Yada,
and then shortly after,you would be looking into buying a gun.

Well,so this is how the State Departments Federal Grant for the Gang Task force gets put to use I see.
With your Left,Your Left,Your Left Right Left.

yada please read http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html.... the call the cops they will laugh or the people who you called the cops on will laugh at you +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Maybe crime will drop in the city now that the keystone cops are here.

Eventually one of these cowboys will be shot with THEIR OWN weapon.

If I saw either one of those guys that are pictured in the story with a gun on them - I would call the cops immediately.

All you anti carry people answer this! If guns kill people, does that mean when your kid fails a spelling test it was the pencils fault? Just goes to show how you were brainwashed into thinking guns are the problem.

Welcome to New Beloit, Wis.

http://www.doj.state.wi.us/news/files/Fi...

This is where I see the department getting themselves into trouble and this should be fought. As I understand the amendment to the constitution provides individuals the right to carry a firearm the Supreme Court has upheld that. Now Wisconsin does not allow concealed carry in any form, it dose however allow open carry, but if a person openly carrying receives a disorderly conduct citation and is arrested for DC then the police are as I see it trying to prevent that person from exercising their rights. This will be interesting to follow.

mirror: The answer is, nowhere. Not to offend, but it doesn't matter if you are comfortable or not. It's a right and cannot be regulated.

Where do we draw the line? Ice cream shops, bars, day cares, theaters, the fairgrounds? Having the right to carry doesn't mean you have to carry. This is Wisconsin, not LA or New York. There are plenty of people that I would not be comfortable around if they were carrying, concealed or not.

"loading a clip into the pistol takes just a second"
.
didn't realize there were that many Steyr Hahns out there....still, even a magazine can be just about as fast a loading method. a speedloader with a revolver can be nearly as quick if one practices.

justsaynotomath...and none of those suicides, homicides, and accidental deaths (except very few accidental discharges) would have happened without a HUMAN to pull the trigger.

Niles boys said in story above: "When you see us with guns, you shouldn’t have to call 911.”
*
No, we shouldn't have to see you with guns in the ice cream shop. When we do, we call you stupid.

proartist: Most likely an illegal carry of a gun. You cannot carry a gun in WI into a bar unless you have prior written permission of the owner of the bar.

http://www.sheboyganpress.com/article/20...

This next song is dedicated to Jeff and John, who feel they need to take their guns to the ice cream shop for protection. My apologies to John Lennon who wrote this song and died at the hand of a nut with a gun.

All we need are guns
Yeah it's all we'll every need
All we need are guns
Yeah it's all we need are all we need are guns

Chorus:
All we need are all we need are guns
All we need are all we need are guns

When this life is over
That our memory would burn love
And our children grown up
They would live and in return love
When we strive and struggle
All we got to do is sing love
And if our brothers fail us
All we need are guns

Doctors

(A) The number of physicians in the U.S. is 700,000.

(B) Accidental deaths caused by Physicians per year are 120,000.

(C) Accidental deaths per physician is 0.171

Statistics courtesy of U.S. Dept of Health and Human Services.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Now think about this:

Guns

(A) The number of gun owners in the U.S. is 80,000,000.

(Yes, that's 80 million)

(B) The number of accidental gun deaths per year, all age groups, is
1,500.

(C) The number of accidental deaths per gun owner is .0000188

Statistics courtesy of FBI

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

So, statistically, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous
than gun owners.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Remember, 'Guns don't kill people, doctors do.'

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

FACT: NOT EVERYONE HAS A GUN,

But, almost everyone has at least one doctor.

This means you are over 9,000 times more likely to be accidentally
killed by a doctor as by a gun owner!!!

proartist - The more cars there are, the more will be stolen also. What is your point. Are you this paranoid because of all these articles you continue to read? That doesn't mean criminals are stealing guns off the ones carrying them at every chance they get. There's plenty of more facts out there to prove that banning gun usage, etc. has not decreased crime.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002...
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/...

proartist - Ya, when a criminal sees a gun, they decide, "ya know, I think I'm going to steal that from that person." I would rather attack someone that could deter or kill me rather than the harmless person that can't help themselves." Do you really think that's what happens? Please tell me you don't.

proartist - OMG, you have to be kidding me. Stop while you are ahead my friend.

"What do you think a criminal thinks when he sees a opened carried firearm." - Grandys618
The criminal undoubtedly sees an opportunity to steal it and others you may have at home.

Ya, it takes two seconds to load a pistol especially with a clip. This just proves there are many people posting that aren't educated on this subject.

bella - you disagreeing with me doesn't make you anything. It's the constitution and the amendment I care about. Agree, we will leave our differences.

spark - so disagreeing with you makes me the enemy? I'm on the side that is against America?
Maybe we're just arguing for the sake of arguing now...we've been on this story for a long time. Wanna go check out the story on dairy farms or the city planner? I'm sure we can find something else to disagree on. :-)

bella - It has nothing to do with if you don't agree with me. Your entitled to that. It's about not agreeing with the constitution, what it stands for and what was fought for. You have made comments that the amendment should be changed or that the right to carry arms in certain situations shouldn't be allowed. Expect to take heat for that.

spark - I respect a lot of people on the right that are truly fighting for what they believe is right for this country. But to say that it's us against them, and that people who disagree with you are "against what this country was built on", well....that's something straight out of the crazies on Fox News. If you take out the crazies on the right, and the crazies on the left, you have a huge majority of Americans that believe in this country and what it means to be an American. And those people can still disagree on a number of issues and have a lively debate about it. That doesn't make any of them love what this country is about any less.

bella - What are you talking about? You just summed up how you are taking sides with that post! Everything you say is against what the constitution and amendment stand for.

spark - This is not about taking sides. Retoric like "you guys are against what this country was built on" and "us against them"....it's polarizing and plain wrong. It's the kind of thinking we've come to see from loons like Cheney, Beck, and O'Reilly. And yes, those people ARE crazy. :-)

Ted Nugent is a PATRIOT, who despite being a rock star, recognizes that Civil Rights come with Civil Responsibilities that go beyond paying your taxes. Ted recognizes that those who refuse to take on the personal obligation to do all they are capable of to defend family and self are not patriots, but parasites.

And, a healthy body has natural methods of removing parasites. I pray that those Citizens who believe that 911 calls and rape whistles are adequate for personal protection never have to find out the hard way just how wrong they are.

Janesville is blessed in that it has a relatively low crime rate compared to other cities of similar size. This is particularly true in light of the financial meltdown and the closing of GM. So, maybe a rape whistle and a cell phone pre-programmed to 911 (with GPS tracking capability) may be adequate for now - or it may not be. This isn't a penny slot machine at Vegas we are talking about - this is rolling the dice with your life as the prize. If you win, you live another day. If you lose, your family goes to church to say how wonderful you were and how terrible it was that a criminal stole your life and love. Your family will not cry any less because you took the "liberal high ground" and refused to take responsibility for your own safety.

I watched a fascinating video earlier today. It dealt with a female Texas legislator who is campaigning to relax Texas Concealed Carry law even more. She shared her story of how, just before Texas adopted concealed carry, she was eating out with her parents. A crazed madman drove his truck into the establishment and using two handguns, shot 22 people to death in a systematic execution style. She watched in horror as the gunman shot her father for trying to rush him, then, as her mother held her dying father, the gunman put the gun to her head, smiled and winked, and pulled the trigger. This woman was furious with the gunman but more so herself. Her handgun was legally locked in a case in her car and she was a law abiding citizen. She stated that if she had broken a "dumb law", the outcome would have been different. She "gets it" but learned the very hard way. Pray God, my fellow Citizens, you do not have to walk that walk.

+1 to Dwight - "100% of criminals shot and killed by a victim with a concealed weapon never go on to commit another crime."

Priceless!

DwightKSchrute - That was priceless!

100% of criminals shot and killed by a victim with a concealed weapon never go on to commit another crime.

I love how anyone that fights for what this Country was built on is considered insane or crazy. Who's side are some of you on?

Ted Nugent is a very smart individual.

Ted Nugent is a joke.

Brandishing a weapon of destruction? Now where did that come from? I carry concealed and concealed means just that - concealed.

Having worn the Uniform, I have every faith in my Government just as I have every faith that bad guys will be out there wanting to make law abiding citizens their victims.

It seems that some Citizens, when confronted with fact, respond with attacks on the messenger.

proartist - One could say the same for you. That you have little faith in your fellow responsible citizens. The only danger is you being afraid of your own-self.

How very sad, jpm84092, that you have so little faith and trust in your fellow citizens and the government you claim to revere that you are scared into believing there is no safety, no security, no protection, and no rational way to resolve conflict without brandishing a weapon of destruction that often only escalates bad situations. I sincerely hope your gun is never used against you and that your bravado itself doesn't initiate incidents putting others around you in the same danger you choose for yourself.

Dear Mr. Spark, Please allow me to place another slant on, and thus exapnd on your posting.

48 of 50 States have some form of concealed carry. Of these, 10 are "may issue" (Iowa will go "shall issue" on 1-1-11) and 37 are "shall issue". VT does not offer a permit, but allows concealed carry without a permit. AZ and AK issue permits but also allow concealed carry without a permit.

The trending in States is to relax gun control laws because they see the folly in the Brady Bunch stance. The facts say less gun control = less crime. Thus, it is hard fact and not Citizen opinion that is driving these States. They are simply being practical.

Before obtaining my UT permit, I spoke to a seasoned Utah Police Officer and asked his counsel. He related to me that when UT first proposed concealed carry, he was skeptical. Now he fully endorses it. Citizens who lawfully carry concealed weapons tend to be "super law abiding". He spoke of the great responsibility that goes with the decision to carry, but encouraged me to get a permit and proper training. I have followed that counsel.

I may no longer live in Janesville, but I am pleased that the Gazette has carried this story. Open dialog can be healthy. I am not posting to change anyone's mind. That is likely not possible. I post because, in addition to my 2nd amendment rights, I have 1st amendment rights. I post to ask probing questions.

The Southern Democrats in the 1950s were not particularly happy with Brown v Board of Education and did what they could to stop that decision. The Blacks did not rise up and take over the South, but they did follow the sage counsel of Martin Luther King and did not let up until the full force of the law recognized their equality under the law. I hope my friends in Wisconsin can learn to live with McDonald v City of Chicago and the decisions that will no doubt follow.

And, keep in mind that the compelling reason that Wisconsin should adopt concealed carry (preferably Constitutional Carry with permit option) is that bad guys don't want you armed. Sure, it is my opinion, but unlike most other posters here, I have personal experience in a "shall issue" concealed carry State. I personally have transformed from believing only the police should be armed, to believing those who choose to arm themselves have the right to and can choose to, to what I now believe. I now believe that unless I am sick or otherwise infirm, or am going on a commercial aircraft, it is my CIVIC DUTY to carry.

You cannot appose or want certain aspects of the second amendment changed without it effecting it in its entirety. Give an inch, they take a mile. History proves that and the fact that almost all 50 states have laws set in place to allow it, speaks volumes about the power of the amendment and what it stands for. Saying you want guns legal in just homes, or just for hunting is impossible to regulate. I can legally hunt with a gun in public on public land. I can legally go buy a gun for hunting and have it legally in my home. It's my decision to defend my life in any way shape or form also.

It is my sincere wish that those who oppose the Civil Right to "bear arms" (openly or concealed) never find themselves in a position where their immediate circumstances cause them to rethink their positiion.

I do not wish to deny any person their right of choice in this matter, and since the Civil Right to "bear arms" is in the US Constitution, I do not understand why others want to deny that right to me or to my fellow Citizens; or to argue that somehow times have changed and we need to Modify the Constitution and replace the Civil Right to "bear arms" with 911 calls on a cell phone, pepper spray, and rape whistles. Evansvillehousewife apparently wants to keep her options open. She wants the Freedom of Choice.

My detractors can find fault with my scenario all they want, but nobody has addressed the real question of the "moral superiority" of compelling women to go unarmed. Whistles are fine if there is a cop nearby to hear it (very unlikely). A concerned citizen may call 911 if they hear the whistle and understand what it means - but we have seen previous posters point out that when seconds count, the Police are minutes away. As for sprays, the "good stuff" the cops carry is unavailable to non LEO citizens. The sprays available to Wisconsin Citizens will not stop a bad guy, but he/she may be teary eyed committing a crime. Tazers are likewise not an option.

One closing thought: The political climate in Wisconsin is ripe for revisiting concealed carry or even "Constitutional Carry" (No permit to carry open or concealed). With concealed carry, those who oppose open carry won't know who to be afraid of - and either will the bad guys and gang bangers.

bella: You do realize that criminals ignore the law, right? So the Open Carry discussion only applies to the good guys. If it were illegal to either Open Carry, or carry concealed (legally), criminals would have some pretty easy pickings now wouldn't they?
Your words were "I believe that the right to carry a gun is no longer a necessary right in this country". Nuff said.

SuperDave - let me make it perfectly clear that I don't for one second believe that the Bill of Rights is outdated. I believe that the 2nd amendment should be modified. I believe it is ok to own guns for hunting. I believe that it is ok to have a legal process for obtaining a gun to protect your home - keeping that gun safely inside your home at all times. I believe that carrying a weapon in public should be illegal. That's all.

Eksreigh: Excellent posts!

bella: Thank you, that was response I expected. Please understand that societies change over time. What we have here, today, is unique in history. Our unprecedented mobility, technology, and real-time communications abilities have never happened before (as far as we know). And yet, all of our freedoms, our labor saving devices and machines, our overall standard of living - could disappear in a heartbeat. Ever hear the analogy about how to cook a frog? Do you think it's possible that you have been conditioned by the media to accept the idea that the Bill of Rights (well at least the Second Amendment - so far) is "outdated" and "unnecessary" in the modern world? Is that a possibility?

MooShoo – Your rebuttal to my post is not clear. I did not suggest we ban cars. True, you can’t ride to work or carry groceries in a gun. You also cannot hunt pheasants or defend your family from a burglar with a car. A hammer and a basketball are also not interchangeable, so what was your point? My point was that driving a car and carrying a gun can both be legal if done by an eligible person, both can be dangerous if done improperly, and unless evidence exists to the contrary we should assume that both acts are being done in full compliance with the law. This was written in response to another poster who wrote that if we see somebody on the street carrying a gun, we should worry because we don’t know if that person has the right to carry and is responsible.
.
You could have mentioned that a car’s principal function is to provide transportation, while a gun’s principal function is to disable or kill. This would have been a valid point, but it would have also been irrelevant. The right to keep and bear arms is guaranteed by our Bill of Rights (the second entitlement in a list of ten!), while the privilege of driving a car is only granted if one passes certain knowledge and skill tests. You can argue that similar tests should be required before one is allowed to carry a gun; the argument has merit but does not reflect the current law of the land.
.
Your illustrative conversation seems to completely miss the point I made in my previous post’s last paragraph. Other than in the sarcastic comments written by people arguing against the issue, I’ve read nothing that states or implies that people wear guns in Janesville because they think the town is unsafe.
.
I’m not familiar with the term “dog leg” as it applies to guns, but I’m not really a gun guy so I’m not surprised. I’m not arguing for open carry per se; I’m arguing more to support our Constitution as it is written.

Bella – Although a violent uprising against authority did not result, our own government conducted a house-to-house, warrantless search for firearms and confiscated those it found in New Orleans during the immediate aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Lawfully owned firearms were taken from American citizens, sometimes by force and at gunpoint; receipts were seldom if ever issued; and no compensation to the owners was paid. Many of the citizens argued that they needed their guns to help protect themselves, their families, and their property from the roving bands of looters, but their firearms were taken from them anyway. New Orleans Police Superintendent Eddie Compass had proclaimed that "no one will be able to be armed. Guns will be taken. Only law enforcement will be allowed to have guns." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_o... This gun seizure did not receive a great deal of attention from the news media, but it did results in lawsuits against the city. The city lost and was ordered to return the guns to their rightful owners. I don’t know if the owners have any recourse against the city if the returned guns were rusted or otherwise damaged.

Followed by part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPwZeWOZ8...

Best gun control video ever. EVER! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngsKzdKNA...

Dear SuperDave - not a single one of those references even slightly resemble our society. It is absolutely pointless to make references to the Soviet Union, Uganda, and Cambodia. There are no parallells to be drawn. I do believe in understanding history so humanity does not repeat its mistakes. But you have to understand the correct context of the history you choose to use for comparison purposes.

bella: The following are some 20th Century examples of the results of guns in the hands of government, while simultaneously preventing the citizens from possessing same. These events happened within the lifetimes of some of us who are still around today to remember them.
In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
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.
China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were 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.
Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
I hope that helps.

Disclaimer: the following is NOT a conversation at the MooShoo residence and is only for illustrative purpose.
*
"Honey, I am going to Quik Trip, you need anything?"
*
"No MooShoo, but don't forget to strap on your Glock, remember it is important to show everyone that good people carry guns too"
*
"Thanks for reminding me dear, besides, I don't feel safe on the streets of Janesville in broad daylight."

evansvillehousewife - I understand (capiche) what you are saying. I actually often agree with your posts. I am a mother. I don't even know what I would be capable of if someone hurt my child - I would probably want to kill that person myself and make sure no one else was hurt by him. But I firmly believe that we cannot let emotions and the need for revenge run our justice system. We don't need vigilantes taking the law into their own hands. If your life is threatened - yes, you have the right to defend yourself. It is just my personal belief that carrying a gun is not always the best option.

Eksriegh, your argument that cars are dangerous and it only makes sense if you want to ban guns, you have to ban cars too. Try riding you gun to work. Next time you buy groceries, load them in your clip.
*
I don't oppose the constitutional right to bear arms. I am opposed to wearing one to go buy ice cream. Its common sense thing that you don't put on the dog leg to buy shoes at famous footwear.

Bella- that's fine. You blow your little whistle and wait for help to come. That's your right.
I'm going to aim low and make sure the dude doesn't attempt a rape again.

Difference is, I am not arguing to take away your right to blow a whistle.

Capiche? I agree with jpm.

jpm - look at the countries you are comparing the US with. China? Saudi Arabia? Why would you compare yourself with a communist and an muslim state? Why not compare yourself with countries that actually have something in common with us? England, France, Germany, Norway, Denmark, Canada, Australia and so on? If you keep comparing apples to oranges, your arguments will never make sense. Take a look at these nations. The citizens of those nations have more far reaching civil rights than we have here in the US, in spite of not being allowed to open/conceal carry, or in some cases, even own guns. They have adopted the UN Human Rights as part of their countries' legislation. Their people are protected, and they have faith in their democratic system. Do they complain like everyone else? Of course! It's what we do in a democracy. I am just tired of this fear mongering on the right - this nonsense about how if we don't allow guns, all of a sudden we'll be invaded by our own government and live like communists. Really?? The paranoia is out of control.

jpm - The reason no one is responding to your rape scenario is that it's a flawed scenario. It assumes a rape/attempted rape has only two possible outcomes. Raped and killed - or not raped because the woman had a gun and shot the rapist. You're leaving out all the other variables. Could the rapist over-power the victim, take her gun from her and shoot her? Did the victim have a rape whistle or a canister of pepper spray that would deter the rapist long enough for her to escape? What happens if the both have a gun? What happens if....?? It's a pointless argument. That's the problem with some on the pro-gun side; thinking that the only way to protect yourself is by having a gun. That if you don't have a gun, you'll get killed. It's not that black and white. I accept that there is risk in life. I also prefer that the inevitable episodes of violence that occur in society be handled by the appropriate authorities. That is my firm belief.

SuperDave - I have to admit that I take offense to your latest post. My skin is pretty thick, but I find it offensive when I am called ignorant and uneducated on a topic that I have studied very thoroughly. You can disagree with me all you want and argue over the issue, but to assume that I am ignorant because I do not agree with you...not cool. I also find it offensive that you would suggest that I am spitting on the Founding Fathers of this great nation. To suggest that the Founding Fathers wouldn't encourage dialogue and disagreement on important issues is quite arrogant in my opinion...but I guess we differ there. I am fine with disagreeing on the issue of gun ownership. I will honestly tell you that I firmly believe that it is your way of thinking that will bring this nation down into a backward spiral and eventual demise. Can you give me ONE single example of a first-world democratic nation where the goverment has reverted to taking up arms against its citizens and revoking their freedoms to such an extent that a violent uprising was necessary? That is your argument isn't it - that the US government will all of a sudden become some third world dictatorship where the government (i.e. your miliatary) takes up arms against us, the citizens? Do you even understand how far fetched that is? Give me one example and I'll hear your argument. Don't give me former East Block nations like Hungary or Romania or other emerging democracies. Give me an established democratic nation that the US normally compares themselves to. Please.

jpm83092: "ONLY" nation? Few but not "only". Ecuador, for example, not only grants Constitutional inalienable rights to its citizens but also to nature! In September 2008 Ecuador became the first country in the world to declare constitutional rights to nature (human beings by de facto), thus codifying a new system of environmental protection as well as rights to it's citizens. However, many nations also recognize an individual's civil right to not be executed for murdering another, a civil right not recognized within the US.

We live in the only Country in the World with a Constitution guaranteeing Citizens of the Republic certain unalienable rights. If chip away at the Bill of Rights, what is next? The government running over people with Tanks when they assemble (China), the government telling us how many children we can have (again China), the government telling us that to save our souls they must impose Sharia; Islamic Law (Taliban, Iran, Saudi Arabia - Think Ministry of Virtue and Vice, etc.) and telling us that our woman are only property to be used or abused as we males see fit; including killing them if they "dishonor" us. (Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Afganistan, et al) Oh yes, and then there is the matter of burying a woman to her breasts and stoning her with large stones until she dies - her offense - having sex.

Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, and Pol Pot all has one thing in common. They banned private ownership of firearms.

The right to carry a firearm is a Woman's Rights Issue. I posted this before, and was not attacked for it, but absolutely nobody answered my question. so I will try it again.

Why is it that the liberal left believes it to be somehow morally superior for a woman to be lying naked, raped, and strangled to her death with her own pantyhose, than for that same woman to be standing, shaken, and explaining to the nice police officer why the man who tried to rape and murder her now lies on the ground with two holes in his chest placed there by her lawfully carried concealed handgun?

I have carefully read and given due consideration to the liberal posters to this forum, but to date, nobody has given me the answer to the question I pose above. Bella? Proactive? Can you explain this to me? Can you tell me why the former condition is somehow morally superior and thus more desirable than the latter? Then, (may it never happen to you), can you tell me which scenario you would rather be in?

bella: Your comment "to SuperDave and others who keep referring to history - well, you are right in that your argument is old and outdated. I believe that the right to carry a gun is no longer a necessary right in this country" actually frightens me, more so than any law-abiding citizen exercising Open Carry ever could. Please understand that I am sincere - YOU scare me. Your level of ignorance and naivete will be the basis of the downfall of this country. This is not rhetoric or hyperbole. The primary purpose of the Second Amendment, as others have stated, is to ensure that citizens can defend themselves from government. Think about that for a moment...And far from being "outdated", this right is more critical today than it has ever been - our governments, at all levels and with all it's various tentacles of evil, is so all-encompassing and controlling that it's just a matter of time before we lose our Republic. And again, these are not empty words or opinions. But there is a slim chance - and part of that chance rests on the citizens of this country maintaining a modicum of control of our own lives. I served in the military to maintain for YOU the rights you now enjoy, one of which is to sound off on this forum. For you to theorize that your right to bear arms is now outdated spits on the graves of the founders, and the veterans who preceded me. I implore you to educate yourself on this matter. Your current attitude will be to the detriment of your children and grandchildren.

As far as workplace, shootings, etc. A majority of those were committed by people not legally carrying, nor could a majority of them even get a gun legally with their past history. Of course guns can be dangerous. So can cars when drunks drive them. Point being, with everything there is a level of risk.

bella - Let me correct something for you. My comment regarding legal gun owners was directed towards those that legally openly carry which is what the article is about. I apologize. Regardless, you and proartist can spin it anyway you want. The fact is, your are both against gun ownership period. You can say things like, "I'm not against this and that, just this". The second ammendment is the second ammendment.

No spark, we are talking about "legal gun owners" (see your own post). The question was brought up why we are against gun ownership. You said "legal gun owners don't kill". That is not true.

If I had a nickle for everytime I needed to put a couple of rounds into a criminal.....Anyways thats why I never leave home without my Glock 18 machine pistols.

