Gun owners continue to stock up : La Crosse Tribune

notme wrote on Jan 9, 2009 7:04 AM:

" faase:

I would be happy to discuss the Florida example if you could provide a link.

As to the Grandma in South Carolina, she failed to properly secure her firearm, she did not shoot any one. As one could make the same argument about automobiles, do you support banning all cars? Of course not. "

Pfrancis wrote on Jan 9, 2009 1:16 AM:

" I don't believe the average citizen should be allowed to own guns...

However, the US Supreme Court has spoken & they say we DO HAVE A RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS...
so that's that...

If you want to discuss this story further, go to the link directly below, to a site where the pros and cons can be debated, without the personal attacks...See you there:

http://lacrossechat.madmooseforum.com "

kamikazefaase wrote on Jan 9, 2009 12:46 AM:

" In a civilized society, people do not carry firearms. It's those living in fear like those carrying or wanting to carry that create even more fear. But this the GOP way led by the NRA! If the Second Amendment were fully used and not spliced like gun owners seek, then this issue is properly done. And yes there have been innocent bystanders that have been both killed or injured as the result of one's use of their firearm claiming self defense. Try in Florida in 2003. Firearms even in grandma's hands can cause harm, ask the curious grandchild at Sam's Club in South Carolina. As far as your self defense goes, I believe in what Star Trek's Mr. Spock, "the many over the one". "

davidinlse wrote on Jan 8, 2009 7:34 AM:

" RE: Support The 2nd wrote on Jan 7, 2009 5:32 PM: You will never do it. "

notme wrote on Jan 7, 2009 5:34 PM:

" faase:

We'll just have to agree to disagree, those things not specifically addressed in the US constitution, fall to the states. ALL but two states have carry laws and we have not seen "an innocent bystander shot," it has actually been the opposite.

As to "for me to accept your wish to carry in public,” it is NOT a wish, it is a protected right that is being exercised right now. Fifty (50) years ago, closed-minded individuals didn't believe black and white should cohabitate either. Today we are more enlightened. So shall it be with firearms, in a few short years, carry will be commonplace and accepted in Wisconsin just as it is in 48 other states today. "

Support The 2nd wrote on Jan 7, 2009 5:32 PM:

" nomad:

Such a demonstration is already in the works. Please contact me via pm, support.the.2nd@gmail.com for additional details. "

kamikazefaase wrote on Jan 7, 2009 4:57 PM:

" notme: Yes, we have had these discussions in the past, but I remind you that the Federal Constitution supercedes the state one in all cases. This helps protect ones rights regardless of state. Most state constitutions are adopted AFTER the statehood is established. Wisconsin's falls under this category. Therefore, if one wishes to challenge this constitution for not measuring up to the federal one, the case would have merit.

Concerning your argument concerning the La Crosse Police, the officer and city are both liable if an innocent bystander is shot by one of them. The same cannot be said for an individual who carries. In most cases, they lack insurance to cover for these kinds of happenings leaving the innocent bystander to fend for themselves. This is wrong and must be changed for me to accept your wish to carry in public. "

kamikazefaase wrote on Jan 7, 2009 4:45 PM:

" Krusty3: My reference concerning taking a life concerns those who shoot and harm innocent bystanders then are not held liable for their actions. This can be done in Florida. Innocent bystanders are not attached to their prepetrators like fetuses are to women. Having sexual intercourse which results in pregnancy becomes a medical condition for the woman which can be treated by abortion; being shot is a result of someone elses act of negligence. Those already born and living outside a woman's womb must always be protected ahead of "potential life". This keeps things in proper balance. "

nomad wrote on Jan 7, 2009 3:00 PM:

" I think we should organize an open carry walk around downtown. We can all strap on our sidarms or sling a shotgun over our shoulders. If there are enough of us they couldn't possibly arrest usd all. "

notme wrote on Jan 7, 2009 8:33 AM:

" faase:

As we have discussed at length on other threads, this is WISCONSIN and Article 1, Section 25 of the STATE constitution protects the INDIVIDUAL's right to own, possess, and CARRY firearms for security and DEFENSE.

