Vote gives no shot for guns

From the Wisconsin State Constitution:

"Right to keep and bear arms. SECTION 25. The people have the right to keep and bear arms for
security, defense, hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose."

Under the US and WI Constitutions and the fundamental laws of nature the citizens of WI ALREADY have the right to keep and bear arms.

Those who are usurping this right away from the citizens are flouting the Rule of Law. This amounts to nothing more than a government power grab and a gross opression of the free people of WI.

WI is only 1 of I believe 11 states that don't allow concealed carry. No properly registered concealed gun has been used by the owner during the commission of a crime.

Concerned - from other IP wrote:

WI is only 1 of I believe 11 states that don't allow concealed carry. No properly registered concealed gun has been used by the owner during the commission of a crime.

Asking permission from the government to bear arms is unconstitutional and a huge, disgusting usurpation of power.

We have the right to armed self defense NO MATTER WHAT state or federal laws say to the contrary. Once you are forced to ask permission from the state, that right is lost because permission can be revoked.

This is unacceptable by the standards of the Constitution and the Laws of Nature.

The Watcher wrote:

<quoted text>
Asking permission from the government to bear arms is unconstitutional and a huge, disgusting usurpation of power.
We have the right to armed self defense NO MATTER WHAT state or federal laws say to the contrary. Once you are forced to ask permission from the state, that right is lost because permission can be revoked.
This is unacceptable by the standards of the Constitution and the Laws of Nature.

I think the government should control guns for the genral safety of everyone. Convict felons etc... should not be allowed to posses guns. Gun control isnt a bad thing when done properly.

-I think the government should control guns for the genral safety of everyone. Convict felons etc... should not be allowed to posses guns. Gun control isnt a bad thing when done properly.-

Well, there ya go.

Sheeple.

Government schooling based on your spelling?

wisil wrote:

-I think the government should control guns for the genral safety of everyone. Convict felons etc... should not be allowed to posses guns. Gun control isnt a bad thing when done properly.-
Well, there ya go.
Sheeple.
Government schooling based on your spelling?

I applogize, didn't know the spelling police were out this morning.

Concerned - from other IP wrote:

<quoted text>
I think the government should control guns for the genral safety of everyone. Convict felons etc... should not be allowed to posses guns. Gun control isnt a bad thing when done properly.

You are absolutely and completely wrong on this. Under Amendment II of the United States Constitution the government is PROHIBITED from regulating the possession of arms by citizens.

You and you alone are charged with your own personal safety. When you delegate that responsibility to another (the government) you are at the mercy of that entity. If more citizens would take responsibility for the safety of themselves and others the criminal element in this nation would cease to be a danger to the citizenry. Criminals require a willing victim in order to accomplish their ends. Armed and watchful citizens are NOT easily victimized.

All the laws to the contrary are unconstitutional and against the Laws of Nature. Convicted felons are still allowed to defend their person from attack, are they not? Why would you act to strip them of the tools of self-defense?

Self preservation is the First Law of Nature. All living things possess the right to defend their lives and the lives of those close to them. Gun control is completely at odds with the Laws of Nature upon which our Constitution was founded.

When you allow the government to disarm you for ANY reason, you have then become a slave to that government. It is in the very nature of governments to usurp power away from the citizens. An ill informed and poorly educated citizenry will not keep a good watch on their rights and will have them taken by corrupt governments.

Such is the state of things in this nation.

government big enough to give the people power is already too big because they can take it away (summarize of a Thomas Jefferson quote)

Cobra wrote:

government big enough to give the people power is already too big because they can take it away (summarize of a Thomas Jefferson quote)

Excellent point! Permission granted can also be revoked.

When the citizens are at the point of needing government permission to exercise a right- it is no longer a right.

Convicted felons lost the privalege when they made it clear that they don't play well with others. I for one don't want a bunch of criminals running around with loaded weapons.

Concerned wrote:

Convicted felons lost the privalege when they made it clear that they don't play well with others. I for one don't want a bunch of criminals running around with loaded weapons.

Too late. Use a little logic here, my friend. First of all it is NOT a "privilege" it is a right.

Second, how is it that you will disarm a group of people (by law) who by their very nature will break those laws (they are criminals, after all)?

Third, all living beings have the right to self defense- even convicted felons. If, as you state, it is determined that they "don't play well with others" as determined by their propensity to harm their fellow citizens, then that individual should not be released from prison- ever.

Fourth, if you would take the time and do a little research you could easily find out what kind of offenses qualify as felonies in your particular state. You may be surprised at how many NON-VIOLENT offenses are felonies. If a citizen commits such non-violent felonies should they be imprisoned? Maybe. Should they be disarmed for the rest of their life? No!