By the way bella, we are talking about legal open carry here. Hence my reference points.

bella - Chew on what? The fact that you are comparing people that are not legally carrying a firearm, and go into a place illegally blazing and psychotically murdering people to a couple guys open carrying in an ice cream shop? Ya, that's being beyond paranoid.
-
By the way, my post before was in humor in case nobody figured that out. I know everyone is all serious here.

spark - you just took the prize for the most dubious reference ever posted. :-) LOL.
You can't say it's a FACT that legal gun owners don't kill people. Happens all the time. Work place shootings, domestic killings - many of those shooters legally owned guns.

Chew on that while I go an "get my opinion changed" on the government control issue. Oh wait - I'm ok with the opinion I already hold!

http://www.rense.com/general62/gns.htm

Actually, legal gun owners aren't going around blazing and killing people. That is a fact.

As far as the Government having too much control, you're right, it's an opinion. Those that think they should have more control need their opinions changed.

spark - neither is this statement from you:

"The Government already controls too much of peoples lives and look where that's gotten us.
The last time I checked, legal gun owners and carriers weren't going around blazing and killing people."

We're all entitled to our opinion. You stated yours above. I disagree with it. That's the beauty of opinions.

proartist - Still true because that is simply your opinion? It's not a fact.

Still true..."if you are carrying your gun in public places you - and bystanders - are far more likely to be injured or killed by your weapon than 'heroically protected"....whether you brazenly think you alone are the single factor to stop crime or, even more pompous, believe the fallacy you're somehow ensuring American liberty that will suddenly meet it's doom in a retail setting.

what is a woosie?

When I’m standing on the sidewalk and I see a car approaching me on the road, I have no way of knowing whether the driver of that car has a driver’s license, whether he or she is mentally stable, and whether he or she is going to be responsible or reckless. I assume that the driver is following the law, and if a law is broken that driver will be apprehended and punished. Similarly, it should be assumed that a person carrying a gun is following the law. If a car driver or gun carrier begins acting erratically the police should be called immediately to investigate, but otherwise this should be a non-issue. On an historical note, I recently read that when cars first began to appear on streets the driver was required to have a person walk in front of the car to warn pedestrians of the oncoming danger. Obviously, people are no longer alarmed when they see a car.
.
The Founding Fathers did not write the Second Amendment to allow people to protect themselves from street criminals. We’ve always had some form of law enforcement and a judicial system. The right to (1) keep arms and (2) bear arms was given to allow the citizens to protect themselves from an overreaching government. Then and now, governments in the world were constantly changing. Citizens of countries were occasionally disarmed, then with no means to protect themselves were subject to the whims of whoever was in power, which typically meant a further erosion of their freedoms.
.
James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and others were extremely concerned that people in this country retain their rights to keep and bear arms. Hamilton wanted to ensure that “if the representations of the people, elected under the proposed Constitution, betrayed their constituents, the people [would retain] the right to defend their political rights and [possess] the means to do so.”
.
This quote and others can be found at http://www.guncite.com/journals/vandhist..., a comprehensive site describing the history of the Second Amendment.
.
When people walk around Janesville carrying a gun on their hip, it doesn’t mean they are afraid of being attacked at the ice cream or card shop. It means they are doing their part to help ensure that our freedoms are not taken away from us. In the end, their actions help protect the country’s safety and security for all of us and our future generations.

bella - "I believe that the right to carry a gun is no longer a necessary right in this country. Laws should change over time and adapt to the needs of society."
-
The second amendment disagrees with you. You start taking away rights and amendments you have serious consequences. The Government already controls too much of peoples lives and look where that's gotten us.
-
The last time I checked, legal gun owners and carriers weren't going around blazing and killing people. Again, it's another what if situation.

proartist - well said. And to SuperDave and others who keep referring to history - well, you are right in that your argument is old and outdated. I believe that the right to carry a gun is no longer a necessary right in this country. Laws should change over time and adapt to the needs of society. Back when there was no established law enforcement, there was a need to protect yourself from danger. Now, we have civilized society with an established law enforcement and a judicial system. I believe anyone who chooses to carry guns in public, whether open or concealed, is putting others at risk for the reasons proartist mentioned. The rest of us have no way of knowing if you have a right to carry, if you are mentally stable, and if you are going to be responsible or reckless. Now you can attack my point of view all you want - just keep in mind that you asked for our opinion and you got it.

proartist - Essentially you are attacking the Constitutional right to own a gun because carrying it is part of the constitution. Whether you like it or not. Again, once conceal and carry passes in this state, all 50 states will have it and you won't have to worry any longer because you won't know if someone is carrying.

SuperDave - I don't believe anyone is attacking your Constitutional right to own a gun. That's a whole other question. What is being opposed is your "right" to carry a gun into public places where:
1) your gun simply isn't necessary and is just a show of bravado;
2) there is the real possibility it is endangering others; and
3) the general public and staff have no way of knowing if you're legally carrying (i.e. you're not a felon, you are mentally stable, etc.) The simple fact anyone feels the necessity of carrying that gun raises questions about mental state and a predisposed paranoia of others in the vicinity. It again bears repeating, if you are carrying your gun in public places you - and bystanders - are far more likely to be injured or killed by your weapon than 'heroically protected".

SuperDave - Do you want to explain why we find old gum all over the side walks? And don't tell me it;s because the person finished chewing. Plus don't tell me a waste bin wasn't close at hand. yada....yada....yada!

Getting back to the Open Carry debate, could someone who opposes it explain to me why anyone with a cursory knowledge of history would oppose it?
And please don't tell me about your "feelings" should you happen to observe Open Carry, or your discomfort having to explain it to a child. These feelings, while mildly interesting, or not relevant to the discussion of whether their should be a right to Open Carry, or more specifically why you would take that right away.
Also, attacking those who exercise that right is off-topic and another red herring. I have yet to read a single post which defends the willingness to give up that hard-earned right. Anyone?

Ted Nugent has spent a long time looking like a long haired hippie freak. And I think he's lying about not using drugs. He acts like some kind of burn out who abused drugs and his songs seem to be appallingly trashy. I don't care how much he spouts conservative ideas, he's not a good Christian man and looks like lazy draft dodging hippie trash.

fdmuchow - you lost me at Soros.

"People who carry guns"? Does that include people who carry illegally? If so, your statement makes perfect sense.

"People who carry guns are far likelier to get shot – and killed – than those who are unarmed,... While it may be that the type of people who carry firearms are simply more likely to get shot, it may be that guns give a sense of empowerment that causes carriers to overreact in tense situations..." – "Daniel Webster, co-director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research in Baltimore, Maryland, thinks it is near-sighted to consider only the safety of gun owners and not their communities."
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17...

I really don't get the argument. It is our RIGHT to protect ones self. If you feel that the local PD is enough then it is your right to choose not to. Why do you wish to tread on my rights as I do not wish to tread on yours. I am not telling anyone they are stupid for believeing the police are all we need to be safe. Just as I do not own any guns (anylonger) because I believe that with all of my chilren in the house and their friends, i wish to prevent a potential accident. So as of this moment I CHOOSE not to have a gun. I love guns though. I have alot of fun at either the range, or friends who have a range, and find it very relaxing and enjoyable, just as one might find dance relaxing and enjoyable, but I dont tell you that you CANN"T dance or dance a certain way. Why do you feel it proper to tell me how to live my life. Look there is alot of crime, and criminals with more fire power than the PD. So why are LEGAL firearms a problem...if your so afraid that you are going to be hurt by a LEGAL firearm then you really have a problem deeper than this topic. REALLY...think about it...your paranoid...they are comming to get you, they are..quick did a hole in the backyard and go in it and maybe in a couple years you can come out of hideing and see whats going on then

bella: In form, you appear to be taking a page right out of the left wing, progressive, loon, playbook. When your position becomes untenable and difficult to defend you attack your opponent with name calling and belittling. Just like the leftist are doing to the Tea Party movement. Did you read the references I posted in an earlier post? Apparently not! You told proartist that you read, but do you really comprehend? If you did, you would have understood in my last post that the reference to tyrants in Europe was historical and not current. However, it may just be a matter of time before history repeats itself. People like you are sheep that are being led into the den by wolves in shepherd clothing, all too eager to be eaten alive be a pack of vicious wolves. You need to wake up to reality, and not the spin and altered reality fed to you by the progressive media and educational institutions. You boast about how post modern you are by taking on the progressive, liberal narrative, which has altered history and reality by feeding you their story of reality and history instead. I am a political realist who will champion postions on the left on the right and in the center. Understand that open carry and second amendment issues are in the center, and not on the right, as the liberal narrative would lead you and others like you to believe. The indivdual right to own and bear firearms IS central to preserving the America Republic. "Those who fail to learn from history, are doomed to repeat it"!

fdmuchow - I almost have to believe that you are writing these posts as a joke, because what you are referencing is so far out that it's not even to the right of center...you're in a completely different stratosphere. "Europe is under the thumb of tyrants"?? Honestly, where do you come up with this stuff??

bella: While this discussion is not about George Soros, I will say this: history is often not about what really happened, but often about what someone paid to have someone say what happened or erased . You and proartist have been drinking way too much of the leftist "kool aid." To help in your re-education please see the following. Don't wait too long, these may be erased soon too.

http://americanfuture.net/?p=2579

http://www.questionsquestions.net/docs04...
F. William Engdahl has written on issues of energy, politics and economics for more than 30 years, beginning with the first oil shock in the early 1970s. He has contributed regularly to a number of publications, including Japan's Nihon Keizai Shimbun, Foresight magazine, Grant's Investor.com, European Banker and Business Banker International. He has also spoken at numerous international conferences on geopolitical, economic and energy subjects, and is active as a consulting economist.
Re: http://www.financialsensearchive.com/edi...

In terms of the gun debate, it is important to know that George Soros is the man behind Rebecca Peters who lead the gun confiscation charge in Australia. Prior to that she worked for Soros' Open Society Institute and currently with the Soros funded, Violence Policy Institute. Soros and his megalomaniac partners know that an unarmed society is much easier to control than one that is armed. This is what our forefathers knew when they created the second amendment. They did not want the new emergent nation to be like Europe, unarmed and under the thumb of tyrants.

The truth shall set you free.

SuperDave - I tend to agree with proartist most of the time, and not so much with you. :) However, that's what makes these types of discussions fun - getting different points of view. I don't generally care for all the links used to support one view or the other, because you always have to consider the source and it's hard to verify statistics that are thrown out there. It's more interesting to me to read people's personal point of view, question it if my view is different, and enjoy a good discussion (or fight, whatever works). I think the majority of us find ourselves within sight of the center; some more to the left, some more to the right. And then every once in a while you get someone like fdmuchow who makes crazy claims like "influence our government to cede its sovereignty over to the United Nations" and "guns(..) feed hungry children". And when you see someone go off the deep end like that, it's hard for someone as argumentative as me not to comment! :-)

Blowing more smoke?
"Americans have for far too long settled minor disputes with lethal firepower, and it's one of the reasons that we continue to reject the vision of America, held by gun rights extremists, as a place where anybody can carry and display any gun, anywhere, and at any time." - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-helmk...

Okay bella, I'll read up on Soros. But proartist is blowing smoke, and s/he's off-topic much of the time.

Oh, I read, SuperDave.

The post from fdmuchow is completely insane. George Soros was the son a Hungarian Jew who had to hide his Jewish heritage from the Nazis. He is a businessman and philantrophist credited with contributing to the success of Hungary's transition from Communism to Capitalism. He's given tremendous donations to worthy causes.

Here's an excerpt from the foreword our former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker wrote in Soro's book:

George Soros has made his mark as an enormously successful speculator, wise enough to largely withdraw when still way ahead of the game. The bulk of his enormous winnings is now devoted to encouraging transitional and emerging nations to become 'open societies,' open not only in the sense of freedom of commerce but—more important—tolerant of new ideas and different modes of thinking and behavior.

When people like fdmuchow makes these types of outrageous claims with no basis in reality, it makes everything else they say irrelevant and it hurts the debate.

bella: Read and comprehend much?

fdmuchow - paranoid much?

The posting by "proartist" Aug 19, 2010 at 4:11 p.m. contains fallacious, "pseudo-scientific" studies funded by the anti-gun community primarily bankrolled by George Soros. Soros is a European billionaire who is suspected of being a Nazi collaborator. With his billions he is trying to influence our government to cede its sovereignty, over to the United Nations. In the studies that proartist references, data are "cooked" to prove the preconceived notion that guns are evil in and of themselves. I have requested that the above referenced posting be removed due to its reference to "pseudo-scientific" studies, whose fallacious conclusions are used as to purport fact when in fact they are fiction. A gun is a tool, used in the right hands it helps build a nation; protects the innocent from the predator; help provide food for the hungry; and act a deterrent to those of a criminal ilk. Just like any other tool, say a hammer or screwdriver, in the wrong hand, it can be used by a criminal to maim and kill. So should we outlaw hand tools as well? Let’s be rational and honest when we debate the gun issue.

http://articles.sfgate.com/2010-05-19/op...

http://www.bradycampaign.org/legislation...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dennis-a-h...

Video: Shut up, don't say anything and open carry with impunity. No one will know...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VDWxCpVlr...

Yea but really when I get atatcked by a thug with a handgun and all I have is my handgun its an equal fight. Which is why I have an RPG strapped to my back and an AK-47 in my hands at all times - can never be too carefull, murders are everywhere, especially icecream shops in Janesville Wisconsin.

proartist: None of your links are relevant to the topic of Open Carry.

Glock said: "Feel safe though in the knowledge that if we were ever in a public place together and you were threatened with the possibility of great bodily harm and/or death, and I was there lawfully open carrying my handgun(which I never do),I would not use it to save you
*
Do you mean to say: I would not save your life, even if I could, but I cannot because I do not have enough gonads to open carry, which I support, but if I had the gonads to do so, I would not do what I profess to believe, which is open carry saves lives ... whew?!?!?.

proartist - thank you for your post. It's nice to see an overview of facts from someplace other than the NRA sites or Fox News on this topic.

Glock, you are the product of an accidental discharge.

MooShoo - I'm not suggesting banning anything because I'm a realist. I prefer not worry about the uncontrollable and prefer to live my life not worrying about "what if" worst case scenarios. Life in general is a risk, but a damn good one if you spend your time to the fullest. If someone wants to pack a gun legally and lawfully, I'm not going to lose an ounce of sleep over it. The second amendment is a beautiful thing.

MooShoo, trying to talk you is like having a battle of wits with an unarmed person. Was that an attempt to psycho analyze me?? If so, you were so far off the mark it is laughable, next time you go see your therapist tell him/her you want a refund as the word "odephial" does not exist, except maybe in your own little perfect, crime free world. Feel safe though in the knowledge that if we were ever in a public place together and you were threatened with the possibility of great bodily harm and/or death, and I was there lawfully open carrying my handgun(which I never do),I would not use it to save you.

Right on Spark. Since you are in the banning mode, I suggest you add war and famine to your list - it kills millions of people worldwide.

proartist - Motor vehicle crashes are one of the leading causes of death in the world and the deadliest for children the ages 10-16. Heart disease is another leading cause of death. Should we ban cars and french fries?

Proartist,

"intimate acquaintances" like gang members?

Are children morely to drown in 5 gallon bucket or killed at a school shooting? (Answer: drowning in a 5 gallon bucket). Should the federal govt restrict the purchases of 5 gallon buckets? Perhaps a "cooling off" period (the Home depot lobby might lobby against this....)

Access to firearms yields a more than five-fold increase in risk of intimate partner homicide when considering other factors of abuse, according to a recent study, suggesting that abusers who possess guns tend to inflict the most severe abuse on their partners.
Jacquelyn C. Campbell et al., Risk Factors For Femicide in Abusive Relationships: Results From A Multi-Site Case Control Study, 93 Am. J. of Public Health 1089, 1092 (2003), abstract available at http://www.ajph.org/cgi/content/abstract...

Of females killed with a firearm, almost two-thirds were killed by their intimate partners. The number of females shot and killed by their husband or intimate partner was more than three times higher than the total number murdered by male strangers using all weapons combined in single victim/single offender incidents in 2002.
The Violence Pol'y Ctr., When Men Murder Women: An Analysis of 2002 Homicide Data: Females Murdered by Males in Single Victim/Single Offender Incidents, at 7 (2004), available at http://www.vpc.org/studies/wmmw2004.pdf

American children are more at risk from firearms than the children of any other industrialized nation. In one year, firearms killed no children in Japan, 19 in Great Britain, 57 in Germany, 109 in France, 153 in Canada, and 5,285 in the United States. American kids are 16 times more likely to be murdered with a gun, 11 times more likely to commit suicide with a gun, and nine times more likely to die from a firearm accident than children in 25 other industrialized countries combined. (Centers for Disease Control)

Based on FBI data, nearly 1.7 million guns have been reported stolen in the past ten years, and only 40% of those were recovered. The missing guns, over 80% of which are taken from homes or cars, most likely fuel the black market for criminals. NEA, AGS and the National Rifle Association advocate for safe storage. To access "Stolen Guns: Arming the Enemy" visit www.agsfoundation.com.

More guns equals less violent crime. Statistics show that states with the largest increases in gun ownership also have the largest drops in violent crimes. There is a strong negative relationship between the number of law-abiding citizens with permits and the crime rate, this is a fact. Not a canard that the left likes to use to suppress gun ownership rights of law abiding citizens.

What greater example of a situation where gun laws are ineffective than what happened at Ft. Hood?

ANd to those who refer to the often-cited statistic that 58% of murder victims are killed by either relatives or acquaintances. However, what most people don't understand is that this "acquaintance murder" number also includes gang members killing other gang members, drug buyers killing drug pushers, cabdrivers killed by customers they picked up for the first time, prostitutes and their clients, and so on. "Acquaintance" covers a wide range of relationships. The vast majority of murders are not committed by previously law-abiding citizens. 90% of adult murderers have had criminal records as adults.

"if I kill all the golfers, they'll lock me up and throw away the key"!
.
sorry, Caddyshack flashback...

I agree. 48 out of the 50 states allow some form of it.

CONCEALED carry- problem solved.

bella - High horse? Dumb comments? There's nothing to argue. It's legal to do what these gentleman are doing and the 2nd amendment which is what was fought for is the reason why. There's my disagreement for you based on facts.

And why would you fire a gun at a driving range? You might hit one of the golfers!

bella - The view is great. The arguments are below, repeatedly. I was commenting on the irony of people using their First Amendment rights to trash their Second Amendment rights. That and the total lack of historical and contemporary perspective.
Far from "persecuting" you (LOL - I don't care who ya are, that there is funny!), I said GO AHEAD and SPEW. That is your right, regardless of whether your comments make any sense. Enjoy.

Just pass concealed carry like almost every place else and we won't have to worry about seeing that gun displayed..Its actually the law that is making the spectacle.

superdave and 2112 - how's the view up on that high horse? Maybe the Founding Fathers would turn in their graves if they read your comments. They founded this republic so we could have freedom of opinion without fear of persecution. So instead of making dumb comments like "I don't want to live in Cuba" or "I suggest you move", why don't you participate in the discussion with some actual arguments? This country became great because we have the freedom to disagree.

It's alarming how many people have forgotten what this great Nation was founded on and what people fought for. If you dislike freedom, I suggest you move because the current socialist direction of this Country isn't going to last long. That I guarantee.

It's interesting to read all of the comments from those that understand neither history nor reality.
The founding fathers would roll over in their collective graves if they could witness all of you who argue so eloquently against the very rights that they, and many of us, risked our lives to defend. But go ahead and spew - that's another right we protected for you.
Let's agree to keep our Republic, shall we? I don't want to live in a Cuba, N. Korea, or even Saudi Arabia.

Glock, you suffer from a persecution complex that manifests itself through an anal retentive behavior, although subconscious in nature, it surfaces for all to see by display of a pseudo phallic symbol to make up for you physical and mental inadequacies and odephial complex. Please use this quote when making reference to me regarding you in the future discussion. Thank you.

Moshoo said...

Glock, I do not deny your right to carry. There are 56,000 square miles in Wisconsin. Most of it is unicorporated. Go forth and carry all you want on public hunting grounds, national forest, state forest, or private property with permission. But in ice cream stores, for self protection, in Janesville for "protection"? Sorry, I do not see it that way. Bella said it best, its not your right to carry that I question, it is the lack of good judgement for those who do in certain settings. And unlike Bella, I am a less diplomatic in my expression of disdain for those who lack good judgement.

Sorry, I don't hunt, or go to state parks. And there you go assuming that if one carries a gun that they lack good judgment.

And as for not being needed in Janesville, You do not know where violent crime is going to occur, I am sure everyone at Columbine H.S. thought the very same thing, or at Virginia Tech, or in all the malls where mass killings have taken place, gee, see a connection there, they all had policies and signs banning lawful carry, creating a gun-free killing zone where mass murderers can go without fear of being stopped until the authorities arrive. Ask any of these nutballs that actually have been taken alive and they will tell you that is why they picked that particular venue.

I say all you gun slingers stay home.. Or- meet at Paul`s house or Cold Stone..

Bella: By entering the public space you are a willing participant in the exercising of civil rights of all kinds. You are agreeing to be the subject of free speech and religion, freedom of press...etc. The forefathers did not rank one amendment higher than the other, nor state that one was more important. They ranked them all together and all the upmost important to life and liberty whether you agree with them or not. If you don't agree to the amendments outlined in constitution and Bill of Rights perhaps you should stay in your home.

bella: Just because you aren't aware of it doesn't make it so. Guns are there whether you see them or not. Criminals have been concealed carrying for years. At least if you see me open carrying, you can be assured I am a law abiding person. The guy that isn't obviously carrying a gun may be and IS a criminal. This is not a new phenomenon. Are you saying a car can't crash through and kill you in Cold Stone Dairy?

Really? We're going with the car argument now? The way I see it, driving on a road is the same as firing a gun at a driving range. The rules are agreed upon and the participants choose to be there. If accidents happen, they are happening in a place where the participants are aware of the risk. When I WALK into a store like Hallmark or Cold Stone, I am not agreeing to sharing that space with people who are carrying weapons. Get it?

bella: Lethal weapon, like a car? Driving a car isn't even a right, it's a privilege but you seem to accept them on the street with you even though they kill WAY more people than guns.

The Niles boys might not be "cowards", but a few other descriptions come to mind. Irresponsible - for carrying a lethal weapon in public for no good reason. Childish - for carrying "just because they can".

proartist: You are 100% correct. If I don't have a gun on me there is NO chance that I will be killed by it. There is an increased chance that I will be killed/hurt by someone else's gun. What great logic.
ca2642: Nice job calling people names. a coward is 'a person who shrinks from or avoids danger, pain, or difficulty'. The Niles 'boys' are far from it. If the were to 'shrink' from 'difficulty', they wouldn't of opened themselves up to this much ridicule from people who think some rights are more 'right' than others.

Even in Arizona, I could have, but I didn't want to carry a gun. Only if I knew that I was going near a bad area. That was MY CHOICE! But, I believe it's your right to open carry, if you want to. So go for it! No one has the right to infringe upon your rights!

Seriously, what kind of coward can't go shopping in Janesville WI without taking their handgun along for protection?

Results of violent use of motor vehicles designated as "accidents"- one of the biggest lies in the world.

I'm with Johnny Cash on this one. Listen up, Niles boys.

kawisixer01, that poem is wrong on so many levels I can't even begin. I mean, what does this mean? - "I don't carry a gun because I'm a cowboy, I carry a gun because, when I die and go to heaven, I want to be a cowboy."

Guns as "peace keepers" - the greatest oxymoron in the history of the world.

"Don't take your guns to town, son.

Leave your guns at home, Bill.

Don't take your guns to town."

Johnny Cash

The primary purpose of a legal firearm is to promote peace. The goal of carrying a firearm for personal defense is to NOT have to use it.
Since WW II, no one has ever used a nuclear weapon for anything other than defense. Why is that?
The primary purpose of a car, however, is personal transportation, and yet cars are involved in thousands of deaths each year.

The fact that more people are killed and injured with motor vehicles than with guns is indeed a relevant subject and not a "red herring" because it boils down to the way people use both in an illegal and violent fashion..Getting drunk and driving or intentionally driving recklessly/light running or excessively speeding IS violent activity and deaths/injuries resulting are NOT "accidents", its the result of intentional illegal violence with a deadly object...Carrying a gun isn't dangerous/deadly in and of itself while the aforementioned illegal and violent activity IS...Motor vehicles are involved in illegal, violent activity EXPONENTIALLY more often than are guns.

Cars as weapons is a red herring. Cars are constructed with the main purpose of providing transporation. Any destructive capability is a secondary factor resulting from misuse or accidents. The primary effect of gun use is to cause harm and destruction whether target shooting where they are used to embed ammunition into a target which is subsequently damaged, in hunting where the purpose is killing, or as in open carry where the primary purpose is used as a "warning". While some might consider gun use to have beneficial secondary consequences (i.e. skill training, food, stopping an enemy, etc.), the primary desired consequence and design of a gun is for destruction of some type or, as some want to demonstrate, intimidation by the threat of using it as such.