I get you don't like guns having been a victim, however, CRIMINALS will have guns even if you stop every law abiding citizen from carrying.

Also, consider the courts have repeatedly ruled that LEO/Government has NO LEGAL OBLIGATION whatsoever to protect the citizens; protection/defense is the responsibility of the individual.

Therefore, unless you advocate for ALL of us to be victims as you were, you must advocate to give us the opportunity to defend ourselves, as is our RIGHT.

As to your fear of "snap, fire and harm," LEO could as well, let's start with disarming the government first, that will take thousands of guns off the streets. "

Krusty3 wrote on Jan 7, 2009 3:21 AM:

" kaminazi, think about what you just wrote, "If you are willing to take a life, whether animal or human, you must be able to pay the price one way or another." You say that here, but yet in the other thread about UW offering late term abortions you are all worked up and almost offering to kill all these unborn babies yourself. Kinda two faced aren't you?54kto "

kamikazefaase wrote on Jan 6, 2009 11:53 PM:

" BTW, those advocating the Second Amendment never read the entire Amendment. They always forget the first thirteen words: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,". In other words this amendment was meant to secure the State, not the individual for self protection. This way the country could expand and deal with enemies like foreigners or Indian raids or in one case, our own Civil War. I don't believe a person is entitled to having a gun when I read the entire Second Amendment. Instead gun owners should be required annually to demonstrate proper care and responsibiliy for each firearm they own plus pay for such in licensing fees, registration, insurance and training. If you are willing to take a life, whether animal or human, you must be able to pay the price one way or another. "

kamikazefaase wrote on Jan 6, 2009 11:34 PM:

" To gideon_70: The Brady campaign has not done the harm you claim. With Bush in charge the last eight years, he has not enforced the laws on the books hardly. The real problem is the loophole that allows private gun sales or transfers without required background checks. If I had my way, there would be a mandatory life sentence for any crime which a gun was used and the death penalty imposed if the gun discharges. I know firsthand what it is like to be a victim of an attempted armed robbery. I know there is also an excess amount of guns manufactured and sold within this country alone. I'm not after a responsible hunter or target shooter unless they are negligent. If you need a gun for protection, then I wonder if you won't someday snap, fire and harm an innocent bystander. "

Support The 2nd wrote on Jan 6, 2009 12:28 AM:

" greenzio
wrote on Jan 5, 2009 10:47 PM:
"Listen to this man's story if you have a few minutes, and reflect that, had this occurred in Wisconsin, this man and his wife would be dead."

I believe your conclusion to be incorrect. Given the facts as presented by the gentleman, he/we would/do have the same ability to carry on property we own as well as in public, in Wisconsin. The gentleman could have responded the same way, as we can legally carry without permit in Wisconsin. "

greenzio wrote on Jan 5, 2009 10:47 PM:

" Here is a productive, law-abiding 70-year-old veteran who was just going about his business when a robber armed with an illegal weapon broke into his property http://www.wlky.com/video/16509601/index.html

Listen to this man's story if you have a few minutes, and reflect that, had this occurred in Wisconsin, this man and his wife would be dead. "

gideon_70 wrote on Jan 5, 2009 10:36 PM:

" The Brady campaign has killed more people than legal gun owners have by a thousandfold! Every person that would have been armed, that was legally disarmed, and died in a robbery/mugging/rape/attack... was killed by the Brady Campaign.

Banning guns only makes for bold, fearless and even more vilent criminals. "

Consider This wrote on Jan 5, 2009 10:52 AM:

" In reality Anna, you are incorrect. Under the Clinton administration, many firearms and parts of firearms could not be purchased, sold, etc. Looking at who Obama has selected for his cabinet posts, many would expect the Clinton policies to return, but with much greater lean towards the left. Those buying the guns aren’t doing so out of FEAR, they are just using common sense.