The only time the government has the right to disarm a citizen is when they are imprisoned. When they are released, they are again free citizens with their debt fully paid. The fact that our society continues to punish people AFTER they have paid their debt is a gross injustice and should not continue.

The Watcher wrote:

<quoted text>
Too late. Use a little logic here, my friend. First of all it is NOT a "privilege" it is a right.
Second, how is it that you will disarm a group of people (by law) who by their very nature will break those laws (they are criminals, after all)?
Third, all living beings have the right to self defense- even convicted felons. If, as you state, it is determined that they "don't play well with others" as determined by their propensity to harm their fellow citizens, then that individual should not be released from prison- ever.
Fourth, if you would take the time and do a little research you could easily find out what kind of offenses qualify as felonies in your particular state. You may be surprised at how many NON-VIOLENT offenses are felonies. If a citizen commits such non-violent felonies should they be imprisoned? Maybe. Should they be disarmed for the rest of their life? No!
The only time the government has the right to disarm a citizen is when they are imprisoned. When they are released, they are again free citizens with their debt fully paid. The fact that our society continues to punish people AFTER they have paid their debt is a gross injustice and should not continue.

Voting is also a right, however when you break the rules you have to pay the price.

Second you disarm a group of citizens the same way you do already. You make it impossible for them to buy guns legally with backround checks etc... and punish them when they are found in possession of a gun.

Third they do have the right to self defense. However by committing a crime that is serious enough to be a felony, violent or not, they have given up right to carry a weapon.

Fourth, I am very very very familiar with what is a felony in my state thank you very much and dont need a lecture on what is and isn't one. if you commit a crime serious enough to be a felony then you lose rights and privelages. If you don't like it, then don't commit a crime.

The concealed weapons statute is a restriction on the manner in which firearms are possessed and used. It is constitutional under Art. I, s. 25. Only if the public benefit in the exercise of the police power is substantially outweighed by an individual's need to conceal a weapon in the exercise of the right to bear arms will an otherwise valid restriction on that right be unconstitutional. The right to keep and bear arms for security, as a general matter, must permit a person to possess, carry, and sometimes conceal arms to maintain the security of a private residence or privately operated business, and to safely move and store weapons within those premises. State v. Hamdan, 2003 WI 113, 264 Wis. 2d 433, 665 N.W.2d 785, 01-0056 .


Article I,§25 - ANNOT.
A challenge on constitutional grounds of a prosecution for carrying a concealed weapon requires affirmative answers to the following before the defendant may raise the constitutional defense: 1) under the circumstances, did the defendant's interest in concealing the weapon to facilitate exercise of his or her right to keep and bear arms substantially outweigh the state's interest in enforcing the concealed weapons statute? and 2) did the defendant conceal his or her weapon because concealment was the only reasonable means under the circumstances to exercise his or her right to bear arms? State v. Hamdan, 2003 WI 113, 264 Wis. 2d 433, 665 N.W.2d 785, 01-0056 .


Article I,§25 - ANNOT.
Under both Hamdan and Cole there are 2 places in which a citizen's desire to exercise the right to keep and bear arms for purposes of security is at its apex: in the citizen's home or in his or her privately-owned business. It logically and necessarily follows that the individual's interest in the right to bear arms for purposes of security will not, as a general matter, be particularly strong outside those two locations. An individual generally has no heightened interest in his or her right to bear arms for security while in a vehicle. State v. Fisher, 2006 WI 44,___ Wis. 2d ___, 714 N.W.2d 495, 04-2989 .

Also from the states constitution

Concerned - from other IP wrote:

<quoted text>
Voting is also a right, however when you break the rules you have to pay the price.
Second you disarm a group of citizens the same way you do already. You make it impossible for them to buy guns legally with backround checks etc... and punish them when they are found in possession of a gun.
Third they do have the right to self defense. However by committing a crime that is serious enough to be a felony, violent or not, they have given up right to carry a weapon.
Fourth, I am very very very familiar with what is a felony in my state thank you very much and dont need a lecture on what is and isn't one. if you commit a crime serious enough to be a felony then you lose rights and privelages. If you don't like it, then don't commit a crime.

Read the Bill of Rights (particularly Amendment II), then show me the part which supports your claims.

The Constitution and Bill of Rights are the Supreme Law of the Land, therefore all laws which do not conform are null and void.

The Bill of rights gives the right to bear arms to a well regulated militia, have you read it before??? I dont belive that convicted felons are considered a well regulated militia.