By driving a car in public you're much more likely to be injured or killed in an accident involving that very same car. Duh.

"I don't carry a gun to kill people, I carry a gun to keep from being killed."- kawisixer01
Cute poem but it only reveals all it attempts to deny. By having that gun, you're more likely to be injured or killed by that very same weapon.

WHY I CARRY A GUN...

My old grandpa said to me son, there comes a time in every mans life when he stops bustin knuckles and starts bustin caps and usually it's When he becomes too old to take a butt whoopin!

I don't carry a gun to kill people, I carry a gun to keep from being killed.

I don't carry a gun to scare people, I carry a gun because sometimes this world can be a scary place.

I don't carry a gun because I'm paranoid, I carry a gun because there are real threats in the world.

I don't carry a gun because I'm evil, I carry a gun because I have lived long enough to see the evil in the world.

I don't carry a gun because I hate the government, I carry a gun because I understand the limitations of government.

I don't carry a gun because I'm angry, I carry a gun so that I don't have to spend the rest of my life hating myself for failing to be prepared.

I don't carry a gun because I want to shoot someone, I carry a gun because I want to die at a ripe old age in my bed and not on a sidewalk somewhere tomorrow afternoon.

I don't carry a gun because I'm a cowboy, I carry a gun because, when I die and go to heaven, I want to be a cowboy.

I don't carry a gun to make me feel like a man, I carry a gun because men know how to take care of themselves and the ones they love.

I don't carry a gun because I feel inadequate, I carry a gun because unarmed and facing three armed thugs, I am inadequate.

I don't carry a gun because I love it, I carry a gun because I love life and the people who make it meaningful to me.

Police Protection is an oxymoron. Free citizens must protect themselves. Police do not protect you from crime, they usually just investigate the crime after it happens and then call someone in to clean up the mess.

Personally, I carry a gun because I'm too young to die and too old to take a butt whoopin!

..author unknown (but obviously brilliant)

I find it incredible that this forum is still active. But, I guess the purpose of the forum is for Citizens to politely engage in an exchange of useful information with each other.

While not all Citizens are comfortable with their fellow Citizens going armed, the Founding Fathers thought so highly of the right to keep and bear arms that they amended the US Constitution to allow THE PEOPLE the right to keep and bear arms. They understood the need of Citizens to protect themselves against "highwaymen" (bad guys) and they understood that an armed citizenry would keep bad government in check.

In interpreting that right, the "Nine Robed Wise Ones" (SCOTUS) first decided in Heller v District of Columbia that the right is incorporated into Federal territories. Then, in McDonald v City of Chicago, the "Nine Robed Wise Ones" decided that the Second Amendment to the US Constitution was incorporated upon the States and down to the level of local government.

The City of Chicago argued that it had the right to regulate (ban) firearms and that doing so made the citizens of Chicago safe. The Buckeye Firearms Association in concert with the US Concealed Carry Association argued that an armed citizenry tended to lower crime rates and produced data taken from FBI and State criminal data bases to show proof. The National Rifle Association filed a similar but separate Amicus Brief and made a similar argument. Both of these briefs were cited by the majority as being compelling and the argument made by the City of Chicago was dismissed as being unsupportable. This is a very rare "finding of fact" done by SCOTUS and it will make any future overturning the decision very difficult.

Wisconsin is one of only two States that prohibit all forms of concealed carry, but open carry is legal in Wisconsin (with some restrictions). Thus, I say to all of you who have posted that you do not want to be in the vicinity of a person openly displaying a firearm, write to your legislator and urge them to support concealed carry. What you cannot see will not scare you.

The Wisconsin Constitution guarantees Wisconsin Citizens the right to firearms for hunting, target shooting, or "any other lawful purpose". Current Wisconsin law is in conflict with the WI Constitution and the US Constitution. Creating a Constitutional Concealed Carry statute (just like VT, AK, and AZ) would be the best solution. (There have been no "gunfights at the OK Corral" since these States adopted their statutes. And, along with Constitutional Carry, WI should adopt a permit system so that any Wisconsin Citizen who elects to do so may carry in other States with whom WI has reciprocity.

Your exactly right truth1, accidents happen. We all drive cars out of economic necessity and accept the risk. I am not comfortable with guys with guns in public settings. They are adding risk to me and my family. Can you carry into the ice cream store, yes. Should you carry into the ice cream store. Not in my opinion, the decision to do so is poor judgement and socially irresponsible.

The people I worry about "sharing" public space with are the ones with multi-thousand pound deadly objects on the highway and no sense of responsibility or think they're the only ones on the road or think its "fun" or show-off to drive fast.

paul - I don't worry about your gun when you have it in your home, or on your property, or at the gun range, or even in the trunk of your car. That's your right. I do worry when we share the same public space and you have a loaded gun strapped to your hip. So I will keep voicing my worry and my belief that you are making all of us less safe by carrying your weapon. That's my right.

bella: I know you said I will say this because I'm scared but no, I'm prepared. Do you have car insurance? Why? Are you 'scared' that someone might steal your car? That someone might run into you? Same with any other kind of insurance. My gun is insurance. You do not need to worry about it any more than you need to worry about me blowing a stop sign.

I see some of the comments about "gun nuts".
I can't figure something out, it seems some "nuts" are good and others are bad, is that right?
Cars/trucks KILL/INJURE more people than guns and cause a LOT more medical care expenses than do gunshots, yet I hear about "car nuts" or other kind of "nuts" as if its good, but "gun nuts" are supposedly bad..I never see blog rantings that go on and on about the terrible "car nuts", its always "gun nuts".....Go figure.

paulfisher - following your logic, none of us should ever leave our house. Someone in Ohio was killed while crossing the street. Same thing could happen here; better stay home. A girl in Seattle drowned while swimming. Better not go to the beach or the pool ever again. It must really stink to leave in fear the way you and your gun-carrying friends do. I am sure you will say "we're not afraid, we're prepared"...BS. The only reason to carry a gun is if you are afraid something is going to happen. Chicken Little?

I guess I don't see why this knee jerk reaction to carrying in an ice cream store in Janesville? Haven't you guys heard of the shooting in the Lubby's buffet in Texas a few years ago? Not a bad neighborhood, kinda like Old Country Buffet in Janesville. Things happen everywhere. Do they happen every day at every place? No. Can they? Yes!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luby's_mass...

MooShoo: On you accidental discharge hurts a bystander question. No, we don't have special immunity. As I've said before, if I've done something that causes harm to someone else, arrest me and throw the book at me, sue me, lock me up. There are laws against it. I believe (not positive) that any crime in WI that has a firearm involved gets additional penalties, and I'm OK with that. However, a properly maintained firearm sitting in a holster has about as much chance of hurting someone as me carrying a rock.

Idiots! blech.

What happens to the well trained, law-abiding open carry person in the ice cream store who discharges his/her weapon for any reason, and it hits a bystander in the nearby parking lot? Any civil protections offered the accidental shooter, or is he/she liable for civil damages?

Glock, I do not deny your right to carry. There are 56,000 square miles in Wisconsin. Most of it is unicorporated. Go forth and carry all you want on public hunting grounds, national forest, state forest, or private property with permission. But in ice cream stores, for self protection, in Janesville for "protection"? Sorry, I do not see it that way. Bella said it best, its not your right to carry that I question, it is the lack of good judgement for those who do in certain settings. And unlike Bella, I am a less diplomatic in my expression of disdain for those who lack good judgement.

paulfisher - it's your right to carry a gun; have a field day. It's my right to question your judgment for carrying in public.

glock - yes, that made a lot of sense. Only because I am "omnipotent" do I choose not to carry a gun. Because if I didn't know what was going to happen at every moment in life, I would be so afraid of everything and everyone around me in this dangerous town that I would need to carry a lethal weapon with me at all times for protection. And don't worry, I'll call the gang-banger a nut job the next time I see one. Apparently they hang out at the ice cream shop all the time.

Metabolic and Nutritional: thirst, edema, gout, unstable diabetes, hyperglycemia, peripheral edema, hyperuricemia, hypoglycemic reaction, hypernatremia.

Musculoskeletal: arthritis, arthrosis, myalgia, tendon rupture, tenosynovitis, bone pain, myasthenia, synovitis.

Nervous: ataxia, hypertonia, neuralgia, neuropathy, paresthesia, tremor, vertigo, depression, insomnia, somnolence, abnormal dreams, reflexes decreased, hypesthesia.

MMMMMM! Better hope the open carry guys don't suffer some of the above side effects. Viagra alone can really mess up people, even when they have all good upstanding intentions.

The open carry proponents aren't nuts: They are advocating and demonstrating the point they want to make. If gun owners were all like these guys, who could take issue with it? My issue is with those who might get "likkered up" and still feel they have the right to do this under the influence. In the hands of a responsible, rational, sober person, with proper instruction there shouldn't be any qualms about it. If anyone ever carries under the influence, open or concealed, they ought to spend a good while in the iron bar hotel.

"Start worrying about the CRIMINALS carrying guns, not the good guys." - glock21sf
I suspect that a good portion of those criminals you are paranoid about stole their guns from the "good guys".

oops, I forgot that Janesville has no gangs, or crime. My bad.

all you are so omnipotent that you can tell ahead of time where a crime will take place?, you do not know if some nut job with a gun is going to knock over an ice cream shop, a shoe store, a mall, a convenience store. Lot's of people have been killed in public places just like these, NOT by law abiding gun carrying citizens, but by the very criminals that you don't seem to be worried about. Crimes are NOT committed by Concealed carry license holders, or in WI., the open carry crowed. Start worrying about the CRIMINALS carrying guns, not the good guys. I don't see one person on here complaining about the 1000's of criminals that are carrying concealed right now, and committing crimes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Why is that?? Because it's easier and safer picking on lawful nice people, while hiding behind the anonymity of a screen name on this blog. I dare you to speak your mind like this out on the street to a gang banger.

bella: The Niles's are not nut jobs. I guess my question is why am I not a nut job? I carry all the time and am quoted/interviewed in the article.

Your statement about it being OK at a gun range would be like me saying it's alright for you to talk only at a properly licensed 'listening' facility. You say 'safely organized' I have safely organized my 9mm into my holster and it will not leave the holster until I need it.

glock - I think you'll see that most of us that are "against" you don't have a problem with people going to a gun range, or participating in shooting sports that are safely organized. What mooshoo and several others of us are concerned about are "nut jobs" like the Niles men that think it's ok to strap on a lethal weapon to go to the ice cream shop. We're not arguing against the 2nd amendment. We're asking gun enthusiasts to show better judgment than the Niles boys.

Moo Shoo, Most cops are not "gun enthusiasts" they regard it as a tool to be carried around, like a hammer, most don't have any interest in shooting-other than the little range time they get on the job, which is very little.

What makes you right and us so wrong????? It is your opinion and you are 100% entitled to it. Just like we are entitled to ours. It's just too bad you are so closed minded to learn anything about the shooting sports, or guns in general. You just base your opinions on what you see on TV and read in the papers. I am being polite to you and you do nothing but malign me. I am asking you to at least come to a range and shoot a gun, or at least listen to the podcasts by Tom Gresham at http://www.guntalk.com/site.php. I think you will see this in a little different light. I know you will not, But I hope you do. If then you still think we are nut jobs, then OK. At least you will have learned why you feel the way you do.

Its about time. I didn't know that you could open carry. I would carry all the time. Keep those punks that think their bad riding their bikes from mouthing off when I am on a walk if they seen a .50 Desert Eagle on my hip plus it might make them think twice if they wanted to rob me. I support these people all the way to the bank

Mooshoo - actually, the overwhelming thought out here is that those of you who have a problem with unalienable rights are just plain ol' nutz.

Glock said with respect to gun nutz who feel the need to strap it on to go to the ice cream store: "And most are safer than the cops"
*
HHHHAAAHAAAA...HAAAAHAAAHAAAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
*
While you may believe your own spin, the overwhelming thought out here is you guys are just plain 'ol gun nutz.

I wonder if Andy makes these Barneys carry their one bullet in a certain pocket?

No, frogger, he had the gun strapped to his leg covered by pants. That is not open carry. Just thought I would add that since all the posts on that shooting are always shut down.

Open carry is fine with me. Just not so sure I'd feel the need to display a weapon while I was at the ice cream shop, or buying a greeting card.....

I am curious is the guy on the motorcycle that shot the guy in the jeep and legal open carry person?

glock21sf- My hobby is gardening. I don't carry my spade with me knowing I can defend myself with it!

I agree this is silly. What needs to be done is get the dirtbags guns away.

netwize23: What time? I can meet you there and be your escort if you wish. I'll almost be willing to bet you that you won't even notice me packin'.

Hey, I gotta stop at Old Navy store today, anyone got John and Jeff Niles number??? I'd feel much safer knowing they were in the building. The Batman and Robin of Janesville/Milton.... perhaps we should have our very own "NILES SIGNAL" a bright light we can shine in the sky with a silouette of their bodies with their piece strapped to their side, that we can shine brightly when we are in peril!

mespi, My bad and apologies. There are a lot posts here and I haven't committed everything everyone has said to memory. It wasn't my intention to imply something that isn't the case. It was a simple mistake. I hope your day is a good one as well.

Glock -- I never assumed all of those who do open carry have no training or experiance. I just stated that i felt training should be mandatory. Thats all i implied, sorry if i came off assuming none had traing or experiance. I felt as a person who does have guns i know first hand that training is needed, look at the harley driving course that kutter puts on, even people who have been riding for years learn things they didnt know. ------------------

Kiva -- I am willing to bet that yes a second thought might run through their heads before committing a crime if they know everyone is carrying. Criminals are criminals and if they want something bad enough they will find away to get it or just plain go for it. I do not see your logic in your last sentence, if a criminal has a gun they will use it for their intended purpose regardless of the law.

We have a 2nd amendment right to do this. If everyone carried there would be less crime! Let me put it to you this way, if someone is going to rob a store and they know that everyone else in the store has a gun would they think twice about it? It is iritating that we have our rights infringed upon and can not carry in a vehicle. If this law was not the way it is, perhaps the gunman on the cycle would have been shot instead of the innocent person in the car!

Mastadon, you just assume that these people have no training. who ever said that they didn't? Most people who open carry have been around guns their entire lives and they are second nature to them. They are more proficient and knowledgeable about firearms than the local law enforcement officers are. And most are safer than the cops, if you really know a police officer well, ask him/her about the amount of accidental discharges in police stations because the cops mishandle the weapons.

JCK: You stated in response to me this. "Go ahead and carry a firearm it's your legal right. I'll keep my eyes open and if I see you packing in the same place I happen to be I'll just leave. No one is forcing me to stay and I choose not to hang around a place where you are packing." Obviously you do not read what others write because I have written more than once that I do not carry in public and I also explained why. Since you have proven that you do not read what I am writing I am done discussing this topic with you. Have a nice day.

Like i said, I feel it should be mandatory. I can not hurt anyone with my words but a gun can hurt someone with bullets. If i have restrictions that say what is considered "disturbing or disorderly" the minimum to ask is mandatory training or no public carrying. I feel in my eyes that is helping both sides of the argument.

mastadon: I agree that there are limits. In your example, you are causing a disturbance and can be charged with disturbing the peace or disorderly conduct. Me just OC'ing doesn't rise to that level. If I start threatening people, pull my gun out and make threatening moves or other dumb things then I can be charged as well. However, the Supreme Court of WI and US have both stated that just wearing a gun doesn't rise to that level. Your other example of not being allowed to vote until 18 years old is good as well. I always get a little confused on age but I believe you have to be 18 to OC and 21 to buy a handgun.
I guess my whole point to people who have a knee jerk reaction that OC is bad, give it a chance. You will see that, like the population at large, people who OC are courteous and non disruptive.
As for training, I agree that we should get as much as we can. What's the point of having a weapon if when you need to use it, you can't hit the broad side of a barn? Also, you need to know the laws. As you can tell, I have spent many hours researching WI and Federal law when it comes to handguns.
All I'm saying is that while training is a good idea, it should not be mandatory.

Accidents happen, even with training, i get that. I also get there is extreme cases of religion killing. I guess ill have to start writing letters because obviously you folks who want to carry openly will not budge on the thought of becoming better prepared for an incident if it was to happen. You would think that you would want to be the as capable as possible in a given situation. Instead you choose to say "this is a right and thats right so why training for this?" ----------
When i orignally started posting on this acticle i was totally against people carrying in public PERIOD. After alot of thought on it i felt that it is a right to own a gun, and if you take away part of the right to carry in public (concealed or open) i would have a problem with that. I would not want them to take away my right to speak, yet they do have restriction on that as well. I could not curse at another person in the presence of LOA without getting a ticket (technically). So i ask what is the difference of letting me have the freedom to speak but yet tell me what i can and can not say?? There is no difference in asking those that want to publicly carry to take training before doing so. We have the right to vote, yet a person under 18 can not vote?? there is restriction on alot of rights yet this one is different??
---------------

Fortunately for our American Society, we live under the "Rule of Law". Those who do not conform are criminals and the Police do the best they can to catch and incarcerate these folks who refuse to live under the Rule of Law.

The "Rule of Law" in Wisconsin regarding open carry is that, except for certain places, open carry by average Citizens is part of that "Rule of Law". If some of the more timid members of Society are uncomfortable with this, at least you can rest assured that those who open carry are very interested in doing it again and will go out of their way to avoid anything close to breaking even the most insignificant Rule of Law. You are more likely to be shot by a Police Officer than you are by an Open Carry Wisconsin Citizen.
I have seen a "tempest in a teapot" over one or two examples of a concealed carry individual who had a negligent discharge. These examples are extremely rare. States that have "shall issue" concealed carry have seen dramatic decreases in murder, rape, armed robbery, and assault immediately after adoption of concealed carry laws.

Thus, I have a suggestion for all of you who oppose open carry. Lobby your legislators for concealed carry and do so forcefully. Except for VT, AK, and AZ, all States that are "shall issue" require training and extensive screening. This will satisfy your requirement for training and screening. (Be aware that I personally abhor such rules because you should not need a permit to exercise a Civil Right, but I do understand that there are Citizens who somehow think that the Police, with their training and marksmanship qualifications, are above corruption or honest mistake, and they would never harm an innocent person; and you are naive about this, but I cannot change your mind.)

I have one more suggestion. Perhaps instead of insulting them, you might ask one of the open carry folks to properly introduce you to firearms. While you may not know this, ATF statistics indicate that, based on the current census, there are 99 firearms for every 100 American Citizens over the age of 21. The USA is a country whose citizenry is the most heavily armed in the history of the planet. No amount of wishing it isn't so will change this fact. So, wouldn't make more sense to learn what you can about guns; even if you never personally want to own one?

JCK: One more thing. I understand your disbelief, however, the DNR issues rules and regulations that are in conflict with state law quite often. While I agree with you that these rules are not enforced against police officers when they discharge their weapons within 100' off a building, if the rule about having a loaded gun only applied to hunting, why would it only show an exception for using such a gun at a shooting range? By definition, using a gun at a shooting range is NOT hunting so why would they mention it?

"Exceptions: target shooting at established target ranges, target shooting on private lands by landowners and immediate family members who live with them,"

JCK: That is fine if you want to believe that. I know for a fact that vehicle carry is a DNR regulation to combat poaching but one of our members was pulled from her car at gun point for having a loaded gun in a locked case in a car. She wasn't hunting, she wasn't anywhere near any place that you can even think about hunting. DNR rules are state wide and apply to everyone.

paul, I find it very hard to believe that hunting regulations apply to the police unless they are actually hunting. There's no way Milwaukee police are routinely violating the law and not being disciplined. Particularly when someone is killed and there is an extensive investigation to determine if the shooting was justified. Plus I don't believe that there is a day that they are forbidden to use their weapon. No offense intended but that just doesn't make any sense at all. These regulations apply to hunters.

mastadon: If we require training for this right, where will we stop? Once again, I don't need training to go to church, vote, speak. Which right is inferior to the other?

Before you say 'religion never killed anyone', remember the World Trade Center? Osama Bin Laden? The Crusades? Waco?

Scooter -- my comment was simply a response to someone stating that its your right to practice any religion you would like in america and you dont need training to go to church, so why do you need training for your right to own a handgun. I am the first one to complain if rights are taken away or revised incorrectly, but in this situation my only thought is that if an individual wants to open/conceal carry they must pass proper training. I really do not think that is to big of a request on the part of those wanting to protect themself as well as the general public by open carrying of a handgun.

JCK: I understand they are hunting regulations. So is vehicle carry of a handgun. 167.31 http://www.legis.state.wi.us/statutes/St... They don't want poaching. If it only applied to hunting, why would the exception say " Exceptions: target
shooting at established target ranges, target shooting on private lands by landowners
and immediate family members who live with them, waterfowl hunting during
open season, hunting game birds on licensed bird hunting preserves, and hunting
turkeys and small game in CWD Management Zone units.
Note: An established target range means an existing location that is set up for
target shooting with firearms as its major purpose."

Once again, poorly written regulations that conflict. To answer your question, I would assume that any LEO could get a DNR ticket for firing within 100 feet of a building, it just isn't done.

If the DNR had a clue, they would write their regulations properly.

Those regulations also state it is illegal to...

• shoot a firearm within 100 yards of a building devoted to human occupancy while
on lands you do not own (including public lands and public waters) without the
permission of the owner or occupant of that building.

That doesn't specify any particular date implying that it's illegal to do at any time. Nor does it reference any exception for LEO. This would make it pretty difficult for a LEO in Milwaukee, for instance, to ever discharge their weapon within the city limits which we all know happens.

Those are hunting regulations.

Copperguy, if you read this would you please comment.

Mine: Here is the email from the assistant chief of the Brookfield PD:

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showth...

This relates to the off duty carry of LEO in the gun free school zone.

Mine: Found it! http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/land/wild... Notice, no exemptions for LEO or even DNR Rangers!
States quite clearly "It is illegal to:
• possess any firearm from 12:00 midnight–11:59 p.m. on November 19, 2010 unless
the firearm is unloaded and enclosed within a carrying case. Exceptions: target
shooting at established target ranges, target shooting on private lands by landowners
and immediate family members who live with them, waterfowl hunting during
open season, hunting game birds on licensed bird hunting preserves, and hunting
turkeys and small game in CWD Management Zone units.
Note: An established target range means an existing location that is set up for
target shooting with firearms as its major purpose."

Of course, good luck getting a LEO to issue a citation/arrest for violation of either of these two laws/regulations. As I've said, WI firearm laws are wacky and sometime contradictory.

scooter47: Thanks for your support. Just so you know, even if there were a sign at the Janesville city limits there are 2 issues:

1. Criminals will not obey it because guess what, they are criminals.
2. Wisconsin has a preemption statue which does not allow individual jurisdictions to regulate firearms more harshly than the state. 66.0409 http://www.legis.state.wi.us/statutes/St...

mine: Gun Free School Zone of WI http://nxt.legis.state.wi.us/nxt/gateway... look at 948.605(2)(b)6. which states exemptions to the law and it says "6. By a law enforcement officer or state-certified commission warden acting in his or her official capacity; or" so, if a LEO is off duty and is either OC or CC, he's in violation. Even the chief of police for Greenfield issued a memo to that effect to his officers.

As for the DNR rule, I will post it as soon as I find it.

Before I get attacked, I do not or never wish to even own a gun, but if someone is willing to save my life, thank you. That is all I have to say.

I have not commented here in days but you are right Sarah, it is a law. Mastadon, who says you cannot get hurt at church? A maniac with a gun can come into a building that is unlocked anywhere, schools, stores, even McDonalds, don't fool yourself. I guess I am on Paul Fishers side. I would rather be in a packed place with open carry when that maniac comes in shooting. It can happen in Janesville. We are not immune because we are a middle sized town in Wisconsin. There are no signs coming in or going out of Janesville that say "Hey, no maniacs allowed, we don't allow open carry". I hope there never is a problem, but better safe than sorry.

Paulfisher, please give me statue where police officer's / law enforcement cant carry a gun on any day. Law enforcement can carry anywhere, anytime and any place. If I am wrong, I am sorry. I have never heard of what you are talking about and when checking with all my contacts they have not either.
They can carry off duty and concealed at anytime except airports. And if they are on duty the weapons have to be checked in at Federal Buildings.

