S. Constitution, as well as the WI State Constitution. I'm not sure if the anti-gun idiots simply can't read plain english, or they try to twist the words into something completely unrecognizable, but it is pretty damn difficult to misinterpret this:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

[43north87west]

Originally Posted by jjacobeclark

Compared to Western Europe, the U.S. looks like a totalitarian dictatorship. In the past folks like Ronald Reagan, who I'm sure you absolutely love, did their best to weaken organized labor and blame all of the country's problems on the government (which he was in charge of). Finally, we have a new president who believes the government is supposed to function for the people and hopefully issues like unemployment and poverty will get the attention they deserve.

Would you give up your guns for free health care?

Free health care? Health care for which nobody pays? That sounds almost too good to be true. Please elaborate.

[jjacobeclark]

Originally Posted by rso092

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

True, a well regulated militia (police, national guard) does have the right to keep and bear arms.

Originally Posted by 43north87west

Free health care? Health care for which nobody pays? That sounds almost too good to be true. Please elaborate.

The U.S. already spends more per capita on health care than any other nation. The U.S. spends about 16% of its gross domestic product (GDP) on health care; most other developed countries with single-payer systems spend between 8% and 12% of GDP. Belgium, Switzerland, Ireland, Denmark, Sweden, Canada, United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, Germany, France, Japan, Netherlands, Iceland, Greece, Portugal, Norway, Austria, and Italy all enjoy single-payer health care systems and they all rank higher than the U.S. according to The World Health Organization's ranking of the world's health systems. We can't afford not to make the change.

[43north87west]

Originally Posted by jjacobeclark

True, a well regulated militia (police, national guard) does have the right to keep and bear arms.

The U.S. already spends more per capita on health care than any other nation. The U.S. spends about 16% of its gross domestic product (GDP) on health care; most other developed countries with single-payer systems spend between 8% and 12% of GDP. Belgium, Switzerland, Ireland, Denmark, Sweden, Canada, United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, Germany, France, Japan, Netherlands, Iceland, Greece, Portugal, Norway, Austria, and Italy all enjoy single-payer health care systems and they all rank higher than the U.S. according to The World Health Organization's ranking of the world's health systems. We can't afford not to make the change.

I'm still wondering about your "free health care". This doesn't explain anything. Instead of "Free", now I see governments mentioned alongside the word "payer".

That doesn't sound free, does it?

BTW, nothing is free.

[Huckleberry3911948]

i know i know i dont live there however,
IMHO
i see no harm at all in carrying it to your hearts content.
but you wont believe what happens after you use it.
lots of CDF people feel absolutely confident they know what happens in a court of law after they shoot someone, after all they googled it and read the penal code.

[Huckleberry3911948]

Originally Posted by jjacobeclark

Violent crime is generally a result of extreme desperation and poverty. Eliminate poverty, simultaneously eliminate violent crime. Of course crimes of passion will still exist and the occasional rapist or serial killer, but for the most part the problem is solved. More guns are not the answer.

well that is a relief there are no bad guys, so if we get raped or shot it wont hurt as much? its just poverty---- simply eliminate it and no one would dream of harming me. we are the richest country on earth and have one of the highest crime rates. everybody on the hood thinks they are poor. you dont know poor i know poor, you think everybody in france is eating 5 course meals and drinking coffee on champs elysee. not so friend.