If you want a certain bicycle for example, and you know that model will not be available next year, you will buy the bike this year. That is exactly what is happening here, those who want these particular types of guns will buy them now as they will not be available in the future. "

Anna Banana wrote on Jan 5, 2009 9:52 AM:

" It is the BIG gun industry that is making out on this, they are fooling you and you are taking their bait.....and they are laughing all the way to the bank. "

Im Still Jackson wrote on Jan 4, 2009 9:42 PM:

" "unless the ordinance or resolution is the same as or similar to, and no more stringent than, a state statute."
Theres room for argument there. You site a statue that is so riddled in legal jargon that I will bet if you go to walmart strapped and loaded that jargon will be figured out and debated when your arraigned in court if you are a civilian!
No WI aint NC ya got that right! Here we get a permit and conceal and carry something WI DOES NOT ALLOW and if it comes to self defense you can kill the SOB not give them 3 hots and a cot and believe me that option takes a bite out of crime "

Support The 2nd wrote on Jan 4, 2009 9:14 PM:

" State statute says it CANNOT BE ENFORCED, as it pertains to FIREARMS. It does not say it must be removed and as davidinlse pointed out on another thread, the ordinance can still be enforced regarding OTHER dangerous weapons, thus it remains on the books.

As to carrying in public, we do it all the time, as is our RIGHT. To date, it hasn't cost me one dime. Fear not, for we shall continue to carry when and where we choose.

This ain't NC, this is Wisconsin, and we have State Statute 66.0409 to ensure uniformity in EVERY municipality across the entire state. "

Im Still Jackson wrote on Jan 4, 2009 8:18 PM:

" I got an idea since I been reading about the legality of open carry in LaCrosse and how some think its legal and some dont FOREVER NOW why the hell dont you strap up and go out in public and see if you get arrested??? The END
Oh and if you do then you can spend 100,000.00 making your point in the courts schooling them on the laws already on the books that most judges wont even know about until you have your day in court.NC supports open carry some cities BAN IT within the city limit. NC also supports Conceal Carry with a permit, but the same law applies in certain cities like Chapel Hill for example dont take it out of your vehicle or you go to jail!Laws are open to interpretation yes but JAIL CELL DOORS require BOND and a key! "

davidinlse wrote on Jan 4, 2009 8:05 PM:

" RE: Support The 2nd wrote on Jan 4, 2009 7:45 PM: IF the law if still on the books, then it must comply with the statute you posted, and is therefore legal. No where have you shown that the city ordinance does not meet that standard. "

Support The 2nd wrote on Jan 4, 2009 7:45 PM:

" davidinlse:

As I've posted many times before, LE knows the law, and KNOWS they CANNOT enforce the ordinance.

State Statute 66.0409(4)(b)
If a political subdivision has in effect on November 17, 1995, an ordinance or resolution that regulates the sale, purchase, transfer, ownership, use, keeping, possession, BEARING, transportation, licensing, permitting, registration or taxation of any FIREARM or part of a firearm, including ammunition and reloader components, and the ordinance or resolution is not the same as or similar to a state statute, the ordinance or resolution shall have NO LEGAL EFFECT and the political subdivision MAY NOT ENFORCE the ordinance or resolution on or after November 18, 1995.

LEO would actually be breaking the law if they tried to enforce the ordinance and as the ordinance has "NO LEGAL EFFECT" as it pertains to FIREARMS, it need not be "removed." "

davidinlse wrote on Jan 4, 2009 7:10 PM:

" Support The 2nd wrote on Jan 4, 2009 5:32 PM: If you correct, and as I posted before, all the law enforcement in the county will not inforce an ordinance that is on the books, they should all resign. YOU, if you feel you are right should work to get it removed. Since you do not, the ordinance stands, and is valid on it's face. You are wrong, as usual.

RE: The Real World wrote on Jan 4, 2009 6:18 PM: If YOU are ignorant enough to believe your posting, YOU prove your point. "

The Real World wrote on Jan 4, 2009 6:18 PM:

" davidinlse:

Hooray! You have finally run out of stupid comments and can not hold your own in an intelligent discussion. Facts are important, I offered them but you could not accept. I understand when some people can't understand the real world, but I have a hard time with those who try to argue using stupidity and emotion. "

Support The 2nd wrote on Jan 4, 2009 5:43 PM:

" I DID the research, and I HAVE posted the case law here many times, that shows davidinlse does not understand the law.