I guess when i really think about it, I do not agree with publicly displaying or concealing HANDGUNS. I suppose my only wish would be that if it is to stay the same, those who wish to publicly carry their guns should have taken as much training as possible. I feel having a background check is good idea but that doesnt weed out those who are incapable of handling a handgun properly. Not just target practice, and not just basic gun safety. But a real course in how to properly handle the gun and what to do if you have someone trying to take it from you. Similar to what law enforcement officers take. I dont think that is asking to much. Now im sure there is a few who will say "you dont need a training to go to church" but that is different, going to church will not severly injure someone or possibly kill them.

It appears that BigRoadie got his wish.

The modern day "Barney Fife's"

Mouse: Very funny! http://growingbolder.com/media/uncategor... You might be surprised who carries a weapon.

JANESVILLE — Jeff and John Niles were shopping at Pine Tree Plaza like anyone else.
???????????????????????????????
Yep saw old Mrs.Smith 85 years old packing at Home Depot on that day too. Oh! and Old uncle Tom with is 45. You know he's 93.
What an inspiration them Niles boys are.

ok with carring a gun, as long as the bullet is kept in the owners shirt pocket

mastadon: The short version is that since WI has a law against CC, the WI Supreme Court has said that law is unconstitutional in very specific cases. For example, a pizza delivery guy was held up at gunpoint multiple times and since car carry of a loaded weapon is considered 'concealed carry', the pizza guy got arrested and charged with concealed carry. The case went to the WI Supreme Court and they determine the pizza guy had an overriding interest in CC. So, to make a long story short, today, if you CC, you have to get the Supreme Court of WI to basically give you permission to CC. I believe there are 2 people in WI that can legally CC, other than law enforcement.

Now, if you want to see how really screwed WI gun laws are, there is a DNR regulation that no one can have a loaded weapon on November 19th. Even cops!

Also, the law that puts a 1000' gun free school zone doesn't allow off duty police to carry in that zone.

Mastadon, In a recent journey through the area in Salt Lake where the homeless and the drug pushers reside, I had occasion to speak to a drug user who also confessed to being a petty thief who was not above robbing a citizen at knife point. He was exceptionally honest with me and confessed that he only targets other criminals because he knows that in Utah, where the population is 2.7 million, and 238,000 concealed carry permits have been issued, he has a 1 in 10 chance of dying as the result of his crimes.

The statistics are undeniable. In States that permit their citizens to protect themselves, crime goes down.

By way of example, about 1 year ago, a woman was raped and murdered on a sidewalk in broad daylight in downtown Salt Lake City. Her's was one of 86 rapes that year in that locality. After the story broke, a local TV station featured a story on how women were flocking to gun stores, buying a handgun, signing up in droves for the NRA basic pistol class, and then signing up to take the Utah Concealed Weapons Class. The month that happened, Utah saw a surge of 27,000 permit applications from Female residents of Utah. And, SLC Police recorded a record drop in Rapes.

The Civil Right to carry a concealed weapon (or an Open Carry Weapon) is a woman's right's issue. So, to the females who post on this sight against open or concealed carry of a firearm, please apologize to your "sisters" for being an openly mysogynest female.

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.
---------------
--------

So basically if you feel you need to excersize your right because the public would benefit because the police are not substantial you may do so?? I am really asking a question to understand. I honestly had problems with dyslexia in school, Im not being a smart a$$.

Mastadon: If you want to check it, look at page 45 of this http://www.legis.state.wi.us/statutes/wi...

mastadon: Hmmm... Ok, when we passed the amendment to the Wisconsin Constitution in 1998? Article 1, Section 25 "The people have the right to keep and bear arms for security, defense, hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose".

HAHAHA...you make me laugh. You bent the words/meanings around just like i said you would to suit your purpose. That right you speak of was to keep the people feeling safe from their new government and possible invasion from old government. They didnt look into the futre and think "hmm maybe john wayne wannabes would need to feel big while getting ice cream" ITS A WEAPON, IT NEEDS SPECIAL HANDLING. ALOT OF THE DEATHS FROM GUNS NOT RELATED TO HOMICIDE ARE ACCIDENTS, MORE THEN HALF OF WHICH COULD HAVE BEEN PREVENTED WITH PROPER TRAINING AND CARE. RESPECT YOUR RIGHT BY LEARNING AS MUCH AS YOU CAN SO YOU CAN BE THE BEST JOHN WAYNE YOU CAN. If this is put on paper that is the least i hope they mandate, PROPER TRAINING.

How about some Fact instead of opinion?
Fact - 48 of 50 States have some form of concealed carry for their law abiding citizens.
Fact - Of the 48 that do have CCW, 9 are "may issue" and 38 are "shall issue". VT, WI, and IL do not issue CCW permits, but VT does not require a permit to open or concealed carry.
Fact - All but 6 of the "shall issue" States will issue to non-residents.
Fact - Taking just the CFP permits most in demand by non-residents of the issuing State, FL, PA, TX, and UT, there are over 3 million permits out there somewhere. Given that the 44 other States do not publish their permit numbers (or if they do, I couldn't find them), it is probably safe and conservative to assume about 10 million permits. There are 232 million US Citizens in the USA who are 21 or older. That means 4 in 100 adults carry concealed in this country.
Fact - AZ, VT, and AK do not require a permit to carry open or concealed and they have had no bloodbaths.
Fact - Wisconsin law denies the Civil Right to self protection (See SCOTUS McDonald v Chicago - see also the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution), so Wisconsin Citizens who wish to protect themselves and their families must do so using Open Carry.
Fact - The Wisconsin legislature has passed two CCW bills and both were vetoed. There is pent up demand for CCW in Wisconsin as evidenced by the popular support for CCW.
Probability - CCW will become the law in WI in the next legislative session.
Fact - If this scares you, you can take refuge from all these armed individuals by moving to Chicago where you will be nearly completely guaranteed that it will be just like Wisconsin - only criminals and cops carry concealed.
Fact - Criminals do not respect "CCW Prohibited" or "Gun Free Zones".
Fact - When I lived in WI, I felt CCW was wrong. I was wrong. I have moved from feeling I am exercising my 2A rights when I concealed carry to believing it to be my Civic Duty.
Fact - Your Janesville neighbor can apply for a CFP from one of the popular States and then travel the USA. Keep in mind that each State puts applicants through a pretty thorough screening process and some level of training which varies by State. (I had a Utah permit while living in Wisconsin.)
CFP Utah, CFP Nevada, CFP Pennsylvania, CFP Florida.

Well said Sarge - and thanks for your service to our Country.

MSgt_USAF_RET: I would not trade it. I would also not want a permitted CC system. AZ, AK and VT have 'free' OC and CC and do not have problems with shootouts and blood in the streets.

"Law Enforcement" is only applicable if they are around when there is a law being broken, or you are "lucky" enough for them to arrive in time to assist you. I have said it time and time again, our police departments do a very fine job, and they are professionals, but they can not be everywhere and therefore I feel it is in the best interest of my family to protect them from "what if" because you just never know. Before all you folks start screaming conspiracy or bogey man let me again remind you of only one recent event that comes to my mind where a young man walked into a Hastings book store in Wichita Falls, TX and opened fire with a shotgun this year...anyone armed with a CCW could have stopped this man. Yes TX is a CCW permit state, and no there wasn't one in the store, sadly the man left that location walked a few blocks away and continued his devastation. Open carry has with it the negative by product of criticism and creation of fear amongst the uneducated of firearms practices. I would be willing to bet that most if not all gun owners would trade an open carry for a CCW permit law in this state at the drop of a hat. I would like to see the state pass this law and use the proceeds to fund the states veteran's trust fund (of which I'm not eligible) as there is a current need in this area of the budget.

BigRoadie: The comments about Ms. McGuire and Ray Lee Stewart are still there. I just looked.

JCK: I see your concern, however, at least in my case, the chances of accidental discharge are miniscule.

1. I wear what is called a retention holster. It physically holds the firearm in the holster and gravity will not allow it to fall out.
2. The holster itself covers the trigger. What the guy in the hospital did was accidentally put his finger inside the trigger guard and pull the trigger.
As I've said in other posts, I do not touch my gun with my hand while I am carrying.

thekid3477: Please show me where in the Federal or State Constitution where you have the 'right' to smoke pot?
BigRoadie: I can only assume since you called people names that your posts were deleted.

So it isn't possible that a firearm could just as easily be discharged, accidentally or otherwise, in an ice cream shop as a hospital. Our discussion is going around in circles so I'll just bow out.

Go ahead and carry a firearm it's your legal right. I'll keep my eyes open and if I see you packing in the same place I happen to be I'll just leave. No one is forcing me to stay and I choose not to hang around a place where you are packing.

JCK: It was illegal to carry where he was carrying. That is drastically more than violating his permit. That is violating gun laws, do you understand that? No I do not think that they care if he was in violation of his permit or not, the point that I am making is that I requested information to support the belief that many people against this have that they will be wounded by someone who is legally carrying yet I was given proof that they could be injured by someone illegally carrying. That is not groundbreaking or anything new, that proves nothing. He was carrying illegally before the firearm misfired. The example was given in response to people claiming that guns make things more dangerous and do not prevent injury. The example shows that firearms can be used to prevent injury and that they do deter crime. Yes it occurred on private land however it stills shows that they can be a deterrent to crime. Dose the example I gave show that firearms can deter crime? By the way I also previously stated that I do not carry because I do not feel strong enough about this to deal with the criticism from people such as yourself who seem to feel frightened by the very sight of a firearm. Also to kleej the name calling is starting to make you sound like a second grader, sorry truth sucks.

thekid3477: Maybe you could carry a "smoking gun".

Kleej - You and I are never going to agree. That's why my ice cream post came up and we're still going around. That being said, I'm now bored with this and wish I would have gotten the ice cream.

spark~ agreed. People like the Niles should be the one's losing sleep over how stupid they truly look. But, that's what that pride thing does. It clouds good judgement and allows those simple minds to be comfortable in their own skin.

Kleej - Think of it how ya want. Like I said, I'm not going to lose sleep or be worried about these guys.

spark~ you're right. It's the gun carriers right to put their pride first. It's the American way. The pride before the fall.

mastadon
Aug 11, 2010 at 3:08 p.m. Let's replace a few words, and then you will see how ridiculous this post sounds

CHURCH is just ridiculous.....Janesville is not that bad for me to feel you need to GO TO CHURCH. Hell even Beloit isn't that bad!!! Im 5'5" on the dot, no martial arts training, little fighting experience, yet i do not fear going anywhere without a CHURCH. But go ahead and twist and turn the law or lack there of to your benefit if you makes you feel like a more competent human being. I at least hope WI makes it mandatory for those who GO TO CHURCH to pass a GOOD training course before you can GO TO CHURCH.

Firearms ownership/carry is a fundamental right.

What other fundamental right(s) should require training?

Mine---Thank you for a response from a man who was a trained professional. Also -thank you for your service where ever you are from! I cannot imagine that our police officers want to go back in time to the wild west with everyone carrying a gun.. Especially to Cold Stone.. lol

Kleej - Are you really that worried? I mean, throwing out jokes like people are going to shoot you. That is my whole point and argument to all of this. It's not my place to tell anyone that is legally carrying a gun how or why they should or shouldn't. It's their right. I'm certainly not afraid of them and never will be. They aren't going to harm me and I wouldn't even blink an eye at them if I saw them.

mespi,
Ok, I found it back on August 9th. Interestingly, if I'm reading it correctly, that incident took place on private property, your family's "land." As I have stated I don't have a problem with gun ownership and use on private property. Have you ever had an incidence in which you felt the need in public? It's the public part of it that makes me uncomfortable.

I guess I won't convince you that it didn't matter to the six injured individuals that he was violating the conditions of his permit. He was carrying a gun in a public place, it discharged, they were injured and could have been killed. Aside from violating his permit what evidence is there that he was a criminal?

I recognize your right to open carry and the fact that there's nothing I can do about it. I just hope that I'm no where near one you guys when you decide you need to use it or it accidentally discharges in a public place.

spark~ You're calling me out huh?! You starting to feel like you might want to "shoot me" or somethin'??? Get a grip dude. You think you're calling me out? Knock yourself out. You're more like a human auger that just keeps spiraling it's way down, deeper and deeper! Tell you what, if you can drop the pride thing and sit down with the Niles boys and teach them to do the same thing, I promise I won't laugh at you guys anymore for looking so stupid. Deal?

Anyone still up for ice cream or are you still worried and uptight?

netwize23 - What's funnier is people judging others and calling them idiots over this.

JCK: Aug 9, 2010 at 3:11 p.m.

Kleej - What part of I don't open carry don't you get? I don't have a problem with those that do because it's not against the written law.
This isn't about me and it certainly isn't about you. Keep spinning it how you want. I called you out more than once and will continue.

i wish i could exercise my rights by smoking pot in an ice cream shop. rather than before i enter;)

mespi
My bad I must have missed the post. Would you mind giving me the time you posted it so I could find it easier?

spark~ so what you're saying is since everything is now unpredictable, it's a good idea for everyone to be carrying a sidearm now? Talk about someone who needs to put the remote control down and come back to earth. Why don't you just lock yourself in your house? Oh, wait that wouldn't give you the exposure of having that gun strapped to your side. People wouldn't respect you unless you could show them you have rights and by golly you're gonna excercise those rights just like the Niles boys are right?? They're true revolutionaries aren't they?

mastadon~ and that training should include courses on ego's and humility. A sidearm in public doesn't define the size of the man!

Concealed/Open Carry is just rediculous.....Janesville is not that bad for me to feel you need to have a gun on your side. Hell even beloit isnt that bad!!! Im 5'5" on the dot, no martial arts training, little fighting experiance, yet i do not fear going anywhere without a gun. But go ahead and twist and turn the law or lack there of to your benefit if you makes you feel like a more competant human being. I atleast hope WI makes it mandatory for those who do carry to pass a GOOD training course before you can carry openly or concealed.

proartist - Maim and kill people? Dude, you need to stop watching war movies.

By the way, a kick to the head is taking matters into your own hands. You should call law enforcement instead.

Kleej - I'm trying to have a little fun here, and you can't lighten up? No I don't think I'm above the law and I don't open carry. But, I got news for you smart guy, carrying openly is not above the law. Thanks for proving my point. Glad you can predict when something bad is going to happen to you. They teach you that in martial arts?

spark ~ agreed. A kick in the head is better than taking the law into my own hands and deciding it's my place to pull a sidearm from my hip and shoot someone. That's why we have law enforcement. I think I figured out what your problem is...you're one of those postmodernists that feel you're above the law right? Hope Janesville cools down from all these crimes that are supposedly running rampant.

Kleej - That's ok, you can give them the flying karate crane kick.

"What's the difference." – paulfisher
What's the difference between martial arts and guns for "protection"? Even the most expert martial arts master would find it difficult (f not impossible) to maim and kill as many people in one fell swoop as those using a gun whether accidentally or purposely!

spark~ Ice cream sounds good, however, Cold Stone at the Pine Tree Plaza seems just a bit too imposing to take my family. With my luck, the Niles boys will have someone threatening to do bodily harm to their Raspberry Cheesecake sundae and all hell is gonna break loose. Keep your head low folks!

bella - the incident was confirmed by local law enforcement. Which part don't you believe ?

lovemycountry - the article is from the surely unbiased "Atlanta Gun Rights Examiner". LOL.

And all this commotion about open carry from Citizens of a State that allows the legally blind to go deer hunting.
http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/land/wild...

JCK: I actually explained how I was in a situation where a firearm was used to slow an attacker long enough for the police to arrive. So you are wrong. Also my point was that I initially requested evidence supporting the viewpoint that random people will be harmed by someone who is legally carrying a firearm. That was not provided what was provided was evidence that random people were harmed by someone illegally carrying a firearm, which is not groundbreaking and will not sway any opinions, sorry sometimes the truth does not agree with you. The point is that a gun very well saved my life and everyone walked away unharmed and the police were able to apprehend the criminal.

Kleej: OK. What are the 'right reasons'? As I said, which you didn't read, it makes me feel good because I have a tool to defend myself, not to puff up my ego. If WI allowed CC then I would most likely CC 99% of the time. I still would 'feel good' because I can still defend myself but I still reserve the right to OC in cases where CC is inconvenient.

Let's all agree to disagree and go get some ice cream.

Kleej: I need to move to practice my rights? I don't think so. Also, you say move to a high crime neighborhood so I can open carry. Sorry, Chicago won't let me have a gun outside my house.

Saying that is like me saying that if you don't like seeing open carry that you need to move.

spark ~ when you see me walking down the street in my kimono and my belt, you'll have a case! Don't hold your breath my friend!

netwize~ I appreciate your opinion, but please understand something...I AM NOT AGAINST carrying a sidearm in public! I am against people doing it for the absolute wrong reasons! This shouldn't have anything to do with pride and "look at me". That's the case with the Niles' and some others chiming in here. This is JANESVILLE!!!!!!!! People like that are an accident/incident waiting to happen. Understand, there's much more involved than simply strapping a sidearm to your side which is exactly why law enforcement people are required to be thoroughly trained on how, when, why and where to use it. You don't just cut those steps out without repercussions! Same applies to me and anyone involved in martial arts. There's the how, when, why and where aspect of that as well. "IT MAKES ME FEEL GOOD"---Give me a break man!

netwize~ I appreciate your opinion, but please understand something...I AM NOT AGAINST carrying a sidearm in public! I am against people doing it for the absolute wrong reasons! This shouldn't have anything to do with pride and "look at me". That's the case with the Niles' and some others chiming in here. This is JANESVILLE!!!!!!!! People like that are an accident/incident waiting to happen. Understand, there's much more involved than simply strapping a sidearm to your side which is exactly why law enforcement people are required to be thoroughly trained on how, when, why and where to use it. You don't just cut those steps out without repercussions! Same applies to me and anyone involved in martial arts. There's the how, when, why and where aspect of that as well. "IT MAKES ME FEEL GOOD"---Give me a break man!

netwize23: Of course it makes me feel good. I feel good that I can defend myself. If you read something different into that statement then you are mistaken.

Kleej - I have no case? I have a perfectly good case and I've made many valid points. You're no different than them. I support any form of defense for protecting yourself. Whether it be your martial arts or a firearm. You think they are trying to be better than someone because they carry a gun? That's like me saying you're trying to be better than someone because of your martial arts! What is the point.

Paulfisher-- a firearm makes you feel good? You just made kleej's case for why people like you shouldn't even be allowed to carry one! I thought this was about protection, not something to make you "feel good"! People are messed up in this world.

Open carry deters armed robbery in Kennesaw

http://www.examiner.com/x-5619-Atlanta-G...

paul, so what are you gonnna do when you walk up on a person stealing a car for example? Draw your gun on them? You have zero authority to use that weapon on ANYONE unless they initiate bodily harm to you. You think the bad guys aren't aware that you're not authorized to do squat? Everyone's excuse for needing a cell phone was in case of emergency they could call for help. Now it's gun's strapped to our side??? What's next? Bottom line, people walking around with their mighty sidearms and glorifying their almighty power so all can see are going to be provoking the criminals out there because they're going to take that as a challenge to them. If having that firearm is such a major deal to people like you, move to a city where you can't walk down the street without fearing for your life and show what you're really made of. Get it out of your system if you must. Start your revolution where it's actually needed and at least be constructive with your movement!

bigroadie - I commend you on your service; I really do. Knowing your background now, I am sure you know how to handle your weapon. That still doesn't mean I think you need to carry it with you everywhere. And as long as you are not a law enforcement officer, the public has no way of knowing or trusting that you are a responsible gun carrier. All I'm saying is leave the gun carrying to those that are employed to serve and protect us. I know you have the right and I can't do anything about how you choose to exercise that right, other than voice my opinion in forums like this one.

Kleej: You learned martial arts because you wanted to for personal protection and making you feel good. I carry a handgun for personal protection and to make me feel good. OK. What's the difference.
mine: I never once said you couldn't voice your opinion.

Spark, big difference between me and my martial arts and the Niles brothers and others feeling the need to carry their sidearms around in public. I didn't choose martial arts to be better than anyone, tougher than anyone or to prove my manliness to anyone or make an issue out of the fact it's my right to do so! Infact, the more private I can keep my expertise in the field, the happier I am. It's not about ME! You have no case for what you're saying so now you're trying to throw it back on me and using the "holier than thou" tactic and I'm not buying it. If you want to know the truth, the way to curb crime and poor street activity isn't by waiting until the bad guys are armed and committing an act of crime so you can shoot 'em all down.....it's educating our kids on how to respect the law and other people's privacy! I'm sorry, but the way to educate them isn't to show them how high and mighty you can be with a sidearm and show them "nobody messes with me".... that's just a blatantly moronic approach to taking care of the problems out there. Curing the headache by cutting off the head.

Paulfisher, I shot once a month and still today shoot once a month. I gave my opinion, I would never violate your rights. I go by the law and what the law states what I had to do and what not to do. Like I said that was my opinion only. But I guess my rights are being taken away, since you don't think I can give my opinion.

You hit the nail on the head. The guy went for the gun. That is why he was shot. If you have the facts you would understand that. Can anyone show me PROOF that if people carry guns, crime went down. Not what you have heard but PROOF.

paulfisher and bigroadie - so if "highly trained law enforcement officers" experience accidents with their firearms, what makes you feel warm and fuzzy about the Niles' and other non law-enforcement types carrying weapons?? Clearly they have even less training.

Whether he was carrying legally or illegally isn't really the point. The fact is he was carrying a firearm in a public place it misfired and six people were injured. It could just as easily have happened in a public place in which it was legal for him to carry. That he was violating the terms of his permit is of little consequence to the six injured individuals. Do you think they care that the permit was null and void? I suspect they care far more about being injured because some one is packing in public whether the discharge be accidental or deliberate. I've got no problem whatsoever with someone having a firearm in their home but I do with them having one in public.

Several days ago I posed a question to the Niles asking how many times they've been in situation in which they felt sufficently threatened to feel they had to use a firearm to defend themselves. I got no response and that's fine they don't necessarily owe me one. I mentioned that in my sixty years on planet earth I've never been in that situation and from what I can tell by reading the pro-carry posts here neither has anyone else. I don't think that's coincidence.

Here's another highly trained LEO accidentally discharging a handgun inside a school. Shot himself in the foot.

http://youtu.be/_sETSAENKVY

As he says 'never play with guns'.

mine: I'm just happy you are retired so that you can't violate my rights under color of law. Also, you can OC in WI. When you were a LEO (law enforcement officer), how many times did you practice, how many rounds a year did you shoot?

Everyone with gun training, legal permits, and legal carrying is legal.....UNTIL they do something forgetful (as in this case) or just plain stupid which then breaks the law. Simple.

BigRoadie - Just to clarify, there was originally two officers fighting with him. The third shot the guy after he did get the one officers gun. Verbal, physical and then deadly force was used on a suspect that was clearly tripping out on something.

proartist: Read your article he was breaking the law, he was charged with unlawfully carrying a firearm. Yes he had a concealed carry permit; however he was not legally carrying when the bystanders were injured so the permit is null and void as far as the incident is concerned. Try again we are looking for someone who at the time is lawfully carrying and injures a bystander, he was not lawfully carrying at the time, sorry if that was not clear but even though he had a permit he was breaking the law at the time by carrying the gun where he was just like anyone else would have been, the permit does not help him when it is illegal to carry where you are that is a location where permit or not it is illegal.

Mine - I guess I'm confused on where you stand. In your earlier post, you stated WI is so behind the times because they don't allow retirees to conceal and carry. I would agree. Also agree because we are on of only two states that don't allow conceal an carry period. Also, the states that allow it, you have to be permitted to do so. Not just anyone can do it. I'm also confused by your crime will go up and people will be killed because that has been proven not true.

As a retired Police Officer, I have to say that I am NOT for any kind of carry. That goes for open or concealed. As for some of the comments being posted, I have a few things to say. 1- How many times have you read where a police officer was involved in a fight and hurt. Most of the times the suspect is NOT armed with a gun. Does the police officer shoot, NO as he/she can't if not justified. 2- If some person or persons enter your house to steal your T.V. while watching it, you can meet force with force. If he picks up your TV and starts leaving with it, you can NOT use deadly force. 3-Our last President signed into law that Retired law enforcement can carry concealed anywhere except on public transportation and federal buildings. The only way do do this as to do the following, Retired in good standings, have a retired ID card, collecting a pension from your state and MUST have a card that staes you qualified with your hand gun in the past 12 months. You must qualify every year. The only department that will qualify their retiries is the Rock County Sheriff's Office. No one in the area will come up with a course to do this. It has been told by the AG that the departments are not responsible for any retired offcer's actions if they use their weapon. The just of this is if the retired law enforcement officer's, with MANY, MANY years of training can't carry a weapon, do you think you can because it is your RIGHT. Any officer from any state can carry in the state of Wisconsin, but Wisconsin retired officer can't because no one will come up with a course to let them qualify. CRIME will go up and people will be killed, the killer will be in PRISON.
And for anyone to think they should NOT have to go for training, not only on the gun safety, but the laws on use of deadly force, these people have NO clue and should never be able to carry either open or concealed.

http://www.krqe.com/dpp/news/crime/man-a...