"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."
Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
It did not say the militia has the right it says "the people",and if you knew what the militia meant it IS "the people.So don't try to imply that they are seperate
This is just my personnal take on this and I will never claim to be a constitutional expert but persons convicted of violent or drug related felonies should lose their firearms privledges for several years(5 maybe?),and if they have no more convictions within that period their rights should be automatically reinstated.I am aware that you can get your record exsponged now but due to the expense and dificulty with the process most people cant afford it.

Concerned - from other IP wrote:

The Bill of rights gives the right to bear arms to a well regulated militia, have you read it before??? I dont belive that convicted felons are considered a well regulated militia.

militia (n.) An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers.
militia (n.) A military force that is not part of a regular army and is subject to call for service in an emergency.
militia (n.) The whole body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service

EVERYBODY IS THE MILITIA. I couldn't find the part that excludes felons because it doesn't exist.

What part of SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED escapes your comprehension?

My logic still stands concerning the Amendment II rights of ALL Americans, not just those who ask permission. As I stated earlier- if a citizen is unable to be trusted to bear arms as demonstrated by his willingness to harm others he should be imprisoned, therefore disarmed.

IF it decided he can be reintroduced into society ALL rights he had before being imprisoned should be restored. The right to self defense is universal, inherent, and irrevocable.

donttreadonme wrote:

"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."
Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
It did not say the militia has the right it says "the people",and if you knew what the militia meant it IS "the people.So don't try to imply that they are seperate
This is just my personnal take on this and I will never claim to be a constitutional expert but persons convicted of violent or drug related felonies should lose their firearms privledges for several years(5 maybe?),and if they have no more convictions within that period their rights should be automatically reinstated.I am aware that you can get your record exsponged now but due to the expense and dificulty with the process most people cant afford it.

Wrong. The only time a person can be deprived of their rights is when the government legally imprisons them. IF they are released all rights should be restored.

Think of it this way: If an individual is convicted of some heinous violent crime and are disarmed and imprisoned have they not proved their complete disregard for human life? If so, should they ever be reintroduced into society? The logical answer is no! If they are imprisoned, society is then protected and government has done its job. If they are RELEASED society IS NOT protected and civil government has failed.

Letting violent offenders out of prison and expecting them to follow the conditions of their parole (no guns, etc.) is completely illogical.

Releasing NON-VIOLENT offenders with similar parole restrictions is equally illogical. They have not demonstrated that they possess a propensity for violence, so why the restrictions?

This clearly prior restraint- punishing a citizen for an act they have not committed, or may never commit. Any way you look at it, it is a gross injustice, unconstitutional, and contrary to the Laws of Nature.

The Watcher wrote:

<quoted text>
militia (n.) An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers.
militia (n.) A military force that is not part of a regular army and is subject to call for service in an emergency.
militia (n.) The whole body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service
EVERYBODY IS THE MILITIA. I couldn't find the part that excludes felons because it doesn't exist.
What part of SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED escapes your comprehension?
My logic still stands concerning the Amendment II rights of ALL Americans, not just those who ask permission. As I stated earlier- if a citizen is unable to be trusted to bear arms as demonstrated by his willingness to harm others he should be imprisoned, therefore disarmed.
IF it decided he can be reintroduced into society ALL rights he had before being imprisoned should be restored. The right to self defense is universal, inherent, and irrevocable.

The key is Well Regulated. Which does not include Everyday joe off the street. The intent of the second amendment was for the Minute Men. Trained organized citizens that could be called upon to pick up arms and defend the country.

As for your notion that felons can't be trusted to be in public if they can't be trusted with guns, that is false logic. Its the same way you treat kids. When they break your trust they lose rights and privaleges until they can be trusted. However sometimes there are certain things that you can't ever give back nor should you.

Not only do I think the goverment has the right to take guns away from some people, I think they have the obligation for the "greater good" of society.

The Watcher wrote:

<quoted text>
Wrong. The only time a person can be deprived of their rights is when the government legally imprisons them. IF they are released all rights should be restored.
Think of it this way: If an individual is convicted of some heinous violent crime and are disarmed and imprisoned have they not proved their complete disregard for human life? If so, should they ever be reintroduced into society? The logical answer is no! If they are imprisoned, society is then protected and government has done its job. If they are RELEASED society IS NOT protected and civil government has failed.
Letting violent offenders out of prison and expecting them to follow the conditions of their parole (no guns, etc.) is completely illogical.
Releasing NON-VIOLENT offenders with similar parole restrictions is equally illogical. They have not demonstrated that they possess a propensity for violence, so why the restrictions?
This clearly prior restraint- punishing a citizen for an act they have not committed, or may never commit. Any way you look at it, it is a gross injustice, unconstitutional, and contrary to the Laws of Nature.

so what your saying is that parole is a bad thing?