Governor Doyle himself advocates for OPEN CARRY. "

Support The 2nd wrote on Jan 4, 2009 5:32 PM:

" davidinlse
wrote on Jan 4, 2009 11:58 AM:

Here we go again. Your post is FALSE on its face. The ordinance you cite CANNOT be enforced against firearms. Sheriff Helgeson, County DA Gruenke, the Eau Claire City Attorney, and countless other LE agencies state wide, including La Crosse Police Chief Kondracki, have acknowledged law abiding citizens have the right to "open carry" loaded firearms on any city street as long as they are NOT within 1000ft of school zone.

We can OPEN CARRY right out side La Crosse city hall and/or the county court house, NO LICENSE OR PERMIT of any kind REQUIRED.

And yes, this is the second or third time you have brought up this UNENFORCEABLE city ordinance. You should really stop disseminating FALSE information. "

Im Still Jackson wrote on Jan 4, 2009 5:22 PM:

" OBAMA will not be able to take away your guns or stop you from buying them as long as you are eligable.Its all propaganda. Besides there selling 9mm in the street for 150.00 in NC
Think about it? If it comes to a point where you need a gun then it wont really matter where it comes from now will it? Theres plenty available to be gotten out there,even if they never made another one!Its all hoopla that will pass just like computers and 2000 "

MS wrote on Jan 4, 2009 4:05 PM:

" To Mallard08
The truth is what it is, so put your head back in the sand, and plug your ears, ahahahahahahahahah I can’t hear anything, and I can’t see anything, so everything is fine
mentality
Veteran psychiatrist calls liberals mentally ill
Publishes extensive study on 'Psychological Causes of Political Madness'
"The roots of liberalism – and its associated madness – can be clearly identified by understanding how children develop from infancy to adulthood and how distorted development produces the irrational beliefs of the liberal mind," he says. "When the modern liberal mind whines about imaginary victims, rages against imaginary villains and seeks above all else to run the lives of persons competent to run their own lives, the neurosis of the liberal mind becomes painfully obvious."
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=56494
search for more on Google:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=liberals+are+mentally+ill&btnG=Google+Search&aq=0&oq=liberals+are+mentally "

bb wrote on Jan 4, 2009 3:53 PM:

" Why do people need to own a gun? Jesus wouldn't have one. Our purpose on earth is to love one another, not to kill. "

Mack wrote on Jan 4, 2009 3:09 PM:

" Holey Moley Ole. Who would have thought the 'home of the brave' would need so many guns. "

Athenry wrote on Jan 4, 2009 2:52 PM:

" David - just about every gun can be made to fire as an 'automatic', there are kits that can be purchased for nearly every caliber and nearly every gun type, even BB guns. My impression from reading your posts is you are not informed on the actual guns that, in the past, have been banned (luckily many no longer are) and the ones that politicians continue to want to ban. "

davidinlse wrote on Jan 4, 2009 2:36 PM:

" RE: The Real World wrote on Jan 4, 2009 1:18 PM: Let's see, I'm to do your research to prove YOUR point? I stand by my statements on previous blogs about this subject. I did not nor do I advocate banning guns. I do state that there is no right to carry a weapon by an individual in the city, and while other cities may, and that's questionable, have made it legal, it is not legal in LaCrosse. I also stand by my statement that all assault guns, any gun that is or could be made to fire on automatic should be illegal, confiscated and destroyed. There is no valid purpose for them, other than to kill several people at the same time. "

Mallard08 wrote on Jan 4, 2009 1:47 PM:

" MS please stop posting crap, Dick Cranium I pray your not a cop or something along those lines with you gun carrying mentality to make up for the lack of courage or whatever it is that doesn't make you whole. "Carrying your gun makes you a citizen" that is the dumbest post I have ever read on here, nice going. Those who carry guns are just paranoid, scared, and usually over 50 years old with nothing to do but whine about a subject that comes every time a democrat becomes president. WHEN and IF they take guns away lets talk about it but its not gonna happen. "

Merlewolf wrote on Jan 4, 2009 1:44 PM:

" Listen everyone! MS is ABSOLUTELY CORRECT on ALL COUNTS.

Those who wish to impose any level of gun control on LAW ABIDING citizens are ignoring the bloody history of devolving, corruptible government...over and over...again and again.