Many people against this have used the argument of I’m worried I might be shot. I will repeat my request from before. “I love how many people on here are making up scenarios of shootouts over an argument however show me one news article where that has happened with open carry or concealed carry advocate.” I am still waiting on an article of where that has actually happened. And yes “I might be shot” is a what if.

LOL

spark, that was actually pretty funny...I think that might have been the best typo of the debate. :) I know we are on opposite sides of the fence and that's ok. I've enjoyed the debate!

....aren't going around shooting. Sorry. Don't want some more paranoid than they are.

bella - Actually I read a lot of what if someone steals your ice cream and car stereo and you shoot them, etc. etc. etc. I would call those paranoid what-ifs. Hence the point I was trying to make. The part none of you are getting is that it doesn't matter if you think it's overkill. It is permitted by law in practically every state and these people are going around shooting. Now everyone can stop worrying and sleep well at night.

spark - I am going to point out two things in response to your recent posts. The first one I've repeated several times, but you don't seem to get it, or you don't want to. No one here is arguing over the fact that you have a RIGHT to carry a gun. We all know the second amendment exists and that you have the right to arm yourself. The argument is that "is it really necessary"? Second - the "what if" scenarios are coming from your side; the posters who are for OC/CC. "what if you were robbed, what if someone stole your car stereo, what if your daugher was raped". Ridiculous. Your only arguments seem to be "i have a right to carry guns because what if (insert crime scenario here) happens?" If you pay attention to what those of us on the other side are saying, you'll notice that we're simply stating that carrying a gun in Janesville is overkill and unnecessary. Have a good day!

Kleej: You said “If Janesville had a history of shootings and major crimes, I might be able to see your side.” Now are you honestly saying that if there was more gun violence then you would be more supportive of citizens carrying firearms? Honestly that is your stance that there is not enough gun violence to warrant legally carrying a gun. You really want us to believe that if gun violence increased you would sit there and tell everyone, “Ok everyone I have decided that since violence has increased and there are enough illegal guns on the streets that it is now ok for you to legally carry your guns as well.”

bella - That is funny you say that because all you people bashing this scenarios are "what-if's." Really no different.

Kleej: I'll tell you what I told Matthew516. Me leaving my gun at home would be like you and him leaving your arms and legs at home. What gives you the right to conceal deadly weapons (arms and legs for a martial artist) and not me? Do you wear shorts or t-shirts? Oh no! You are now open carrying! I think you should have to wear a t-shirt that says 'I am a black belt, attack at your own risk' otherwise I might try to get in a fight with you and get my butt kicked.

Now, doesn't that sound ridiculous?

BigRoadie - Nobody will answer it because they are afraid of the truth.

BigRoadie - no one answered because your hypothetical scenario is irrelevant to this discussion. Always with the "what if's"...

Next I suppose they will have horses going up and down Milton Avenue.
Who knows, maybe even autograph signings at the Ponderosa.

mickie - Actually it is their right to own guns. That's what some are having a hard time understanding.

Good for you. Not everyone is capable of martial arts, whether it be age or whatever. What makes you better than them? You don't walk around with your belts, but if you had to use your techniques for self-defense, you would. Some don't have that choice. They can't conceal and carry, therefore they do the opposite which is allowed by LAW.

Kleej- well put.. We simply do not need more guns on our streets. Next people will think its their right to own nuclear bombs etc..I think they like the attention they receive from the thing strapped to their hip.

spark, actually, yes. Which is why I chose to get educated in something known as the martial arts. Much like Matthew516 was saying, my weapon is myself. I don't need to walk around in my kimono with my belts displayed to the public for recognition. You're not getting the point here. I'm not anti-gun here, I'm anti-idiots who are making a mountain out of a mole hill here. What you're going to see is the simple minds taking offense to what the Niles' are choosing to do. If strapping on a sidearm is what people need to do to help them with their need for recognition, God help them. If Janesville had a history of shootings and major crimes, I might be able to see your side. Right now it's complete overkill. I'm convinced that some of you people are doing this for the simple fact you want attention and this is the only way you can get it. How sad.

kleej--that's priceless! you're right. That's all this is about. A big testosterone rush. I like how you put that before; it's a power perceived, power achieved deal. These guys think like our government does! Very scary.

Kleej - Have you ever been in a fight, attacked or harmed in any way during your lifetime?

Kleej - How to you know what they have going in life? Seems to me you enjoy defending the real criminals in life and it's not these guys. Relax and take a deep breathe.

spark~ especially from the big bad Niles boys. They aint got much else goin' on in life, but they look good carrying that "piece" strapped to their side. Let's get this out of everyone's system. All of you paranoid, "I have my rights", insecure folks line up on the steps of the Gazette later this afternoon for a big group picture and show Janesville and the surrounding communities you're large and in charge and you aint puttin' up with this massive crime wave that's been infesting the area! Kind of your "Don't mess with Texas" statement to the world, if you will......

people on motorcycles dont just go around shooting people either...

Kleej - You are right about something. ACTIONS HAVE CONSEQUENCES. Criminals should think about that when they plan on inflicting harm on someone else. They might not like the consequences they receive from their actions.

Kleej: Let's take the gun out of the equation. Let's say a guy the same size as you does try to steal you banana split. All you have is your hands, all he has is his hands. What would you do? Now, let's say you have a gun and he comes up to you to steal your banana split. If he saw your gun, in your holster, do you think he would continue? If he does, is he crazy or is he just really jonesin for some banana or does he have a concealed weapon (gun, knife, mace)? If he continues the attack, do you start with fists and then if he kicks your butt pull your gun?

Personally I don't know. I have never been physically accosted. Once again, I want a tool available to me in case things escalate.

The only paranoid people are those worried about these guys. It's your right to take care of yourself.

Spark~ NOT YET they aren't.

ACTIONS HAVE CONSEQUENCES! The bottom line is, this is all about "entitlement" and not just about protection. These people are opening a can of worms. Argue all you like, but it's the truth. If people are this insecure and paranoid, maybe they should look into a degree in police science rather than trying to be the next "Paul Kearcy" out there!

ACTIONS HAVE CONSEQUENCES! The bottom line is, this is all about "entitlement" and not just about protection. These people are opening a can of worms. Argue all you like, but it's the truth. If people are this insecure and paranoid, maybe they should look into a degree in police science rather than trying to be the next "Paul Kearcy" out there!

netwize23: I was the 1st one approached by this reporter to do this story. I live further away from Janesville than the Niles brothers so it was more convenient for them to do this. Putting that motive on them is just plain silly. Was Rosa Parks just trying to prove she was a big woman? How about people interviewed supporting gay rights? How about demonstrators on both sides of the abortion issue? Why is it acceptable to belittle and demean people who are exercising their rights in a peaceful, non confrontational way?

Kleej - We can argue all day about this. The point being, people aren't acting on impulse and just shooting people like you are stating. It's just not true.

spark~ you hit the nail right on the head. It's a whole different ball game if someone enters your home. There's a huge difference between your home and walking into an ice cream shoppe! I'm wondering how the Niles boys would react if someone stole their Banana Split?? Would they show some emotional intelligence or would they act on impulse like many people would do out there??!!

paullfisher - I understand WI doesn't have a Castle Doctrine, but some states do. My point of that was to prove their is justified cause to protect yourself in areas.

kleej: "I promise you the crime rates will go up as more and more of this right to carry a sidearm is glorified in the public through the media. I would rather be wrong on this, but it's coming."

That is why when Washington DC's law striking down possesion of firearms was ruled unconstitutional the crime rate went down? That is why when Chicago banned guns the murder rate has steadily climbed for the last 30 years? If gun laws work so well, why were 52 people shot in Chicago in one weekend? I can guarantee you that every single one of those shootings were with an illegal weapon. Know how I know? Because unless the shootings were by current or retired police officers, guns were illegal!

kleej is right. Many of the thugs out there will take this as a challenge because they're lacking sound, rational thinking. That's why they're thugs! People like the Niles' should have walked away from the news reporters and went on their merry way. They didn't because as "kleej" said, they need to show the world they have rights. Just like a typical war hero from the past, they don't spend alot of time talking about their experiences and all their combat prowess, they choose to take the road less traveled and not glorify things like that. There's this thing called "motive". It's clear what the Niles' motives are. They need a firearm strapped to their side to make them feel like real men. Ignorance at it's finest here.

proartist: I am not sure how many MORE times I need to say this. In WI, I cannot conceal carry so the only option I have is to open carry. So, you saying "When people need to openly display their guns to others, they openly demonstrate their distrust and distain not just of other citizens but of the very basis of the government they speciously profess to honor while fearing its functionality." is just illogical.

spark: The link you posted plainly says WI doesn't have a Castle Doctrine.

All: none of you have anything to fear from me unless you physically attack me. I have NEVER drawn my gun to confront anyone EVER, I just have the right to have that option. Most OC'ers consider it bad form to even touch your gun in public. Obviously your arm sometimes brushes against it but we don't do what LEO's do when they pull you over for speeding and keep our hands on the gun.

Kleej - What part don't you understand? Nobody is saying they are going to pull the gun out an shoot the person? That is the problem with you paranoid bunch. You keep assuming everyone is going around blazing and that's not happening. PERIOD. If someone is breaking into your property and you pull a gun on them to deter them and give them a wake up call, it's a lot different than killing them. Read the laws! Remember the Janesville Doctor that killed the guy in his home? Yep, he was cleared because he thought he and his family was in danger. Why, because when he pulled the gun on the guy to tell him to leave, the guy continued to stay.

Spark, if an officer shoots a person for stealing a car stereo from a vehicle, they're going to lose their badge!!!! What are you going to do? Hold the gun on them until the police get there?? It's unlawful for you to pull that trigger if you're not in a life threatening position! You have a right to protect your property, but you don't have a right to shoot and kill someone for stealing a stereo. Be a man and beat 'em silly if that's the case. You people need to think. You're your own worst enemy here. You think these sidearms give you authority and power and that couldn't be further from the truth! All you're doing is waking a sleeping giant and your compelling desire to show everyone you have rights and the need to be recognized is going to breed more crime because they're are alot of ill-thinkers out there who will rebel on people like you. You think it's a joke? I promise you the crime rates will go up as more and more of this right to carry a sidearm is glorified in the public through the media. I would rather be wrong on this, but it's coming.

Kleej: I never once said I would of been justified to shoot someone stealing my stereo! Go back through and read. The reason I brought it up was that some people seem to think there is no crime in the area so therefore we don't need guns. Getting back to my stereo. If I would of heard something (I was sleeping), I would of gotten my gun and gone out and held the thief until the cops showed up. If he/she was armed, I would of responded appropriately to the threat presented. If it was just a kid who thought it might be cool, the cops would show up, take him away and that would be the end of it. If the person when they saw me turned and ran away offering no threat I wouldn't fire on them. If, however, it was a roving band of armed thugs who steal car stereos (not very likely) I would of defended myself.

Mouse: An armed society is certainly NOT a polite society. An armed society is an angry and threatening society. It is a paranoid society. It is insecure in the ability of it's citizens to behave maturely and then tries to find ways to rationalize it's childish posturing. A successful open and democratic culture realizes the society is first based on trust of fellow citizens to all be working toward the best common good. When people need to openly display their guns to others, they openly demonstrate their distrust and distain not just of other citizens but of the very basis of the government they speciously profess to honor while fearing its functionality.

bella - Read what i posted below. You are both wrong.

spark - kleej has it right. The LAW says you cannot shot someone steeling your property. The LAW says you can only use lethal force if your life is in imminent danger. You can't shoot someone for breaking into your car or your house. If they are attacking you with the intent to kill, then yes. The fact that you, and whoever had his car stereo stolen, think that it's ok to shoot the thief over it....well, that's exactly why you shouldn't be carrying a gun.

And if you don't believe me, here is some info and laws that allow it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doct...

Kleej - Who says it's not justifiable to pull a gun on someone breaking into your property? You? And who said anything about pulling it out and just shooting someone on the spot? If someone is breaking into your vehicle or home, that is absolutely a scenario for protection. It happens all the time. The police don't enter a situation like that without a high level of defense either.

I still would like a true "officer`s" opinion on this subject... Any out there?

paullfisher~ A car stereo was stolen??? The Bronx only wishes that's all they had to deal with! Having a firearm strapped to your side doesn't give you the authority to pull it on someone stealing a car stereo for your information! That's exactly what I'm talking about. I'm not anti-gun, but I am against martial law which is what's going to be the issue with carrying these sidearms. You have people like yourself who think they're now the chosen lawmen..... They are for "self-protection"! Sorry, if someone's stealing a car stereo from your vehicle and you think you have the authority to shoot them, you're all together misguided man!

spark:

CC is NOT a cure all. When you accidentally show/print the firearm the fear mongers will still call the police.

Wisconsin needs both CC and OC, but even with CC, many will still OC.

mespl - That was perfectly put. You know why? Because it made sense. Common sense.

Haven't you all heard? It's the way of this new Country and change. Let the Government control your entire lives. Wake up America. Thank God 48 other states have fought it wisely. Once Doyle hits the road, I believe you will see conceal and carry in WI. Then nobody will have to be scared because they won't know.

I do love the argument that people against this have made of, you should not be able to open carry in Janesville because Janesville does not have that high of a crime rate and is not that dangerous and I worry that if you open carry mister law abiding citizen that you will shoot me when you get into an argument. So if I understand everyone correctly basically Janesville is not that dangerous however if we get into an argument we just whip out our guns and start blasting. Honestly? Or there is always the second argument of, it makes me uncomfortable. Your clown tattoo makes me uncomfortable, but guess what I deal with it, sorry the amendments to the constitution say you need to do the same thing.

SarahB1: You do have rights, however you being “uncomfortable” is not enough to infringe on someone’s second amendment rights. That is just a fact. You might say things that make me feel “uncomfortable” but that would never give me the right to limit your free speech. I love how many people on here are making up scenarios of shootouts over an argument however show me one news article where that has happened with open carry or concealed carry advocates. Everyone is worried about something that has not happened. “I fear from some of the comments left here that by visiting a public place I may be putting myself in danger of taking a stray bullet from a paranoid, judgmental vigilante.” Honestly if the person is a “vigilante” then they would be breaking the law, you should research on the laws regarding self defense. Firstly in Wisconsin you cannot use lethal power to protect your property. An unarmed person can steal your car stereo in front of you and you cannot legally shoot them, that is the law, nothing changes. You cannot shoot someone over an argument, that is illegal and you will go to jail. You can only use deadly force to protect yourself or another person from immediate danger of death. So if someone walks past you also with a gun you cannot shoot them, if someone walks past you and calls you a “paranoid, judgmental vigilante” you cannot shoot them. How much more do I need to spell it out for you no laws change, murder is still murder, the definition of self defense is still the same, are there random shootouts at places you go where you would fear “taking a stray bullet”? Because the current law says that people most likely can open carry there, unless you live in a school or something like that. I don’t know your exact scenario however like many people who are opposed to open carry have said many times there are not many random shootings or anything like that in the small town of Janesville. However the shootings that happen are committed by people who are not and were not lawfully carrying their firearm in a holster. The shootings are committed by criminals who are concealing their guns. While we are at it lets all “cut the crap” your comfort level is not someone else’s responsibility, it is a personal issue, hate to break that one to you.

Many of those leaving comments here will disagree with me, but I say "cut the crap" and get real: Open-carry may be the law, but it is one that makes many non-believers uncomfortable. Do we not have rights in certain situations? I fear from some of the comments left here that by visiting a public place I may be putting myself in danger of taking a stray bullet from a paranoid, judgmental vigilante.

All I can say is WOW.

For those who are against carrying a firearm, what OTHER rights do you want to take away?

For those who are suggesting a NEED TEST, should we apply that to church, or your freedom of speech? Who would determine the need?

For those who use the, because you can doesn't mean you should" statements, I guess we could say the same thing about the civil rights movement in the '60's and the LGBT movement that is still ongoing.

For those who want registration/permits, what other right requires permit/registration?

The GOOD NEWS, the purpose of the constitution is to protect those who carry from many of you who post here.

Tolerance and acceptance is something you will all have to learn.

mastadon: When you can accurately predict when/where crime will occur, I will leave my gun at home. As for making people feel uncomfortable, some people wear t-shirts or tattoos I find personally offensive but I get over it.
kleej: Crime doesn't occur in Janesville? As I said, I live in Sugar Creek and my car stereo was stolen from my car! Crime happens everywhere!

I think you just want to have your cake and eat it too. Your given the right to own a gun, but some (if not most) people have a problem with you showing it off in public when its totally not needed. An ice cream shop? shopping for groceries?? honestly? Not a total anti gun mentality, just a matter of respect for other peoples concerns. If I swore like a sailor, yet my inlaws had a problem with that i would conform to their wishes and go back to do what i like in my own private time. Same situation here, of course there might be that one in a million shot where you get to use it to deter someone from doing something but that is highly unlikely.

"Pearl, Miss., school shooter Luke Woodham was stopped when the school's vice principal took a .45 from his truck and ran to the scene"....from www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/.... Imagine if a law abiding citizen was carrying open or concealed in all the schools where mass murders have taken place.

Yo paullfisher, disagreeing with clowns that feel the need to be prove to the world they're big bad gun strappin' dudes who just gotta prove they have rights, doesn't make someone anti-guns! I'm totally not anti-guns, I'm totally anti-morons in a case like this. Again, this is Janesville Wisconsin, not the Bronx New York.

mastadon---- you may have made it out of Beloit alive, but you didn't look near as cool as them Niles guys without that piece strapped to you! LOL, kleej, you cracka me up mista!

Mouse, it depends on how insecure you are and/or how cool you want to look having that cool firearm strapped to your side. Or, you could be one of those people like the Niles boys who just feel the need to show the world they have rights and that overwhelming need for recognition in their life. Other than that, I think you're fairly safe at Wal-Mart.....ummm, that is unless the Niles boys decide to have a dual with ya at the end of the frozen food aisle! :o

I just wanted to let everyone know that earlier today i made a usual trip around town running various arronds and I even went to BELOIT and made it out alive. All without having a gun. Closest thing to a weapon would have been my pen i keep in my visor.

Just going to Walmart for a few items,,,,,, do I need to take a gun?

mickie: I am not following how me being asleep in my bed with my handgun in my house with me not OC'ing with the burglar having no clue I am armed had anything to do with being burglarized.

Mouse. Oh. Sorry I am a bit lost on what you posted and whom you were posting to. I did read it s l o w e r. Still came out of it---?. But cool we are on the same page!

Paul- I disagree...They stole your stereo.

mickie: What if the bad guy has a nuclear bomb? We can play what if all day. I never said I was now impervious to crime. As I said earlier, someone stole a car stereo out of my car in my driveway! All I'm saying is that it makes me less susceptible to crime, it is a deterrent to potential criminals.

Mickie we are on the same page, I think. Read slower before responding.
You need to go back on occasions to get the whole picture.
Go ahead, make my day.

Mouse- by my saying Jackass?..lol... I am lost by your post.. Paul- well what if i am faster at Cold Stone pulling my weapon? Or you don`t even see me because I am behind you.... Makes zero sense to carry a weapon.. Do I believe we can have them in our homes? Absolutely.

mickie: Sorry I didn't answer you. I must of missed it. To answer your question, never. How many my carrying avert? How should I know? Unfortunately, there are no statistics on stuff that doesn't happen. I understand you are joking about standing next to me and punching me, but that can happen even if I'm not carrying.

jpm84092
Aug 10, 2010 at 5:23 p.m.
Suggest removal
An Armed Society is a Polite Society. Some of the posts on this forum offer cursory evidence that the unarmed do not feel the need to be polite and courteous. We just read a posting of Open Carry Guys policing themselves and reminding their fellows to be polite and cordial. Can the "opposition" do the same?
Excuse me...... excuse me...... what are you talking about?
You ramble on with any toxic verbage you can think of with a one sided point of view. Please have some respect. Thank you!

Ughhh... I have a headache now too... Paul- you never answered when you were ever in a situation where you truly needed a gun? You think people dont mess with you because they see your gun.. I doubt that is the real reason. Crap if I am standing next to you at Cold Stone getting my Batter flavored ice cream- I could probably punch you in the face before you would ever even reach your gun..lol.. Of course I would never do this Paul, I actually kinda like bantering with you. It also draws attention to you (no pun intended) to either A) Maybe that thug likes your gun better than his- and he is gonna rob you of it with his much BIGGER GUN. Or B) You love the kiddies and other people asking you if you are an officer or FBI guy... LOL..

How about lets hear from some TRUE officers out here and see how they feel about Paul and others carrying on our streets..

An Armed Society is a Polite Society. Some of the posts on this forum offer cursory evidence that the unarmed do not feel the need to be polite and courteous. We just read a posting of Open Carry Guys policing themselves and reminding their fellows to be polite and cordial. Can the "opposition" do the same?

thekid3477: That was good!!! LOL!

bigroadie ive got a natural medicine that is proven to help w that headache. you up for a big roadie??;)

BigRoadie: Way to joke inappropriately. And we wonder why the anti gun people think we are crazy. Please try to keep the arguments civil and on topic.

proartist: Good job at twisting my words. The bad guy is gonna steal from someone. All I did was make sure it wasn't me. Not once did I imply that it was alright with me that someone else be victimized instead of me. I am not responsible for anyones safety other than my own or my family's. If someone holds up a store I am shopping in and I have my gun I will decide at that time what I'm going to do.

Once again, I assume and have heard that bad guys, let's assume a typical, anonymous crime, target individuals because of opportunity. So, if a bad guy sees 4 people walking across a parking lot, he's going to pick out which one to start with. If he sees a big brawny guy, a slight female pushing a stroller, an average looking Joe with a visible sidearm, which is he going to pick? The path of least resistance would be to go after the slight woman with the stroller. Why chance getting physically beaten by the big guy, shot by the average Joe. The little lady will most likely do anything he wants to make the encounter as short as possible.

i appreciate your spin at least:) i respectfully disagree and i think that it will play out in the courts but i think the federal govt will remove its penalties and allow the states to decide...as that document you referenced earlier states it should be. the 10th amendment. its exactly why uncle sam had to bribe all the states to make the drinking age 21...cuz he knew according to the 10th amendment he could not force the states to do such a thing.

'The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people'

no where in the constitution does it say anything about regulating marijuana. let the states(people) decide.

i went off topic again and of course...so i apologize but thank you:)

Mudsil:
"Our culture is in decline. THAT is why people feel a need to open carry. It's because of the REAL ills in our society, like crime, immorality, and the seven deadly sins. Open carry is simply a reaction to that."

AMEN! And now with so many people out of jobs, watch and see how some people may react, unable to feed or put a roof over their families heads. People resorting to committing suicide, robbing, killing, etc. Who knows what someone is capable of when they are backed into a corner. People have been known to crack under extreme situations. I'm not saying that this is right, but it can happen. I want and have the right to be able to protect my family.

i do think its funny tho that when people cant answer my questions they always turn it to the fact that i smoke pot. ha. and yer a criminal cuz you carry a gun.

you havent lost me. i asked you multiple questions and you replied with one no. i just wanted you to clarify. i assume being the constitutional scholar that you are, you agree that the federal govt has no control over whether marijuana is legal or not, and it should be a states rights issue...yes??

no you dont agree w same sex marriage or no you dont agree that marijauna should be re-legalized?? no to both??

i agree w spark that it should be concealed carry...cuz i also agree w bella that the mere site of a gun will scare some people. right?? nope. reality?? yup.

bella - There is no way these guys should scare you more than a criminal. No way on God's green Earth. This is exactly why WI should have conceal and carry. That way the worried have no clue they are doing so.

BigRoadie - I think you just proved the point I've been trying to make all along. "The law is on my side, so I'm gonna do what I want, and if you don't like it, get the h... out". Childish, childish, childish!! You are the last person who should be carrying a gun. Clearly, you are ready to get rid of anyone who does not agree with your point of view. CHILDISH!!

spark - no offense taken. I have no problem with law enforcement carrying guns. It's their job. I don't want Mr. Niles carrying a gun...he is not a member of law enforcement and I don't trust him. I don't want to see his gun. I want him to stay away from places where I am if he is armed. I want him to stop pretending to be John Wayne and just go home and put his gun in a lock box. He's pretty safe where he lives. I want the paranoia to subside. Violence breed violence. To me, carrying a gun is a statement of violence, unless you have a uniform to go with that gun. I am not arguing with the fact that you have a right to carry your gun. I just don't understand why on Gods green earth you think you need to in this town. Mr Niles and his kind scare me a hell of a lot more than most criminals out there.

