District 19 Jon Richards has a changeler who supports the 2nd

[Doug Huffman]

And well stated. Thanks for your good and sharp argument.

 

[tomm1963]

ri·dic·u·lous

No compromise. There is no mention of manner of carry in Article I section 25. "The people have the right to keep and bear arms for security, defense, hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose". How the more simple and to the point can that be. There is no question that the intent of the amendment is a support of choice of carry. I don't care what the majority of the liberal WSC said.

Any politician that takes an oath of office must agree to uphold that constitutional amendment. To admit to them at this time that we really want choice of carry but if they will support our motives we would be willing to compromise with unrestricted open carry and permitted concealed carry and mandatory training, with the expectation that we can change it later, is indeed a sell out of Article I section 25.

Any law that gets on the "book" in Wisconsin stays on the "book". That is why the concealed weapon prohibition statute 941.23 is 138 years old.

At one time I, myself thought I would be OK with unrestricted open carry with an elected option of permitted concealed carry. I even posted such on this forum. I was wrong. I was wrong on two points. First, and most important, it was a sell out of Article I section 25. Second I realized that in order to get a permit system passed in our anti gun legislature the system would be filled with so many compromises and restrictions that it would be literally useless. That is what happened with the Personal Protection Act of 2006. Most of you think that all that happened is that we had an opportunity for concealed carry and Doyle vetoed it. Most of you probably haven't even read the Bill. I was there. Believe me it was filled with so many compromises and concessions that it was useless anywhere but on your own property.

To even suggest to the politicians and the anti's that we would be willing to compromise would open the door to dissaster. The only way we can come out on top is to elect politicians that will honor their oath to uphold the constitution of Wisconsin and admit 941.23 is an infringement on Article I section 25 of that constitution. My opinion

When you use these arguments to keep anti Jon Richards in office it is "ri·dic·u·lous
–adjective causing or worthy of ridicule or derision; absurd; preposterous; laughable: a ridiculous plan."

We have Burns or Richards to choose from in the 19th. Richards supports and introduces any and all kinds of anti legislation (which can take 138 years to get rid of). And Burns supports your rights but finds CC training\licensing plausible. We don't have a fantasy candidate on the ballot who sees the world just like you. By the way, fantasy man could NEVER get elected in Milwaukee

So choosing to torpedo Burns means you support Richards...ridiculous.

Why not show up meet Burns explain your opinions on why you feel she has it wrong on this issue. Offer your full support if she would just rethink that one thing?

Instead we take pot shots on the internet and help one of the states most anti gun guys stay in power. ri·dic·u·lous

 

[Captain Nemo]

Tomm1963:

Nothing in my post suggests that I support any one candidate. My comments were with the intent that we should take a hard line approach to choice of carry and why and that we should hold polticians to the oath they swear to. That oath applies to both Burns and Richards. You certainly are entitled to your opinion as to which candidate you feel is most allegiant to the responsibilities of their office but don't put words in my mouth that I prefer one candidate over the other. ri-dic-u-lous.

 

[tomm1963]

Tomm1963:

Nothing in my post suggests that I support any one candidate. My comments were with the intent that we should take a hard line approach to choice of carry and why and that we should hold polticians to the oath they swear to. That oath applies to both Burns and Richards. You certainly are entitled to your opinion as to which candidate you feel is most allegiant to the responsibilities of their office but don't put words in my mouth that I prefer one candidate over the other. ri-dic-u-lous.

See the way it works, this vote thing, is you have to CHOOSE one or the other. The lesser of two evils maybe. Staying home and bellowing about your oaths gets you what you've got. A screaming anti in power. In which case you get the government you deserve. ri-dic-u-lous