I don't care about Obama or the NRA or the ACLU or the "militia" issue. I will not give up my guns, ever, for any reason.

(By the way, if the ACLU is fighting for ALL of our constitutional rights, why do they NOT stand with the NRA?)

That's all I will say today. "

MS wrote on Jan 4, 2009 1:42 PM:

" Page7 –The End
It was reported that when asked why Japan did not follow up the
Pearl Harbor attack with an invasion of the U. S. Mainland, his
reply was that he had lived in the U. S. & knew that almost all
households had guns.
If you value your freedom, Please spread this anti-gun control
message to all your friends!
AND NEVER, NEVER, NEVER SURRENDER YOUR GUNS!!!
Full article at:
http://archive.mail-list.com/paycheck-piracy/msg01833.html
Take Back Your Country: http://www.teamlaw.org/
Communist Goals (1963) Congressional Record--Appendix, pp. A34-A35 January 10, 1963
The Communist Takeover Of America - 45 Declared Goals
http://www.rense.com/general32/americ.htm "

MS wrote on Jan 4, 2009 1:31 PM:

" Page6
Gun Owners and Tax Deniers defined the freest and most prosperous
time in the history of the world. Never forget this heritage.

During WWII the Japanese decided not to invade America because they
knew most Americans were ARMED!

During WWII the Nazi's decided not to invade Switzerland for each
Swiss common man was a trained sharp-shooter with a gun. Hitler
used the German word for "porcupine" to describe how his troops
would suffer.

Note: Admiral Yamamoto who crafted the attack on Pearl Harbor
had attended Harvard U 1919-1921 & was Naval Attach to the
U. S. 1925-28. Most of our Navy was destroyed at Pearl Harbor &
our Army had been deprived of funding & was ill prepared to defend
the country. "

MS wrote on Jan 4, 2009 1:19 PM:

" Page5
[Never to be told again by government
that they are NOT to have the means to insure their freedom.] When
you have no weapon, your slavery is guaranteed by government it's
just a matter of time.

Take note my fellow Americans, before it's too late! When only
government has guns, they will force "law for government" [aka
statutory law"] upon you --when ironically it's really meant to
control them. With guns, the People declare the independence of
their separate lawfulness only common with people.

The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, please remind
him of this history lesson.

With Guns....... .. ....We Are 'Citizens'.
Without Them........ We Are 'Subjects'.

When there was NO INCOME tax was when EVERYONE understood EVERYONE
had a right to a weapon ..coincidence? "

The Real World wrote on Jan 4, 2009 1:18 PM:

" davidinlse:

Before you make a complete fool of yourself, you should research the Wisconsin State Constitution and what is states about the right to bear arms.

Also research what the judge said when he dropped the Vegas case. This was a guy who had a concealed weapon and shot someone in self defense two different times and was tried twice.

He had used a concealed weapon, and the Judge said it was his constitutional right, and dropped the case. "

The Real World wrote on Jan 4, 2009 1:07 PM:

" Richard Cranium:

I enjoy your comments. Your last statement "responsibility should be put on gun owners, manufacturers or sellers. I believe we need accountability and not just with people that commit crimes with firearms. " I agree and so does the NRA. Our stance is severely punish the criminal, leave the rest of the people alone. Who ever in these groups it is, punish them. Manufacturers who commit crimes or sellers or gun users. And the NRA agrees with me on this. The media misleads the people on these issue. "

MS wrote on Jan 4, 2009 1:02 PM:

" Page4
You won't see this data on the US evening news, or hear politicians
disseminating this information. All news in this country is "coached"
by government thru influence-peddling to AVOID telling you things
you SHOULD know.

Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and,
yes, gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens.

The purpose for guns other than food, is: (1) to protect your
property (2) to protect you and others from injury and (3) to
protect your common law unalienable rights. [These go FAR beyond
Constitutional Rights and are a gift from the creator.] The history
of government is one of usurpation of people into slavery. For anyone
who doesn't believe this then go back and examine the Declaration of
Independence and understand that "the People" declared themselves
INDEPENDENT of government. "

davidinlse wrote on Jan 4, 2009 1:01 PM:

" RE: Richard Cranium wrote on Jan 4, 2009 12:26 PM: Gee dick, why don't you flash your iron in front of a cop if your right?