"Wouldn't you rather have a weapon so that the bad guy sees you have one, ignores you and punches out the guy down the street who isn't showing one?"–paulfisher
Answer: No. I wouldn't wish that harm on anyone and especially not someone else whom has been targeted because of what I may or may not be carrying. By your question and support of open carrying, you demonstrate that you either selfishly don't care whom else is hurt when you display your guns in public places and/or you're hoping you can someday have the opportunity to use your gun in some fantasized "heroic" act which also would cause harm....so my previous statements are shown to be a very valid point of view.

hahaha. so im assuming you are not pro-same sex marriage?? do you agree w me that marijuana should be re-legalized??

why do you mental little people keep referring to polygamy?? thats no different than the anti-gun people insinuating you are a criminal for openly carrying. we have brains to determine the difference and draw that line. at least some of us do.

why do you think they are called amendments?? would it be cuz we amend the constitution as we learn and grow as a society?? you are right, there is no amendment covering homosexual marriages. at this point i guess there should be, but thats sad, in the land of the free, the land of equality...that we would need one for this...

Power perceived is power achieved I guess.

bella - No offense, but if having a gun is a ridiculous belief of extra safety, than why do law enforcement and military carry them? After all, you support them being safe. You see, you guys keep brining up the ice cream shop. The point you're missing is, they carry wherever they go for their own safety.

BigRoadie - I am not a pacifist. Believing that it is stupid to carry a gun to an ice cream shop in Janesville does not make me a pacifist. I support the military and I support law enforcement. I do not support Joe 6-pack and his ridiculous belief that his carrying a gun makes him safer. I believe it makes it less safe for the rest of us to be around him.

'I have a practical suggestion for both those who support open carry and those who do not. Do your homework. I will help.
For those wishing to learn more about open carry in Wisconsin, regardless if you are for or against, go to'

good post jpm...but you must be new to these blogs. if people actually learned about what they were posting on they wouldnt in good faith be able to spout their uninformed opinions...and in case you havent noticed...that would pretty much kill the need for this entire website;)

kkrrjj
I am sorry for what ahppened to you, I do not want to minimize your story, but was anyone around to help? I mean person has knife, you reach for your gun, and you are killed with a knife. Obviously we can argue someone else could be around to shoot the man, but if no one was around to help, this doesn't sound like your scenario. Loosely, guns may help in some cases, but in yours, having a gun would not, from what I gathered.

hey bigroadie do you not see the questions i ask of you??

'My rights are Ok, but to Hell with yours That's what Liberals believe in'

lmao...check out the same sex marriage two pages over and you will see its THE COMPLETE OPPOSITE.

http://www.gazettextra.com/news/2010/aug...

BigRoadie - LOL. I've been to inner city Detroit many times. I've witnessed shootings in inner city neighborhoods in Detroit. I've had guns drawn in my presence. Do you want to know what I did when that happened? I went inside and called the police. The absolutely LAST thing those situations needed was some hot-head 2nd Amendment vigilante bringing yet another gun to the party. Don't assume that an anti-gun supporter has no experience with guns.

My bad Paul - thanks for the correction.

jpm84092: There is no www.wisconsinopencarry.org, there is www.wisconsincarry.org which actually is working for both OC and CC in WI.

I have a practical suggestion for both those who support open carry and those who do not. Do your homework. I will help.
For those wishing to learn more about open carry in Wisconsin, regardless if you are for or against, go to:
www.wisconsinopencarry.org

For those wishing to learn more about concealed carry, go to:
www.uscca.us

For those wishing to learn more about the individual laws about concealed carry on a State by State basis - and learn what "may issue" means versus "shall issue" - and learn what level of training each State requrires, go to:
www.handgunlaw.us

You do not have to agree with a position to learn about it from a competent authority. If you visit the Wisconsin Open Carry website, you will be able to learn that the Open Carry guys (and gals) are not "gun nuts", but rather people, just Average Joe and Average Jane, who feel a moral obligation to use firearms to defend themselves, their families, and their homes.

To the paranoid - You ever heard of looking out for yourself? It's a part of life. Try and practice it.

Another version of what Paul said goes like this: Why is it that liberals believe it is somehow morally superior for a woman be lying naked and raped, strangled to death with her own pantyhose, - than to be standing, alive, shaken, and explaining to the nice Police Officer why her would be rapist and murderer has two large holes in his chest. The right to carry is not just a Civil Right - it is a Woman's Rights Issue. So, to my liberal anti-gun friends on this forum, why are you mysogenistic?

*Private ownership of guns is the single greatest symbol of individual power, and therefore is despised by Liberals.

*Liberals claim to be against violence, but make excuses for Liberals like Lenin, Stalin, Mao and Castro who murder and torture political dissidents. Liberals claim to be against violence, but they seek to disarm individuals and render them powerless before the thugs, thieves and murderer's who rule the inner cities.

Retrieved from the World Wide Web from

http://www.armchairviews.com/commie.htm

To kkrrjj:
The link below will take you to the Utah BCI website. Utah is arguably the most popular CFP in the nation as it is recognized by so many States (not WI). If you get a UT permit, you will be more prepared when WI gets CCW - and when traveling in the 2/3 of the USA that honors a Utah permit, you don't have to be defenseless.
http://publicsafety.utah.gov/bci/conceal...

kkrrjj: I have no idea how you feel. I can only offer my sympathies. I hope this saying isn't too trite but I saw a poster once that said "who can tell me how the raped woman lying bleeding, and beaten on the floor, is morally superior to the woman standing over the attempted rapist with a smoking gun in her hands"

you crack me up bigroadie:) not all liberals are the spawn of satan as you insist...and not all conservatives are the blood of gw. i assume you support the efforts to re-legalize marijuana??

For those of you against carrying a gun - either open or conceled, let me run this scenario by you - I worked in a small town, was leaving work late, and was confronted by a man with a knife, I was raped, cut, and beaten. The pysical and mental toll will occasionly still bring me to tears,(TV shows will leave me shaken) but for the most part, I have recovered. If I had been able to legally carry, you had better beleive that I would have had a gun at that knife fight and used it.
Know this - that if (when) the conceled carry passes, I will be at the range brushing up my aim, and repeating what ever classes I need to to carry.
Small towns should always be safe, but they arn't, Generally Janesville and surronding areas don't see personal invasion, it doesn't mean it doesn't happen, or it won't happen to you or someone you know.

bella: I am not a vigilante. I do not go out looking for trouble. You do realize that the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that police officers have no obligation to protect you, right? Also, if/when you get mugged, would you rather tell the police 'hey, this guy robbed me and he went that away' or would you rather say 'hey officer, this guy, who I am holding right here, tried mugging me'.

Kinda a trite quotation but it is true 'when seconds counts, cops are only minutes away'.

oh...and PaulFisher: Yes. Pretty darn ridiculous. Truly ridiculous.

I'm with Mickie....leave the gun carrying to the professionals...the POLICE. Vigilantes - we don't need you making our society even more fear-filled than it already is. Keep your guns at home and try to enjoy your day. There might just be something GOOD in the world, too.

JCK: Yessir! Pretty darn ridiculous, huh?

mickie: Who said I "need to be packin'" to go for ice cream, or for any reason whatsoever for that matter? Where do you get this stuff?
You claim you read the article, but if you did it must have been with one eye closed, and your hands over your ears and chanting "na na na na na".
I wish you no harm, I also am one of the good guys (and no, I don't own a gun). But a part of me wishes you would have a "come to Jesus" moment, and be rescued and defended from the bad guys by someone carrying a weapon. Then you would understand the real world.

Well if Jesus says it's ok .....

Here are the thoughts of the Rev. Dan Stanley of Eau Claire, WI.
https://www.eauclairejournal.com/article...

So am I understanding this correctly? You can't carry a loaded gun in a car.

Which would mean that you'd wear your loaded gun until you got in your car and then you would have to unload it. Then when you got to the ice cream store you'd get out of car, load your gun and carry it inside. After getting the ice cream and returning to your car you'd have to unload your gun. Then reload it when you got to WalMart and unload it when you were finished there. Etc. etc. repeating this process each and every stop of your day.

mickie - Wow, calling me your childish little names because you live under a rock. You don't have to worry about me hurting you. Yes I may be hit by a car or die many other ways that I can't prevent. However Mickie, murder, rape, etc is really quite something different. That is someone purposely inflicting harm on you. There's nothing accidental about it. Who are you to say people shouldn't be able to protect themselves? It's perfectly legal and their God given right. Stop being so paranoid.

mickie: So, you don't have car insurance? If you do, why? Are you an insurance nut? How dare you? What percentage of people get in car accidents?

mickie: You are right. The likelihood that I will get mugged/murdered/raped at Cold Stone is low, however, last time I checked, I don't think that any criminal phoned ahead to let anyone know they were coming. Maybe if I could be assured that I won't get mugged/murdered while I go to the grocery store, I would leave the weapon at home. Since I can't I guess I'll settle for being called a gun nut. In all my open carry experiences, I haven't had the cops called on me once, haven't had a single person either come up to me or say in a voice I can hear 'gee what a nut' or any other derogatory item. Only on the web have I ever been challenged. What you don't realize is that there are handguns all around you, I just choose to be legal and only open carry. As for road rage, it takes 2 to tango. Personally, when someone cuts me off or flips me off, I just wave. Once again, you cannot carry a loaded gun in a car legally. If a road rage incident turns into gun play, it is a criminal that did it. They are breaking the law. For me to shot anyone around my car, I would have to get out of the car, retrieve my locked gun case, pull out the case from the car, open the case, load the gun and then be ready to use it. Sounds like an easy way for me to just 'go off half cocked'.

Spark- same world as you with all the same idiots as you.. Again- you may "possibly" be hit by a car in your car.. there are millions of accidents on the road everyday.. So, you shold never get in your car again.. This carrying a gun is insane. Concealed or not. Leave it to the trained professionals who DO risk their lives. Not Paul, or Sparky..

Paul- hmmm, I bet those thugs at Cold Stone must really be a threat.. LOL.. Please, I could possibly get hit by a car so I better never get back in mine or on the road. The threats you speak of especially in Milton, are by far not NEAR the threat you may "possibly" have in the Projects. Soooo, when you and all the "regular Joe Blows" run into "Johnny Jackass" who also carries a weapon get into a shoot out over road rage, or stealing a parking spot---- I hope I am not the innocent bystander that gets tagged.. It seems to me that if people want to carry guns, go get training to be a police officer- not play pretend or wanna be..

mickie - Exactly what World are you living in? It certainly isn't the same as everyone else. You are aware that people are robbed, murdered and raped daily, right? Sure the little dream World of no crime would be fantastic, but it's not going to happen.

I am pleased that this article by the Janesville Gazette has got people talking about the Civil Right to keep and bear arms (both US and Wisconsin Constitutional versions). Janesville is my home town. I was raised and went to school in JVL. I used to believe that only the police should carry guns in public. Now I believe it is my civic duty to always be armed. And now, like my American Express, I never leave home without it (a firearm).

My friends in Wisconsin who wish to do likewise are denied the right to carry concealed so they carry openly. While I personally support Open Carry, I prefer concealed carry. As evidenced by some of the comments on this forum, Open Carry scares the Sheep.

I had a Utah Concealed Firearm Permit while I lived in Wisconsin and once asked a pro-2A Wisconsin Legislator why I was denied a right in Wisconsin that I could exercise in 2/3 of the USA. He told me that Concealed Carry would be a legislative priority when Wisconsin has a new Governor. When Wisconsin has a new Governor, I personally believe that most of the Open Carry folks will start to conceal their handgun.

By the way, not all 2nd Amendment advocates are conservative and Republican. Some Democrats support 2A. Since all of you here are computer friendly, google "Blue Steel Democrats" and learn why some liberals carry concealed weapons.

mickie: I have no clue how many times I HAVEN'T been robbed, murdered, beaten because I am wearing a gun. Do you really believe crime doesn't occur in Rock or Walworth County? There was just a shooting in the Town of Delavan last week. There were some murders in the City of Delavan within the last couple of years. Someone stole my car stereo from my car sitting in my driveway in the Town of Sugar Creek. Would I of shot them if I saw them? Depends, were they armed?

While I'm not paranoid, I do believe evil people live amongst us.

Super-- Ummmm, I did read the article.. Really? You think you need to be "packin" to go for ice cream or shoes? L O L.. Let me repeat.. L O L... I do not want to live in a society where people carry weapons, why? Because there are far more idiots then mature enough people that will do it. Please tell me of a real honest to god situation in your life where you "needed" a gun.. Its insane.

matthew516 - you said, "maybe they should look in the mirror and ask themselves why someone might want to bring harm to them."
So what you're saying is that people asked to have harm brought onto them? That's just plain dumb. Criminals harm people because they are lowlife scum that have no concerns about life. Your damn right someone should be able to protect themselves from that. Whether it's with your karate chops or a gun.

matthew516: Just like you don't go around showing your kicks, I don't go around shooting. Do you leave your arms or legs at home?

Once again, I cannot legally conceal my weapon, so I have 2 choices, open carry or leave it home.

OVERKILL! It's taking a "right" and flat out abusing it. I've got a degree in martial arts, yet I don't walk around Janesville with my belt practicing my lethal kicks for the entire world to see. If these guys are that paranoid that their lives are under potential threats all the time, maybe they should look in the mirror and ask themselves why someone might want to bring harm to them. Extreme overkill is all this is.

scooter47: Sorry if I wasn't clear. I wasn't asking for your name, I was just giving my reasons.

I am sorry, Mr. Fisher, but most of us don't use our real names for a reason. You never know who might read what you wrote I guess. Better to be safe than sorry. Have a good day.

scooter47: I use my real name. If you did, you would have no reason to be scared of me. I'm just an average citizen who carries a gun. Trust me, I do not want to shoot anyone! I just want to defend myself. I don't start fights, I try really hard to be a peacemaker, just sometimes the other person just won't go away or let me leave. I can honestly say I have NEVER pulled my gun out of it's holster to use it other than at a range. Just its presence and me staying out of dangerous situations has been deterrent enough (so far).

Mudsill said, "These two gentlemen are no different than a bunch of whacko greenie turds...". That's not very nice Mudsill.

Where is Gazettefan on this one? Hasn't he/she stayed under their rock long enough to read the news and watch the news to comment here? Some posters on here are getting out of hand. Knowing that some do have guns, I would not use my real name, that is just dumb. Just be careful people, that's all us passifist want (spelling?).

SarahB1: Nope! I was born over seas to two American citizens. I have no problem with leaving citizenship the way it is. If you are born here, naturalized here or born of citizens, you are a citizen.

This, however, is off topic on this article but please be assured that I support the Constitution, all of it.

Mudsill: Are they not both important? Can't we focus on both at the same time? Fisher: It probably is difficult to follow what I mean. I am just saying that I have a feeling that more than a few people who defend the "right to bear arms" will also seek the removal of the 14th Amendment. I hope not, but I have a bad feeling that I am right here.

SarahB1: The 14th amendment was just used by the Supreme Court of the US in McDonald vs Chicago to make the 2nd apply to the states. I guess I do not follow your statement. I support all amendments. In this case, the Wisconsin Constitution is much clearer on gun rights than the US one and I support both. "The people have the right to keep and bear arms for security, defense, hunting recreation or any other lawful purpose." Article 1, Section 25.

bella - People understand what you are saying. You are saying this situation is not responsible gun ownership, in your opinion. People are questioning why you feel that way when it's perfectly legal, and these guys are causing no harm to you, or anyone. Irresponsible gun ownership comes from those that do things illegal and use the guns in an illegal manner.

bella: Didn't you mean to type "turds" in that last sentence? (It would be just as appropriate for a certain someone IMO.)

I certainly hope everyone on here rightfully defending the Constitution is also ready to fight against dropping the 14th Amendment to that same Constitution.

Support_the_2nd, Big Roadie, and some others: If you would actually pay attention to what is being said here by most of us "libtards", you would see that we are not arguing against the 2nd Amendment or your right to defend yourself. We are questioning the logic behind carrying a weapon to buy ice cream in a small town like Janesville. We are saying that even if you have the right to carry your weapon, perhaps it is not necessary to do so in every little daily task. We are saying this is not responsible gun-ownership. We are NOT questioning your right to own guns. Why don't you read the comments again and then ask yourself who the "...tards" are.

I am amazed by the comments here from people who DON'T want people to be able to defend themselves. It makes me GLAD we have a constitution to protect our rights from YOU people.

I just cannot believe the prejudice here, you people shouldn't come here and spout your crap about DON'T DO IT, instead you should look inward at yourself and your prejudice.

Just because it's legal doesn't mean you should do it??? Using that argument, Rosa Parks was WRONG, the entire civil rights movement was WRONG.

If you don't support ALL rights, then you support none! Those who stand against our rights should be ashamed, VERY ASHAMED!

proartist - your responses continue to go further and further off the deep end. I don't open carry, but if I had a handgun would I? I don't know, but I certainly wouldn't expect my "self confidence" to try and stop a criminal. You throw around tons of accusations about reasoning for carrying openly yet you provide no concrete evidence or factual basis for your accusations. It is as if by belittling others you think your point become more valid - typically only someone who lacks self confidence needs to belittle another to make their point. Get a life.

If you do not like it LEAVE the state,O that's wright all but 2 states have CCW, or open carry.

Paulfisher says...criticaleye: There are state laws against being intoxicated and carrying firearms.

Go to http://www.wisconsincarry.org/default.ht...... and click on 'Legal' to see the laws.

Paul, you are asking them to do something they seem unwilling to do, read. It's like asking the DemocRATS to read the Arizona Immigration Law, the OBAMACARE Health bill, etc. They simply refuse to, choosing instead to bury their heads in the sand, holding hands, singing kumbiya, while waiting for the police to respond because they can no breath!! Pull your own head out and take care of yourself!! the cops cannot be there when you need them most.

Proartist: Why do people have signs outside their home saying 'protected by Brinks' or some other company? It is a deterrent. The bad guy will pick a softer target. Same with a gun. Obviously a bad guy that wants to attack me even if he sees my gun will do it anyway, but most likely if I'm in the Wal-Mart parking lot at midnight and someone is looking for an easy target, he'll look for a 5'2" woman with 2 kids and no visible hand gun and walk right by me with my shinny 9mm on my hip.

proartist - There are simply no polite words to describe you. Tell everyone that fought for your sorry a** that they are cowards for carrying guns. What a pathetic statement.

SarahB1: I do drive a junker and I drive other places than Janesville. Milwaukee, for example.

proartist: Limited self confidence? Can't take care of myself? What would you do if an experienced bad guy did something to you? Fight him with your hands? Don't forget, he does this for a living. Wouldn't you rather have a weapon so that the bad guy sees you have one, ignores you and punches out the guy down the street who isn't showing one?

Kleej: Blatant abuse of one's rights? I also go to church and speak freely and don't allow police to search me and don't self incriminate, so you are right, I use my rights. I didn't realize a right could be abused.

Everyone: So... as the article says, I initially bought a gun to protect the large amounts of cash I would bring to the bank for my business and also to protect the business. Since WI doesn't allow concealed carry, how exactly was I supposed to do that other than open carry? Or should I have allowed bad guys to take my hard earned money?

It's blatant abuse of a right. I have the right to stand on the steps of city hall and read my bible out loud 24/7, but I don't. These guys have simply taken a law and made a mockery out of it. It's always the simple minds who like to shed the light on themselves that ruin it for everyone. They're attention hounds. Our children and their children will more than likely be the one's needing a firearm strapped to their sides the way this country is declining and heading towards anarchy. Too bad these guys can't focus their head strong ways into doing something constructive in their lives.

proartist: "Cowards carry guns, plain and simple..."
.
Pretty broad brush, don't you think? I carried (and fired) a gun in defense of this nation... was I scared, hell yes. A coward... well, I have some words for you which would get this post deleted.

Cowards carry guns, plain and simple. They are so afraid of everyone else they don't worry about how they WILL endanger others in public if their gun is used. Pretending to be a hero protecting others is belied by relying on outside deadly force instead of rational considerations, real inner strength, and common sense. Open carry advocates claim criminals will be discouraged from committing lawless acts if other citizens are publicly displaying their weapons. Law enforcement officials disagree saying such a scenario makes it far more difficult for officers to determine who are the criminals and who are the law-abiding citizens at a given crime scene or domestic disturbance. Guns never have and never will provide the mythical protection sought. Those who open carry just blazenly show their distain for others; demonstrate they have limited self-confidence so, instead, they rely on a gun to provide it. They let all know that they are part of our cultures' ills and not even attempting to be part of the solutions.

paulfisher: Answer to your carjacking scenario? Drive a junker. I don't have the stats, but I bet carjackings are rare in Rock County.

Boy ! This story really stirred the natives up. lol

mastadon: In Wisconsin, if you have a gun rack, the weapon needs to be unloaded and fully enclosed in a case specifically designed for guns or you will be running afoul of a DNR regulation. This is one example of a not well thought out anti poaching regulation making me unsafe. Because of that regulation, I cannot have a loaded handgun in my car, so if I'm driving around and someone wants to car jack me, I would be defenseless because the DNR thinks I might shoot Bambi from my car with my 9mm. I don't hunt, never have, most likely never will.

jsvlparkergrad: Since people seem to interpret the US Constitution 2nd amendment differently, let's use Wisconsin's Constitution instead. It is much more clear: "The people have the right to keep and bear arms for security, defense, hunting recreation or any other lawful purpose." Article 1, Section 25. Can't be much more clear than that. "Keep and BEAR", which is OC and CC.

Yada: The article is wrong. We do not need permission to carry on private property. If a business owner asks us to leave, we must or we can be charged with trespassing. As for the football player, if I'm an idiot and discharge the firearm in a reckless way and harm is caused to either myself or others then I fully expect to be prosecuted. There are laws against those actions. I practice safe weapon handling.

KathrynSullivan: Feel free to call the cops. When the cops show up, there are laws they MUST follow and they CANNOT even talk to me and ask me any questions unless they have a reasonable suspicion that I have or am about to commit a crime. Just seeing a handgun in a holster does not meet the level of suspicion necessary.

Hmm...wierd because I was visiting home last year and my cousin had two of his rifles in his window, granted they were both in soft cases but still in the window. If you look at the states that have the highest population they tend to be states with big cities, which account for most of the states crime rate. Wisconsin has roughly 6 million and NY has 18 million give or take...so of course the crime rate is higher, there is more people. By the way, there is an equal number of red/blue states in the top ten worst states (crime rates) if you go to top 20 it leans more towards the red. So spare me your political mumbo jumbo, regardless of who is in power crime is worse in densely populated areas. But there is always the exception to the rule too. Racine WI - 90,000/ Buffalo NY - 300,000 and both tied for the same ranking in gun related murders in recent years.

"He would like the law to allow people to carry a gun openly or concealed without needing a permit or training."

No training? It's not going to do anyone any good if you can't handle your weapon. You'll end up shooting yourself or the cashier that's being robbed.

I'm more afraid of people walking around like cowboys looking for a reason to use their guns than I am of criminals.

There does not seem to be much respect here for people's opinions. I have to question the maturity of those who can't debate in a civil manner. It would seem to me that those are the very people that would cause problems with guns.

Bigroadie...your comments are not helping your cause. By the way, im from the east and alot of people to this day hold their hunting rifles/shotguns in holders mounted to pickup truck windows. And i have no problem with that, its there in PLAIN sight because they have easy access to it for hunting. I know because ive had a truck and a gun mount. But that is completely different then carring it on your hip while shopping,etc. I just dont understand why anyone would be so scared to go out in public that they feel they need to bring a gun. Of course things can happen, but if someone really wants to cause harm they will cause harm. If your in a ice cream shop and a guy walks in to rob it, could you pull your gun out of its holster quick enough that you could shoot him before he shoots you??? I doubt it. he would have already seen your gun.

I lived in Arizona and I was able to, if I wanted, to carry a gun. I lived on a foothill and 15 minutes from the Mexican border. My husband came here to Janesville for 1-1/2 years for a job while I stayed in Arizona with my children, who are adults now. I owned a gun for protection.

"they were still using muskets. The weaponry today is far more sophisticated, and easier to shoot your own foot off if not properly trained to use it."
.
Yes, there is no chance of an accidental discharge with a Brown Bess or a Charleville. All those high tech sophistication's must be a waste of time. Maybe we should stop putting safeties on modern firearms as a half cock notch was sufficient to protect your feet in the 1700's.

BunBun .. if you left ice on the sidewalk today it wouldn't be water right now. What's the point?

...
apparently, its just beyond your grasp.
.
1- the article is about open carry.
2- this state has the right to keep and bear arms yet does not allow a legal means of carrying concealed.
3-if concealed carry was legal in this state, the cause of open carry would not be as relevant.

Looks like a show down at the Milton restaurant.

“It’s our right to carry. It’s for protection,” Jeff said.
*
You never know when you might get attacked by wild Crocs and rabid Hush Huppies at the Famous Footwear. Those ice cream stores are dangerous places for the unprotected. You never know when some kid might try to strong arm your cone.

“It’s the Constitution of the United States.”
Yes, it is. And why did we write the constitution? To free ourselves from an oppressive GOVERNMENT. Not because of the PEOPLE. The whole Idea of owning firearms as a populous is to protect our property, and ourselves from our own(or other) government(s). We put this in the constitution because In Europe it is illegal for the people to possess firearms, and in effect, an uprising by the people or overthrow of the government(parliament) is pacified. The idea isn't to posess it around every store in town to have the ability to kill people or shoot those that the person carrying THINKS deserves it, it's to empower the people within our constitutional rights to be free citizens. We have police to deal with those that infringe on our freedoms and ideals. It's what they are there for. As I said, In your house, to protect yourself and family, sure. Strolling down the street? Completely unnecessary.

Now lets see,,,, ypu need guns, because this is the greatest country in the world to live in? Is that what your saying?

Wow, you carry a gun. Some freams of being a cowboy when you're 6 just never die out, do they? I wonder if they feel cool, like real men with a gun flashing about. Someone could just as easily stun them with a punch and shoot them or bystanders with their weapon.I guess I don't get why we give cops weapons when everyone can just carry one...I just don't really get this issue. Seems like some people just need that feeling of power and security. Keep your gun at home. Next thing we know someone stealing a stereo out fo a car will be shot because someone feels they have the right to just kill someone because they have a firearm on them. I pay taxes for police officers, and can protect myself and my family within my home. Outside my home, I generally feel safe enough to not have a loaded pistol at my side. If I don't feel safe somewhere without one, I don't go there. I can't think of many places I'd WANT to go where this is an issue.

I'm not against carrying hand guns, however, there's a difference between carrying hand guns and just being downright paranoid and/or gloating about being able to do it. This is Janesville.......not New York or Detroit!

Yes, the founding fathers did have muskets (and flintlock pistols). But then, so did the British and everyone else of that era. The US Military has nuclear weapons, F-16 and F-22 fighters, and tanks, submarines, and aircraft carriers. An argument might be made that the Right to Keep and Bear Arms extends to these mighty weapons as well based on comments about the founding fathers and the weaponry contemporary to their times.

And, parkergrad, there is one industry that is a bit more regulated than yours, but is related to pharmacist's regulations; that would be the companies who supply you. (See 21 CFR Part 211 - Current Good Manufacturing Practices for Human Drugs)

And thanks for the compliment. You wrote that you have been deer hunting longer than I have been alive. Even if you started at 12, you would be 70 today and likely retired from Pharmacy life.

Folks, we have just become too damned politically correct. And, the liberals among us have brainwashed us into believing that more guns = more deaths. These good folks would rather be right than know the truth.

My friends here in the "wild west" tell me about a time when every pickup had a rifle in the back window and nobody thought twice. There were no "arguments solved with gunfire" and all were polite and cordial to their neighbor(s).

The 2002 Winter Olympics came and went in Salt Lake City, and there were no gunfights between the Utah citizens who hold permits (a substantial portion of the population) and the rest of the world.

Arizona, Vermont, and Alaska have not seen wholesale slaughter, even though they do not require their citizens to hold a permit to carry concealed weapons.

And, Utah allows concealed carry by Teachers in Elementary, Secondary, and High Schools. And, students in institutes of higher education (University, Community College, Technical Schools) who are over 21 can carry concealed on campus. (The interested reader will note that no students or professors were allowed to carry at Columbine, Virginia Tech, or any of the other mass murder sites we have read about in the past few years.)

One final thought. Many of you may remember a story about a shooting at a Mall in Salt Lake City in which an off-duty deputy sheriff took out a bad guy after he had shot several people. I lived in WI at the time, but held a Utah Concealed Firearm Permit. Most Wisconsin news media did not realize that, unlike Wisconsin, Utah law enforcement officers are not allowed to carry firearms off-duty. That brave deputy had a chance to escape, but he chose to stay and defend other potential victims - on the strength of his Utah Concealed Firearm Permit - not his deputy status in Logan County - a good 90 miles away from his jurisdiction.

Just saying ...

On another angle of carrying guns:
Aren't a huge percentage of gun crimes between people that know each other? If that is true, isn't it much less having a weapon than knowing kind, nice, non-shoot you folks?? Does the amount of randomness necessitate carrying?

I still just feel with more gun carrying there is a heckuva lot more chances my wife and I will have to hop in a dumpster somewhere to avoid nice guys like the Niles' and the bad person from shooting it out. So far, knock on wood.

This the wording of the 2nd Amendment:

"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."

So the strict constitutionalists here have argued that it is a right, therefore I need no training or license to carry any weapon I want.

Well, then. What are we doing denying this right to convicted felons, mentally ill violent people, illegal immigrants or people who are intoxicated? It says nothing in the wording of the 2nd amendment about those folks. So they should also not be denied their constitutional right as well.

And the argument of the 1st Amendment, about not yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater, should not be squelched either. Didn't see nothing in the 1st Amendment about that.

The absolutist's arguments fall apart around these examples. My main concern is not banning the carrying of firearms. My main concern is that there should be some sort of testing that at least the person with the weapon can use it to some degree of safety in the public. Just like we have laws about hunting safety for those under a certain age in Wisconsin. I don't see age limits in the wording of the 2nd amendment either.

I am only interested in the safety of people in the public, so there will be less worry about the people around them carrying weapons.

Of course there are laws prohibiting drinking and carrying. Rules on paper do not stop me from worrying about drinking and carrying - I hope you can understand that.

Packer/Badger games? Summerfest? Small town fests? Weddings? I fear drunkeness and guns would mix too often with high costs for all of us law abiders.

Nope, still not convinced fish.

I can see defending yourself, family and own property - I can't go past that yet.

criticaleye: There are state laws against being intoxicated and carrying firearms.

Go to http://www.wisconsincarry.org/default.ht... and click on 'Legal' to see the laws.

jsvlparkergrad: Difference is, being a pharmacist is not a Constitutionally guaranteed right.

BunBun: To be technical, I want both. I want he option, at my convenience to open or conceal carry with no license or mandatory training required.

To all: If OC/CC was so bad, wouldn't VT, AZ and AK have issues? They have Constitutional Carry in place, no permit or training required to OC/CC. No 'blood in the streets', no 'wild west shootouts', unless you count the Mexican Mafia coming over the border and shooting people.

On the video Niles even walk like he's a cool dude. Mimics a police officer. Difference is a police officer has more stuff on his belt.

Ha ha,jpm84092, you got me on the age thing! At least I'm talking to someone my own age here.
I reached the rank of sergeant on active duty, and later attained the rank of captain in the reserves, to clarify that point.

I understand your point as well, about not needing to be licensed to walk around with a weapon, as per the 2nd amendment. But we both have to agree that some of the very young open-carry people probably did not grow up in the same gun-oriented culture that you and I did, where having and using a pistol and/or rifle was more prevalent. We were taught at a young age about respect and proper handling of firearms.

I'm pretty sure that when the 2nd amendment was written, they were still using muskets. The weaponry today is far more sophisticated, and easier to shoot your own foot off if not properly trained to use it. Also, it amuses me that some people think that if they walk around with a handgun, they will be able to shoot that bad guy from way across the other side of Woodman's parking lot. I think you would agree, especially in the heat of the moment, that one is not going to hit anything accurately, outside a few feet range, unless there is training and a LOT of practice involved.

That is the crux of my argument about the need for lots of hands-on experience before wandering around out in public with a handgun, concealed or not. I think there should be some licensing done to show that the person is capable of using that gun in WalMart (or wherever) without taking out everyone else. And it has been pointed out here that a person needs to be of a certain age and have a license to operate a motor vehicle. I know, I know, that's not a Constitutional Amendment right, but it helps to ensure that the public is a bit more safe with that training than without.

Thanks again for your humorous reply :)

BunBun .. if you left ice on the sidewalk today it wouldn't be water right now. What's the point?

A point not yet brought up.. the purpose of open carry demonstrations such as the one in the article above, is to highlight the fact that most of the pro carry people would rather have legal concealed carry ( with the attendant licensing and training). Our state legislature has dropped the ball on this by not overriding Doyle's veto of the original concealed carry bill. If we had concealed carry this story would not have been published a

Hi Parkergrad,

I "got it" and even agree with you. Please note that while the law does not require it, I have pleaded with the folks who open carry to get training and practice. I do not think pimply faced teenagers can lawfully open carry though.

I have not suggested anyone on this forum (by name) of being a sheep. Any military veteran (thanks for your service, by the way) falls into the category of paid professional sheepdog. Not all sheepdogs have the luxury of "fangs" in our respective places of employment and even though I do not know you, what you have written suggests to me that you are a sheepdog at heart and have "fangs" if law and circumstances allowed it. I am one of the lucky ones, my co-workers know, and are both supportive and appreciate.

I have never been a sergeant and a captain. Wore railroad tracks for while though. And, congratulations on going deer hunting for 58 years.

As for training for concealed carry, it varies by State. Most concealed carry States require "at least as rigorous" training before they grant reciprocity.

While I recognize your valid concerns, the "nine wise ones" have incorporated the 2nd Amendment onto the States. I do not need a permit to go to church. I do not need a permit to go to school. I do not need a permit to have a lawyer present before questioning. I do not need a permit to refrain from telling the Police things that might incriminate me. You enjoy these same rights too and men who are and were at least as brave as you or I have paid the ultimate price to insure them. So, logically, why do I need a permit to carry a handgun, open or concealed?

That is why I would prefer someone walking around with a weapon that could kill me in an instant if not properly handled..."be trained to use that weapon."

Sorry I didn't type that part in quotes into my last post.

paullfisher: Are you kidding me? There are no comparisons between carrying a weapon without any training and reporters and church-goers. Nice strawman arguments though. Reporting and going to your own church does not kill other people (usually).

On the other hand, I cannot work as a pharmacist without the many years of schooling, training, national and state board exams, and finally state licensure. This is because I do provide a service to the public that requires extensive knowledge about medications, that are potentially fatal if not properly dispensed. In fact, no matter where I practice pharmacy, I am probably in one of the most strictly regulated professions by state and federal governments.

That is why I would prefer someone walking around with a weapon that could kill me in an instant if not properly handled. As far as I know, reporters can't kill you with their words, and church-goers assemble to worship the god of their choice.

Ted Kennedy's car killed more people than my handgun.

I think it's easy to sit behind a keyboard and spout off at the mouth either way.
*
I did a psych thesis on this very subject with ample hard data supplied by the FBI and local Sheriff's departments and the results would convince anyone with critical thinking ability.
*
Would I attempt to convince anyone either way on the issue online? Hell no. Most extremists are to stupid either way to decipher logic and fact. They simply research from their perspective. Adding debate to a medium were intelligence has no measure is pointless.

Making comparisons to the 'wild west' is just silly. 1st of, show me some statistics that when people open carried in the wild west that there was rampant murder in the streets? Does everyone one believe everything in movies? Does anyone realize that the shootout at the OK corral was between lawmen (police) and outlaws (criminals)? Not between legal open carriers.

As for training or permits, do reporters need permits or training before they can report? Do they have restrictions where they can report? Can they report in school zones? Can they report in bars? Let's cover religion, can you only go to church with a permit? Can you only go to church if you go to school?

jpm84092: I think you failed to read my first post. Sergeants and captains in the military are not picked for their "sheep-like" qualities. Having been both, I would know this. I own guns. Besides many years of Active and Reserve duty handling weapons, I have hunted in Wisconsin for more years than you've probably been alive.

However, having a weapon at my place of employment (a pharmacy) was not an option. Doing so would have ended in my termination at work, and leaving me to face the consequences of the state's Pharmacy Board revoking my license to practice pharmacy.

Did you understand that part? OK, then read my second post about the situations we face as pharmacists. I DO NOT want some pimply-faced teenager with no training taking potshots at me and the guy robbing me. My objection is that these open and concealed-carry civilians are not trained for this. I would like these people to have some extensive training before strapping their "piece" on and "coming to my rescue". Is that understandable to you now?

Is it too much to ask that there be training involved before someone is allowed to carry a weapon around a bunch of civilians? We, in the military, had MANY hours of training with our weapons before we were allowed to carry them around.

for those of you that want more info on open carry, and the laws, .. http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/forumd...

One more thought meant for those who open carry in Wisconsin. A previous poster has made a valid point when it comes to training and marksmanship. Just as I feel it is my civic duty to lawfully carry a concealed weapon here in the West, I also feel I have a duty to train, train, train, and practice, practice, practice. I had to demonstrate to the State of Nevada that I could shoot the Phase I (close quarter combat Law Enforcement Qualification) to the level of an FBI Agent, I hold myself to that standard every time I visit the range (at least 3-4 times per month.)

I say to my open carry friends in Wisconsin, the law may not require it, but ethics demand that you know how to safely and effectively use your weapon should you ever have to use it to lawfully defend yourself, your family, or your home.

To respectfully correct a previous poster: Only a handful of States allow open or concealed carry at 18. The majority require the person to be 21 and those who are under 18 may not carry concealed or open in States that have a 21 year old minimum.

I had to laugh about this. Were those two guys scared someone might take their little ice cream cones from them? Was it their way to intimidate the counter girl to give them bigger scoops? hehehe

There is nothing wrong with being a sheep. Sheep are well behaved and do not hurt other sheep except by accident or extreme provocation. However, when the wolf comes (think drug crazed bad guy looking for more drugs and thinking in terms of rape, murder and mayhem), the sheep long for the sheepdog to bare his fangs and fight off the wolf. Some sheepdogs get paid (think police and military). Others accept the terrible responsibility of carrying a firearm. Some of us think of it as a Civic Duty (I would be among those who think it a Civic Duty).

To answer your question. No training whatever is needed to carry a handgun openly. It may not be "brandished" and the holder must behave him/her self. Indeed, particularly in WI, absolute courtesy is required. This is as it should be. Now that the "nine wise ones" have decided that the right to keep and bear arms is incorporated onto the States, keeping and bearing arms is a Civil Right. I do not need training or a permit for my other Civil Rights to be respected. Why just the 2nd Amendment Civil Right? (Please keep in mind that bad guys and gang-bangers do not open carry because they do not want anyone to know they are armed and intent on evil. People with a holstered side arm who are super courteous and well behaved are not bad guys.) There have been incidents in which bad guys put off robbery because they wanted to be commit armed robbery and not get into a gunfight.

With Concealed Carry, it varies by State. Alaska, Vermont, and Arizona allow any citizen over 21 to carry without a permit or any training. The remaining 45 States all require various levels of safety, law, and other training with Nevada being the most stringent in terms of demonstrated marksmanship (same level as an FBI agent). And, while Vermont does not have a CFP system, Alaska and Arizona continue to issue permits so that their citizens can carry in States that honor those respective permits. Those who want permits must take the training and submit to a background check. All permit applicants are most carefully screened and vetted before a permit is issued.

jsvlparkergrad- You must be 18 years or older and training varies from state to state. A 48 hour period is required to purchase and hunter's safety is required if one is to use a gun for hunting. A permit and training is required for conceal/carry, but that doesn't exist here.

Permission or no permission - alcohol is everywhere. That we can pretty much agree on.
How do you pro-carry folks feel about the two being as or more common than driving while intoxicated?
It scares the crap out of me.

Good questions, parkergrad. I also would like to know. Some of us have never used or owned a gun. Give us some information on here instead of arguments, will you?

jpm84092: I am not one of the "sheep". I posed some serious questions earlier and they were not addressed.

I am one of the lucky pharmacists whose never had a gun shoved in my face by someone seeking controlled substances.

What I was questioning is, how much training is required to carry a weapon around? I wouldn't want some hotdog with a pistol on his hip, taking potshots at some some junkie that has a gun in my face, making that junkie shoot me, or being hit by the hotdog who was ironically trying to save my life. In that situation, my main objective is to hand over the drugs and save myself and/or my fellow employees.

Can someone tell me what the training and age requirements are for people to carry weapons openly. I don't want to end up being the dead one in this situation.

mickie: Read the article!! And you can think anything you want, that doesn't change the facts.

It's quite obvious there are many people on this post that would never try and defend themselves in a time of need. That's your choice. Everyone reacts differently.

Sigma40- what gives you a right to decide who to pull the trigger on?
I hope you are behaving if I carry a 4ft 2x4 around. Does that sound fair?

I would like to know how the Niles' boys feel about mix of open carry and places where alcohol is served? Same? Different?

Look how good our state does in drinking and driving. (sad sarcasm).

I think it`s ridiculous to carry a weapon in this fashion.. It also looks ridiculous. I think some of these men like the fact that someone may think they are the police, or some sort of operation going on. I can`t imagine needing to carry while going for ice cream. I feel its a power trip thing. What a joke.

One of my favorite quotes is "Guns are like parachutes, if your ever in a situation where you need one and dont have one, you'll probably never need one again". I also agree, concealed weapons would be better. No real reason to walk around like these 2 guys, but i dont see a prob with it. People against this need to realize that this is more people against crime. Cops cant be everywhere at all times. If a cops 5 minutes away.... thats a LONG time.

Sigma40: “If you lived and experienced things a little harsher and know what lies out there maybe your more acustom to being prepared.” I think that is exactly part of why I feel the way that I do. When I was younger there was a man on my parents land with a shot gun who was trying to harm us he was slowed by a family member with a gun long enough for the police to intervene and everyone survived even though there were two guns. They survived because one of the two had a level head and enough patients to be able to slow the man and the man slowed only because my family member was armed. That is one day I will never forget and had it not been for that firearm I don’t know what would have happened. But I know that the firearm slowed him enough to give the cops needed time. One of those experiences that molded how I feel on the topic.

One of the problems that some people who have posted have is that they may never have lived out of State and in a "shall issue" concealed carry state and are not used to handguns. Only Illinois and Wisconsin forbid all concealed carry. The other 48 States have one form or another. Some States are more restrictive than others, but 48 of 50 States allow some form of concealed carry, and there are no wild west type shooting sprees by permit holders. - While I support open carry, I prefer concealed carry. As evidenced by this forum, open carry scares the naive and those who do not understand. It scares the sheep.

As for the person who suggested that the two ESCAPED CONVICTS might have a concealed carry permit, please tell me which State issues a CFP to convicted felons??? LMAO

spark - you are absolutely right. That's why I included the first paragraph of the Wikipedia that mentions how difficult it is to compare crime statistics from different countries. In all honesty, I don't know that either side in this debate can prove their point with statistics one way or the other.

Wow, that is something you don't see everyday.

I wonder what would happen if the economy got worse, and Janesville really slipped downhill and started turning really ghetto. Lots of muggings, rapes, ...crime in general. Would peoples opinion on this change based on the environment they live in? I have guns but have no need to carry one, but if I was living in East St. Louis and took my dog for a walk I might reconsider. Everyones opinon is going to be biased on the the way they grew up. If you lived a peaches and cream life or fed by a silver spoon, perhaps guns are dumb and pointless because you never needed them. If you lived and experienced things a little harsher and know what lies out there maybe your more acustom to being prepared. To each their own. If you need to strap on a gun im glad your prepared for those that are not. We dont have crystal balls and we dont know what potential threat lurks around every corner. Be thankful some people are prepared. What if you were in that ice cream shop and some crazy walked in and went on a rampage? You got 2 guys that could potentially stop it and potentially save lives. "What if" is the big question... none of us know.

raoul_duke - Do you think before you speak?

One of these gun-toters is going kill someone accidentally, probably his own child, you just watch and wait.

Bella - Your post doesn't show how many murders were committed by guns. People are murdered everyday by drunk drivers, knifes, physical abuse and the list go's on.
-
Regarding other countries. Population plays a hugh role and gun ownership is not to blame for all fatal acts of crime. Norway has far and away the highest firearm ownership per capita in Western Europe, it has the lowest murder rate. Other nations with high firearms ownership and comparably low murder rates include Denmark, Greece, Switzerland, Germany and Austria. Holland has a 50 percent higher murder rate despite having the lowest rate of firearm ownership in Europe. And Luxembourg, despite its total handgun ban, has a murder rate that is nine times higher than countries such as Norway and Austria.

If guns kill people, then pencils miss spell words. You don't see parents blamming the kids failed spelling test grade on the pencil.

Glock21sf: You wrote, "... you are an idiot." What happened to proponents being polite here?

SarahB, I stopped being polite when people on here started calling me NutJob, telling me to go drown myself and do everyone a favor, calling me everything in the book. I can only take so much!, and yes I am using words, not a gun.

analertcitizen wrote...

Glock- Regarding the article on the fugitives in WY. Nowhere in the article did it say that the fugitives were not licensed to carry guns when they committed their crimes.Perhaps they were!?

Another example of a Liberal that can't read!!! did you read the article?? These are escaped murderers that just broke out of a prison in Arizona!!!!!!!!!!! I highly doubt that they are allowed to carry a gun legally you idiot!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Bella: That is simple to answer. They do not see it as something that is irresponsible to do, I believe that would not see it as flaunting either. They have enough training to feel comfortable enough personally with their firearms to do so without fear of harming anyone who does not try to harm them first. It comes down to their mindset they feel that it makes them better prepared. As a boy scout as a child we were taught to be prepared. I carry a knife in case I need it and don’t feel the need to carry a firearm. These men feel that there might come a time when they would need a firearm and they feel confident in their skills and comfortable carrying around others. Some people feel that it is being overly prepared however they feel that it is the proper level of preparedness for themselves. Who is right and who is wrong I don’t know but I am glad that we have the right to chose and I am glad that there are people practicing these rights. Now if they violated the law in any way I would be right there with anyone else requiring that they are punished to the full extent of the law.

JCK Makes the best statement, Nile and son should answer.

The manner in which America's crime rate compared to other countries of similar wealth and development depends on the nature of the crime used in the comparison.[28] Overall crime statistic comparisons are difficult to conduct, as the definition of crimes significant enough to be published in annual reports varies across countries. Thus an agency in a foreign country may include crimes in its annual reports which the United States omits.

Some countries such as Canada, however, have similar definitions of what constitutes a violent crime, and nearly all countries had the same definition of the characteristics that constitutes a homicide. Overall the total crime rate of the United States is similar to that of other highly developed countries. Some types of reported property crime in the U.S. survey as lower than in Germany or Canada, yet the homicide rate in the United States is substantially higher.

The Global Peace Index ranked the United States the 85th most peaceful nation in the planet, among 149 nations. New Zealand ranks as the most peaceful and Iraq as the most violent. This index puts the United States behind countries like Cuba, Mozambique, Sierra Leone, China, Libya, Brazil and behind most western Europe.[29]

[edit] Homicide
The US homicide rate, which has declined substantially since 1991, is still among the highest in the industrialized world. There were 17,034 murders in the United States in 2006[30] (666,160 murders from 1960 to 1996).[31] In 2004, there were 5.5 homicides for every 100,000 persons, roughly three times as high as Canada (1.9) and six times as high as Germany (0.9). A closer look at The National Archive of Criminal Justice Data indicates that per-capita homicide rates over the last 30 years on average of major cities, New Orleans' average per capita homicide rate of 52 murders per 100,000 people overall (1980–2009) ranks highest among major U.S. cities[32][33] Most industrialized countries had homicide rates below the 2.5 mark. Overall the homicide rate in the United States was similar to that of some lesser developed Eastern European countries.[34][35][36]

- From Wikipedia; you'd have to verify the sources yourself.

bella - And that same weapon could prevent a fatal outcome of a crime. To each his own I guess.

sugarbear1 - The reactions to your comment will be minimal because the comment was completely exaggerated and far fetched.

spark - I am not blaming the weapon for the crime. I am blaming the weapon for the fatal outcome of the crime.