RE: Krusty3 wrote on Jan 4, 2009 12:36 PM:
I see you forgot your medication again.

RE: The Real World wrote on Jan 4, 2009 12:52 PM: Your like all the rest of the 2nd ammendment simpletons. You don't understand the law, but you are afraid to test it. "

The Real World wrote on Jan 4, 2009 12:57 PM:

" jpb:

Most Americans are not aware, but Canada has had the same results of increased crime, because of a very expensive campaign by the Government to restrict guns.

Google Canada gun restrictions for details. "

*PrivateSectorDoesItBetter* wrote on Jan 4, 2009 12:57 PM:

" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-taU9d26wT4&feature=related "

Richard Cranium wrote on Jan 4, 2009 12:55 PM:

" To The Real World: I didn't mind Heston as an actor, I didn't like his political persuasions. And he could be very disrespectful at times in his public comments. There are many organizations that fight for our constitutional rights including the ACLU. They fight for the entire constitution not just the second amendment. Keep in mind that I don't agree with everything they stand for either. My problem with the NRA is that they don't want ANY regulation or responsibility put upon gun owners, manufacturers or sellers. I believe we need accountability and not just with people that commit crimes with firearms. "

The Real World wrote on Jan 4, 2009 12:52 PM:

" davidinlse:

You are not worth commenting to, but here is a fact.

The Wisconsin State Constitution gives me the right to carry an open or concealed weapon.

I am aware that this may lead to a citation, but I am waiting, and I will fight to the highest court if I can get there, and I suspect I can.

The Vegas case was on it way to the Supreme court, but with a little interference from gov Doyle, it was dropped. Doyle know it would win in the Supreme Court. Google the Vegas case Milwaukee Wisconsin for details. "

MS wrote on Jan 4, 2009 12:51 PM:

" Page3
In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up
300 percent. Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them
in, the criminals did not, and criminals still possess their guns!

It will never happen here? I bet the Aussies said that too! While
figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed
robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the
past 12 months, since criminals now are guaranteed that their prey
is unarmed.

There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults
of the ELDERLY. Australian politicians are at a loss to explain
how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort and
expense was expended in successfully ridding Australia n society
of guns. The Australian experience and the other historical facts
above prove it. "

jpb wrote on Jan 4, 2009 12:43 PM:

" MS, Can you provide an example of a modernized democratic country that has banned guns, and exterminated a large portion of the population? Or can you only provide examples of facist, third world examples that do not compare to the situation in the US? "

MS wrote on Jan 4, 2009 12:39 PM:

" Page2
Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979,
300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up
and exterminated.

Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977,
one million 'educated' people, unable to defend themselves, were
rounded up and exterminated.

Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century
because of gun control: 56 million.

It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced
by new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed
by their own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers
more than $500 million dollars. The first year results are now
in: Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent Australia-wide,
assaults are up 8.6 percent Australia-wide, armed robberies are up
44 percent (yes, 44 percent)! "

Krusty3 wrote on Jan 4, 2009 12:36 PM:

" My God, this is the first time I have ever agreed with Richard Cranium, as for "davidlesi" he is as ignorant as ever "

Richard Cranium wrote on Jan 4, 2009 12:26 PM:

" To davidinlse: First of all, you don't know what I do for a living much less know what my name is, do you? You didn't say what law I was breaking because you don't know that. All you did was post a portion of a Wis stat and an ordinance not knowing if I'm licensed to carry or not. The next time you tell anyone they are breaking the law you should be sure of what your talking about. "

MS wrote on Jan 4, 2009 12:25 PM:

" Subject: Gun lessons
'Never Underestimate the Power of Stupid People in Large Groups'
A Little Gun History Lesson
In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to
1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves,
were rounded up and exterminated.

In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5
million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up
and exterminated.

Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 194 5,
a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend
themselves were rounded up and exterminated

China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million
political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up
and exterminated.

Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981,
100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded
up and exterminated. "

The Real World wrote on Jan 4, 2009 12:19 PM:

" Richard Cranium:

What in my post don't you agree with? "

babwa wrote on Jan 4, 2009 12:14 PM:

" Wait wait wait! The paranoid gun nuts (I am differentiating them from normal gun owners, such as myself) are so worried about Obama making guns difficult to get and increasing the price of ammunition that they rush out and do it themselves? Irony -- and stupidity -- at its finest folks. This just cracks me up. "

davidinlse wrote on Jan 4, 2009 11:58 AM:

" RE: Richard Cranium
wrote on Jan 4, 2009 11:44 AM

In all cases of conviction hereunder, any and all dangerous weapons found on the person of the convicted shall be confiscated and become the property of the City and may be destroyed by order of the court. (Am. Ord. 2645 - 8/14/80)

Claim 2nd ammendment all you want, the ordinance does not prohibit you from owning a firearm. And as I challenge all others who think so, just let a cop see you with it. "

davidinlse wrote on Jan 4, 2009 11:55 AM:

" CARRYING DANGEROUS WEAPONS PROHIBITED.

It is unlawful for any person, other than a policeman or other officer authorized to maintain the peace and to serve process, persons maintaining a license or permit from the Wisconsin Department of Regulation and Licensing, pursuant to sec. 440.26, Wis. Stats., and those persons maintaining a guard permit issued by the City Police Department upon compliance with certain minimum State proficiency standards provided for in Wisconsin Administrative Code, RL 3.41, to carry or wear any pistol, slingshot, knuckles, bowie or switchblade knife, dirk or other dangerous weapon, provided that such persons issued a guard permit by the City Police Department or any security personnel shall not remove any weapons used in their employment from the place of employment after hours of employment. "

Richard Cranium wrote on Jan 4, 2009 11:44 AM:

" To davidinlse: You don't really know what my name is do you? What law am I breaking by the way? I anxiously await your response to my question as well as JD5400's comment. "

JD5400 wrote on Jan 4, 2009 11:32 AM:

" davidinlse: It is illegal to carry a "concealed" weapon in La Crosse and Wisconsin. If I, or Richard want to carry a weapon that is visible to the public, I can, just as long as it isn't concealed or hidden from obvious sight. "

Mack wrote on Jan 4, 2009 11:02 AM:

" This happens and gets exploited everytime a Democrat is elected. It's a good way for gun shops to make money. The only guns that are going to actually increase in value are the old collector guns like single action Colts, Winchesters, etc... "

Ranger821 wrote on Jan 4, 2009 10:59 AM:

" Obama may have said that he will protect hunters and legitimate gun owners. Great, but it really doesn't matter if the House and Senate want to ban all guns. If I'm not mistaken, for the first time in our history, Congress has the ability to veto the president EASILY. If Obama goes against his party on a bill to ban guns, then Boxer, Feinstein, et al., WILL veto him. Obama may just wind up being the biggest lame duck president in our history. (with his own party doing whatever they want) "

davidinlse wrote on Jan 4, 2009 10:42 AM:

" RE: Richard Cranium wrote on Jan 4, 2009 10:16 AM: Are you aware that you are violating the law? PS. your name isn't Richard Cranium either. "

Richard Cranium wrote on Jan 4, 2009 10:17 AM:

" To davidinlse: By the way, my name is not Dick... "

Richard Cranium wrote on Jan 4, 2009 10:16 AM:

" To The Real World: I disagree with your post and I do agree with notme. He summed up my feelings perfectly. To davidinlse: Yes. "

audifan08 wrote on Jan 4, 2009 9:50 AM:

" This past October I did my part to help the economy I purchased a 12 gauge Mossburg Persuder and 500 rounds of ammo (which is now closing in on 1,000). This was my first gun purchased in my life. Change I can believe in. "

davidinlse wrote on Jan 4, 2009 9:43 AM:

" RE: Richard Cranium wrote on Jan 4, 2009 9:20 AM: Dick, are you licensed to carry? Do you carry a weapon in the city of LaCrosse? "

The Real World wrote on Jan 4, 2009 9:39 AM:

" If you people who dislike Charlton Heston would research him, you would see he was a man who worked very hard for what he believed in. He was a hard core Civil rights person long before it was fashionable. He fought for all of our Constitutional rights.

The NRA is one of only a few organizations that continues to fight for the Constitution, and any person who wants to pass along this great country we have inherited, should join. Yes they are a aggressive money raiser, but they spend the money giving Richard Crainum the right to carry a gun and defend himself. If it were not for the efforts and funding of people like me, he would have to sit there and die when some unstable nut decides to shoot everyone int the restaurant. "

notme wrote on Jan 4, 2009 9:31 AM:

" There is another useless, baseless, name calling post from Enjoylife. That is all the anti's are capable of useless, baseless, name calling. "

Enjoylife wrote on Jan 4, 2009 9:20 AM:

" You really hit the nail on the head Mallard08; Sharpen the razor wire. . . hahahaha! Your post cracks me up so much I've read it 3 times!

It's so true! These NRA Republicans aren't happy unless they have everyone running scared that the goverment is going to break their door down simply to steal their much needed AR-15's.

I see on the news now, Jeb Bush might take a kick at the cat to become President . . . These morons will vote for him! "

Richard Cranium wrote on Jan 4, 2009 9:20 AM:

" To notme and High Plains Drifter: As a person that carries daily, I couldn't agree with you more. These are two of the better posts regarding guns that I have read in some time. I do believe that the only action Obama will take is to try and prevent more guns from entering our schools. It IS a major problem in bigger cities. I don't believe for one minute that he wants to take guns out of the hands of hunters. The NRA knows how to make money though, don't they? They have become nothing but a political party. "

High Plains Drifter wrote on Jan 4, 2009 7:53 AM:

" It took 13 years for the American government to learn that prohibition of alcohol wouldn't work...in fact,it created more intense problems than those it was intended to curb.Hence,prohibition won't be tried again and...for example...we'll never see a complete ban on tobacco.Rather,we'll be restricted,constricted,confined and limited as to when and where tobacco can be used.I think the whole gun issue will go down the same road with the anti-tobacco sentiments. "

notme wrote on Jan 4, 2009 7:35 AM:

" Mallard08:

First, you have no PROOF to support your KKK statement and therefore your entire post lacks credibility.

Second, not all gun owners are members of the NRA. The NRA is all about money, not the people's rights, and many of us who know this REFUSE to be part of their (NRA) money machine.

Third, nobody said or implied Obama was horrible. What we KNOW, from his SHORT record, and his actions since the election, is that he WILL try to institute a much stricter gun ban that Clinton did.

Forth, we KNOW the courts have continually held that Self-Defense is just that, one own responsibility. (LEO/government has no obligation to protect)

Fifth, banning anything, based solely on looks, is discrimination. "

gchordbob wrote on Jan 4, 2009 6:32 AM:

" Mallard, your grammar indicates your mentality.At the very least, couldn't you capitalize the word God? You're not even worthy of an UFF DA! "

Sully wrote on Jan 4, 2009 4:12 AM:

" Mallard08, Thanks man. You really helped me make up my mind. I had been thinking of becoming a member of the NRA for some time. After reading you comments I can see it is the right thing to do. I will get right on it. "

Mallard08 wrote on Jan 4, 2009 1:53 AM:

" Wow all you NRA, Chuck Heston wannabe wacko's better go get your gun. Make sure you reenforce you bunker in your home and sharpen the razer wire around your yard to prepare for the invasion in which you will finally be able to use your much needed weapons. Im personally scared I mean what are we to do when that horrible Obama guy takes away our right to shoot deer with a AR-15, oh my god. Seriously, the NRA and its members are nuts and most members are only a few generations from their KKK branch in the family tree. Heston was a fool with no compassion to victims of gun violence, displayed when he brought his circus to colorado right after columbine. You repub just have to find something ridiculous to worry about our your life just wouldn't work. "

SECTION SPONSORS

Ads by Yahoo!

Online Degrees

Obama Wants You to Return to School

Obama Urges Homeowners to Refinance

Comments »

Post a comment (150 word limit) »

NEWSPAPER ADS

LACROSSE JOBS

TOP HOMES