I'm curious to know how many times in their lives John and Jeff Niles have been in a situation in which they felt their lives were threatened and they needed a firearm to defend themselves. Personally I'm 60 years old and have never been in that situation.

mespl - I think it's interesting that you were brought up around guns (and learned how to handle them safely), and so you feel safe around them. And I grew up without ever seeing one (except in my father's lock box at the police station where he worked), and I fear them and what they do. We are both products of our upbringing. The thing is, I am an immigrant to this country (lived here all my adult life), and I respect your laws. I respect your right to own arms and protect your home. Ideally, I would wish they were banned, yes. But all I can do about that is voice my opinion as a member of a democratic society. What made me react so strongly about this article is the fact that these men carry weapons out in public, to places where there are often children, and there is really and truly no reason whatsoever for them to do so. We know that they have the legal right to do it, but why flaunt that in this irresponsible way?

Oh, heck with all this nonsense and angry comments. Lets all just carry guns on our hips and when one of us gets ticked off we will just shoot em like the old days in the west. Then we can tell the sheriff "I was defending myself" then eventually we will just wipe out the human race, since now days most people think they are defending themselves and our world is so full of hate anyway. We wont have to worry about anything bad happening as all our problems in this world will be solved by shooting each other to death. Yep I better hurry and teach my kids how to shoot a gun so they can protect themselves when their mad at someone, and to teach them to feel safe becasue someone else will be packing so they better be packing too....Hey this is a great idea....LMAO I cant wait to see all the responses to mine now....lol

bella - Again, that theory is blaming the weapon for the crime, no the person using it. A fistfight can cause a fatal act of violence. Happens all the time. You're never going to eliminate guns. You're never going to eliminate knifes, etc, etc. That being said, it should be your God given right to protect yourself. Am I going to carry around one of my guns in public? No. But I have no problem with those that choose to. Would I use one in my home if someone was harming my family? Absolutely.

I think that partly it depends on how people are raised. I grew up around guns, saw them in the house, saw them used however was taught to respect them. Did not even shoot one until after I was eighteen. As a result of growing up around them I don’t fear them, I believe that anyone who is going to casually walk around with a firearm on their hip openly following the law is someone who follows the law, plain and simple. I don’t worry about people who follow the law it is the ones that don’t follow it that I worry about. I am not going to conduct myself any differently if there is a firearm that another law abiding citizen has. I can respect your opinions however I will disagree. That being said I am not out carrying one of my firearms around town, firstly I don’t want to draw that attention to myself from people such as yourself, and secondly with my children the last thing I need to worry about is another thing to carry. However I am glad that there are these people doing so because when you stop practicing your rights that is when they are lost. I am wondering you stated that you grew up in a country where guns were not allowed and there was very little gun violence. Of course that is true and I believe it entirely however what about statistics on violence in general did overall violence decrease because what I have read statistic wise shows the opposite? Do you have any statistics on stabbings in these countries? Also you stated how you felt safe in those countries how do you feel in this one when a firearm is not present?

oh spark....I am not saying that not having guns in and of itself is a way to reduce crime. It's a lot more complicated than that. I am saying that not having guns lessens that chance of FATAL acts of violence. Look at what happened in Janesville recently with the guy on the motorcycle that shot the guy in the pick-up truck. If he hadn't had the gun, maybe they would have gotten into a fistfight...much more likely that both would still be alive. Some people overreact when they are angry and do things they wish they hadn't. If what you did in your anger was SHOOT and kill somebody...well, not so easy to apologize, right?

bella - 48 states disagree with your theory and countries that have banned guns have documented increases in crime rate. Banning guns does not solve crimes. I'm just stating some facts.

yeah these guys are real tough...single scoop raspberry sherbert...be a man and TWO SCOOP THAT CONE!!

mespl - yes, I do believe these Niles men are stupid and childish for taking guns into an ice cream shop in Janesville. And yes - my children will be exposed to weapons just like you said "Every time they see a police officer or a detective they see a firearm in a holster." Just like I've been saying all along...leave the guns to law enforcement! I grew up in a society where guns are not allowed, and there is very little gun violence. I have lived in other countries where guns are prohibited, and felt perfectly safe walking down the streets in some very big cities. I've lived in big cities in the United States, and small cities. I trust the police to have weapons and do their best to protect and serve, which (for the most part), they do. I do not trust just anybody to carry a weapon, like these two fools in the article. I've done my research. I know there are responsible gun owners out there, and I am not concerned with them. Do I believe hand guns should be prohibited? Yes I do. But I know the law says otherwise, so I respect your right to own weapons. I do NOT respect foolish gun owners who take their guns into the public for absolutely no good reason.

I grew up in Janesville, went to St. Pats, and graduated from Craig, U-Rock, and UW-Whitewater. Now I live in Utah, one of the top 5 gun friendly States in the Union.

I used to believe as some liberals do that only cops should be armed. That is before I learned that it really is true that concealed carry States see their crime lower as their citizens arm. And - my Civil Right to defend myself, my family, and my home is absolute. Many do not know this, but while the Police have a duty to investigate crimes against you or your family, they have no obligation to protect you or your family. (Good thing, I like police, used to be one, but I would not want them underfoot 24/7.)

The Right To Bear Arms is a "Woman's Issue".

Concealed carry States take your weapons if you hold a permit and are in a domestic dispute. They also take your permit. Thus, the Motel 6 gets more business and the levels of domestic violence against spouses is nearly nil among permit holders.

Here in Salt Lake about a year ago, a woman was raped in broad daylight and murdered. The local media carried a story of women flocking to gun stores, purchasing a handgun, filling up the NRA Pistol Courses, and then filling up the Utah Concealed Carry required training course. The result: rape stats fell. So did assault on woman. (The ratings of the TV stations that carried the story went up.)

So, in light of this story, I must ask my friends in Wisconsin - Why is it somehow morally superior for a woman to lie naked and raped, strangled dead with her own pantyhose than to be standing, shaken, but explaining to the nice police officer why the man who tried to rape and murder her has two holes in his chest? Can somebody explain that to me?

Since leaving Wisconsin, I have done the previously unthinkable. Utah Concealed Firearm Permit, Pennsylvania Concealed Firearm Permit, Florida Concealed Firearm Permit, and Nevada Concealed Firearm permit (that one was hard to get - 8 hours of classroom then I had to shoot the FBI close quarter qualification shoot on a Law Enforcement target). Oh yea, the background checks equal those given to visitors to the White House and were repeated for each permit. Despite all this, I ask myself, why. Why do I need a permit for something that is a Civil Right? I don't need a permit to go to church or get a trial, or be free from unreasonable search and seizure. Why is it only the 2nd Amendment that needs a permit (and why must Wisconsin residents subject themselves to the whims of criminal elements)?

An armed society is a polite and courteous society. I see that every day in my life here. I live it because as a permit holder, I don't speed, or jay walk or speak in any tone louder than conversation (except when watching the Packers on TV).

One final word: You can take the boy out of Wisconsin, but you can't take Wisconsin out of the boy. GO PACKERS !

Futurerichguy: if it is on a holster on his hip then these advocates would be able to recognize that he is carrying legally. Also if he is dressed “ganger style” as you say he should make sure that the firearm does not become covered by his shirt at any point because that would be in violation of the law. I case you didn’t notice all of the pictures show these men in fairly tight fitting cloths as to prevent the firearm from becoming concealed at any time. The law must be obeyed weather it is a white or black male with rights comes responsibilities.

futurerichguy - How pathetic to throw the race b.s. into this.

“It's stupid and childish.” But pushing your belief system onto others is being an adult. I am also a parent and am a gun owner. I also understand that my children will be exposed to guns no matter what. Every time they see a police officer or a detective they see a firearm in a holster. I disagree with your belief that pistols should be banned and am very glad that the Supreme Court has started to make rulings on this subject. I believe that you have a right to your opinion however I question how much research you have actually done on the topic and how much it is your fear and emotions that are ignoring any facts regarding firearms.

Imagine this scenario, an 18 yr old black male who has a legal gun, no criminal record, but dresses gangster style, decideds he wants to open carry. I would love to see these open carry advocates reaction if that guy walked into a restaurant where they were eating with their beloved family.

stricnyne - thank you. Very well put.

There is no doubt that both parties feel they are right when it comes to this topic. The problem is, is that people don't want to meet in the middle on any topic. It's my way or the highway when it should be about trying to reach a reasonable and rational compromise. I reserve my right to bear arms but, I do understand there should be tighter regulations for owning firearms. I don't agree that strapping my .45 to my hip and going to Wal-Mart is an acceptable statement. Even being pro-gun, I am not understanding the logic behind walking around town Old West Style.

stricnyne - I appreciate that you respect my opinion. I respect your right to believe what you do, also. I get frustrated, though, because as a mother, I do not want my child to be put in situations where there are guns present. And with open carry activist like Mr and Mr Niles I feel that guns are forced into our daily lives and I don't think that's right. However, I also want to point out that my "belief system" as you say, is NOT based on statistics. If you re-read my post with the five reasons you asked for, you'll see that I'm giving you my personal opinion and feelings on the issue; not statistics. I make a single reference to statistics in my fourth point, but not very specific. My belief system is based on my own strong opinion that guns make it too easy to kill, too easy to reach fatal conclusions. It is not the kind of world I wish for my child. I understand that some people in the worst neighborhoods of Chicago or Los Angeles or other high crime areas feel the need to keep a gun in their homes for protection. But I think anyone who carries a gun in public in a small town like Janesville is provoking an emotional response and creating unnecessary fear. Just because you have the right to do something does not mean that you have to demonstrate this while you run your errands. It's stupid and childish. The people in this article make me very angry.

I have a bunch of guns for hunting. I don't carry them around, but I don't have a problem with those that do. I'm not dangerous with a gun or without a gun. I'm trained to use them. Conceal and carry permit holders are not going out on the town shooting people. Why is that so hard for the paranoid to understand? Everything you are basing your theories on is aimed at the wrong people. These aren't gangbangers and criminals we are talking about. Lighten up a little bit.

analertcitizen posed this question: "I wonder what the blog response would be if two non-white men strolled into the ice cream store in Janesville with visable holstered guns."

I've been wondering that as well. Or say 3 or 4 young African American were exercising their 2nd amendment rights and were walking around Janesville, all open-carrying pistols on their hips. I'll bet the reaction to these law-abiding citizens would be a whole lot different. I noticed in all the pro open-carry websites I've looked at, that there are no promotional pictures showing any African-American person with a weapon on their hip. Just white people.

I have guns. I am a former member of the military and the NRA. I hunted for many years in Wisconsin. I know how to handle weapons. I am not anti-gun in any manner.

I am also a pharmacist, and I was not allowed to have a weapon at my place of employment. But I can tell you I would be very wary of ANYONE walking up to my pharmacy counter displaying a weapon. I worked in another state for many years, and a concealed-carry law was enacted when I lived there. Most pharmacies I knew of posted signs saying no weapons were allowed inside the store. I've heard since I left that the pharmacies (and other places of business that didn't want guns in their places of business) were threatened with boycotts. So most places I know took the signs down.

Also, I'm curious. How old does a person have to be to open carry a firearm? No training required on safe handling of the weapon and the appropriate level of threat before that weapon can be used? Frankly, I don't feel safer with a bunch of 18-year-olds walking around with pistols strapped to their hips. I know the maturity level of this age group, and it is not a comforting thought.

I think it would be a good Idea to have to have a permit though...like hunting you need to take a hunters safety class.

I dont understand why people fear guns or people with them??? Too much TV? I own quite a few guns but I dont have a reason to carry one. So what makes me less/more dangerous of a person than one who carries? If I became unstable and went crazy it wouldnt matter if I had a gun on me (pistol) or went home and got a couple assault rifles. If I had lost my mind and was going to go shoot up a place....i'd really think twice if I knew some of them were armed. I dont uynderstand your peoples' fear of guns has you blinded from the benefit... less crime. So because your affraid of guns you'd rather be more vulnerable? Makes no sense to me.

I agree very little with how the U.S. Supreme Court has decided issues recently--but this is an exception. It's ruling that the 2nd Amendment DOES apply to individuals is the only outcome that makes sense. But, like all of our constituional rights, this one, too, is not absolute (i.e. we don't have an absolute right to free speech). I do think that a reasonable restriction that can be placed on individuals carrying weapons (openly or concealed) is some kind of required training and demonstration of competency. Finally, though I've grown up with guns around--both professionally and privately--I do question the sanity of a person when I see one openly carrying; right or wrong, I always wonder....

Well said Bella.

Bella:
Once again your belief system is based on statistics. How can I disagree with statistics. You are entitled to your opinion and I respect that. Hopefully some day in the future "you are not fighting for your freedom of speech".

Maybe the old GM building could be re-tooled for manufacturing bullet proof vests.

thekid - thank you; I needed to smile; great post! I am getting so annoyed with the pro-gun people on here...and then annoyed at myself for caring what they think.

Mouse:
"1.Reaction after divorce" - UNSTABLE PEOPLE
"2.Reaction after losing a job" - UNSTABLE PEOPLE
"3.Reacting to booze" - RECKLESS PEOPLE
"4.Bad marksmen" - LACK OF TRAINING
"5.Idiots" - ANTI-GUN ACTIVISTS
1. So one party is mentally crazy over a divorce, wouldn't it be nice for the other party to be able to protect their self?
2. Would you think a crazy ex-employee would walk into a business if he/she knew everyone in the building was pack'n?
3. Alcohol/Firearm combination - already a law.
4. Proper training would be a good requirement or law for firearm owners.
5. Enough Said.
Your problem isn't with firearms, it is with mentally unstable individuals who would find a way to kill regardless of any law or ban. Disgruntled employees kill people because they know nobody has a gun, same thing will happen when crooks know that guns are banned for all law abiding citizens.

Just like a car, I would hope you teach your kids car safety when they are old enough to understand... even though they wont drive till they are much older.. They still need to know what not to touch in the car because they could get hurt, right? A gun is no different.

i googled 'ignorant post of the day' and NOT surprisingly it brought me right back to the gazettes website. congrats sir...

'I wonder if the poor Jews who were marched off at gun point in Nazi Germany, wished they had guns. I'm sure you folks on the left believe that was still better than allowing them to be armed. Liberals, the breed of people who won't even stand up for themselves. Oh, Oh that's right the government will help and protect you. Ha, Ha, Ha.'

ummmm im not sure where to start so i wont:)

Go ahead--make my ice creme.

Sigma40 - so is drinking. but.........

No it was not a joke, awareness saves lives. I learned to gun safety and to shoot when i was probably in 1st or 2nd grade. Knowing the dangers I knew better. Versus some kid that has no idea... he could find a gun in a ditch and point it at his friend.

Mouse, how would those things have anything to do w/ carrying a gun? A crazy person could obtain one anywhere, whether they have it locked in a safe or wherever. Also in reference to your previous posts about teenagers, handgun law is 21 I think.

sigma40 - I can only hope and pray that your comment was meant sarcastically or as a joke.

stricnyne - I'll bite. I'll give you five reasons why I'm against private gun-ownerships (other than hunting rifles), and then you can have all the fun you want "tearing them apart" with your pro-gun logic. This is what I personally believe:
1. Accidents happen. A gun accident is a lot more likely to be fatal than other accidents.
2. Guns create fear. I personally feel unsafe when I am around people who carry guns and I don't like to be put in that position.
3. Not all people are responsible gun owners. I should not have to elaborate on this.
4. We are a civilized society with an established system of law enforcement. It's not perfect, but it's the best we have. We do not need vigilantes taking the law into their own hands.
5.Other societies that we compare ourselves to, like Western Europe, Australia, and Canada have much lower violent crime rates and deaths by guns. The reason so many criminals in the States have guns is because it is to easy to obtain a gun here. The answer is not to let MORE people carry guns - the answer is to restrict access to everyone other than law enforcement.

So these are my reasons. Whether you agree with them or not is irrelevant.

If they taught gun safety in elementary schools you'd have kids with more aware of the dangers, and have an understanding of guns, less gun accidents, and a society not affraid of them. Everyone that is affraid watched too many movies growing up.

I guess all the people that are freaked out at the sight of a holstered firearm must have a real hard time driving on 51 past the VFW where there are two anti tank guns overlooking the road let alone go through the powertool aisle in Menards where they have a bunch of scary sharp stuff.

deltafox says "People inherently fear what they do not understand..."

Yes, fear is learned. Is a baby scared of heights, other people, dogs, etc? No. It's learned.

Roadking... if you were a criminal would you attack an armed person vs. an unarmed person? Or a place where you knew people were armed? Or would you prefer a place where they were afraid of the dark and would surrender to you? hmmm. Tough one to call there. This is why countries dont invade the USA... its civilians are as big of a threat as the military because every other household has guns. And guns are no different than automobiles....some carelessness or alcohol and cars are even deadlier. Your only fear of guns stems from your life without them. Thats all.

Would any of the anti-gun people like to offer 5 good reasons why guns should be banned? All I see is a bunch of links being posted. What are your reasons for wanting to ban guns?
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

spark - you are probably right in that some law enforcement are ok with the open carry law. You are also right in that these guys are not criminals. But I still think that anyone who thinks they need to carry a gun into an ICE CREAM SHOP is a moron. I know I won't take my daughter to Coldstone until they refuse people with guns to enter the premises. These men should be embarrassed.

Just one last comment because this article is just causing bad feelings. The lady in those pictures looks scared to me, she is holding out the icecream far from her body, notice that? I did right away. There would be a good discussion here if posters would quit calling names. JMO

BigRoadie - with armed citizens its less likely you'd encounter a problem. If they ban handguns, only criminals will have them, and to them it will be super easy to go do whatever they want...why? Because they dont have to worry about anyone having a gun. No disrespect but people like you need to decipher logic from fear.

I agree with bigroadie and I agree with bella. Very hard to pick a side. Yes, a gun would have probably saved people, but that is in the past and cannot be relived. As someone said, this law has been on the books for a long time and just because the Gazette decided to ruffle feathers everyone is at each others throats! This is my opinion, even though it may not be one. I am undecided on this law.

I do feel sorry for people who are THAT fearful. I would hate to go through life being so afraid that I felt the need for a gun.

If you open carry doesn't the criminal who's about to attack you know exactly where your gun is? I would think that gives the criminal the advantage.

BigRoadie- I'm no more radical left than you are. I just possess common sense which apparently you don't.

Paranoid much?

bella - You would be shocked at what many law enforcement agencies response would be to this and conceal and carry for that matter. Many of them support it. They know who the real criminals are. They deal with them everyday and they will tell you, it's not these guys.

You guys may have been watching wayy toooo many old Charlie Bronson and Clint Eastwood movies.

BigRoadie. Go back to your video games, Thats a good boy!

I wonder what the blog response would be if two non-white men strolled into the ice cream store in Janesville with visable holstered guns.

Go play paint ball!

You seriously think carrying a gun is like killing someone?

Also...the article is really lame. Why wouldn't the author include viewpoints from people who are against open carry laws? Or include comments from law enforcement on how they view people who carry guns to an ice cream shop that's usually full of kids? Sorry...in my opinion, these Niles men are irresponsible nit-wits.

It's funny how some topics just gets everyone riled up....this is one of them. Debating it is almost pointless because people on both sides feel so strongly about their opinions. It's like abortion. Most people feel very strongly one way or the other. So sure, the article points out something that's going on in our local community, but you have to figure the intention of this article was to rile up the comments section of the Gazette. And it worked! LOL. Personally, I think people who feel the need to carry guns (openly or concealed) in little old Janesville, WI need to rethink their motives. I also personally wish there was a complete ban on handguns nation-wide and that we'd leave law & order to the people who put their lives on the line for us every day - the police. We don't need vigilantes. I know some of you will agree with me, and others will think I'm an idiot. And so the dance continues.

How the west was won, and now Janesville a future freakin ghost town.
No jobs and guys with guns. All we need now is John Wayne.

Here again is another issue where left and right refuse to even try to reach a middle ground. Why does it have to be completely one way or the other. I agree with a previous poster that once people take gun safety courses and recieve a certificate that assures they have some semblance of how to use it, should be allowed to conceal carry if they choose. The gun is still there if it is needed to prevent a crime in process. I think that open carry is unnecessary, it is done strickly for bravado or the shock value, it certainly is not necessary at Stone Cold Creamery. This is an opinion comming from someone that many on this site consider a left wing looney.

So, if everyone openly carries sidearms, the criminals will be the ones with the loaded weapons. The good guys will be the ones drawing the empty weapons and searching frantically for the bullet that they keep in a pocket, or, more specifically, the guys being shot.

I think I am gonna get out of here ... it is getting too dangerous for me.

BigRoadie: Calm down with all of the ??????????????????????? ... I'm not sure you should carry an open weapon despite the law saying you can.

What's the distance from a post office?

fly_on_the_wall: Not to be ignorant here, but what is the point of carrying the gun if it isn't loaded? I would be willing to guess that there are not too many instances when one has time to hide, load the gun and then fire at a suspected criminal.

Glock21sf: You wrote, "... you are an idiot." What happened to proponents being polite here?

When the first teenager shoots someone and says I was protecting myself,,,,,,, remember. The old guys set the standard.

BigRoadie: I think most police officers are trained to avoid the scenario I brought up. I don't know if every private citizen carrying a gun has had the same (or similar) training. And, as far as whether my opinion is "compelling" to you or not doesn't matter. It is my opinion and I have a right to voice it. I don't feel comfortable standing in line for ice cream with men having guns holstered to their hips. You will probably say my feelings on this are foolish because there might be a gun-toting criminal next to me in that same line. But that is your opinion only and you are allowed to it.

Glock- Regarding the article on the fugitives in WY. Nowhere in the article did it say that the fugitives were not licensed to carry guns when they committed their crimes.Perhaps they were!?

I should be banned from carrying a gun because out of concerns for others because of its "chilling social effect."

You liberals really need to get a life and stop shoving your morality down other peoples' throats. You're the biggest bunch of bullies anywhere.

I suspect the crime statistics are extremely illustrative regarding the likelihood of someone hurting anyone else who has a permit.

Like they say, the crime rate at gun shows is quite low.

“Who determines when it’s the right time to use this gun to protect you?” Well let’s consider something that people will understand better. If someone breaks into your home with a gun and starts threatening to kill your family and you shoot and kill them then who determines if that was self defense “protection” or not? That would be the police giving information to the DA and then deciding how to proceed. Why would this be any different? Why is everyone getting worked up about this? This is an existing legal system that has been in place for years? This is nothing new. Have there been any Wild West shootouts involving open carry advocates in the area? Not that I know of and I’m sure the news would be all over it if there had. Come on people this is how the law has been for years and the only people killing law abiding citizens are the criminals who were concealing their weapons until they decided to use them. Also why does the sight of a firearm make you fearful? What about plain clothes detectives they are armed do you feel that same fear? If you do you should contact your representative and demand that all police wear uniforms at all times they are armed.

People of today are afraid of their own shadows. Its sad people are against this. Perhaps if a violent crime happened to one of their loved ones and it could of been prevented they would think differently. Its sad it takes that to convonce someone. Say a gunman walks into your place of employment....what is better? A gun in hand or a cop on the phone? Perhaps if the gunman knew people were packing in there the situation never would happen in the first place. An unarmed citizen is an easy target for criminals. Why is that so hard to understand?

Guns not needed in Wyoming for protection?? Perhaps you need to pull your head from your butt long enough to watch the news, this is going on as we speak...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100809/ap_o...

Chilling social effect by just seeing a firearm on a hip???? GIVE ME A BREAK!!!!! Do we need to protect these people from seeing a detective, a police officer now??? Are people so stupid that they will go crazy at the mere sight of a gun!?!?!? If so, that is their issue and psychosis to have to deal with. A rational individual is not going to run in terror by merely seeing a gun attached to a belt inside a holster!!!!! you are an idiot.

Okay, so you want to carry a gun because it is your right to protect yourself. But what I want to know, what do you consider protecting yourself from? If you get pissed off at someone or in an argument do you then think it is your right to just start shooting because you are mad. This is my only fear. Who determines when its the right time to use this gun to protect you? Are we going to go back to the wild west days when everyone was carrying and if you got ticked off you just shot them. No fair hearing or trial? What you may precieve as someone threating you may not really be the case. I think we are going to have even more problems then solutuions by telling everyone its okay to carry a gun. And all the felons, well they already have access to guns so here we go....shooting wars!
By the way, I think you have a right to own a gun but keep it locked up at home or in your trunk. I dont think you need to go into a store etc with a gun on your belt. Not to mention, a person who gets mad and sneaks up behind you, what or who is going to prevent them from snatching the gun off your belt? JMO

Thank you Jeff Niles, John Niles, Paul Fisher.

Plain and simple...when seconds count, the police are only minutes away! The police do a fine job, I'm not saying they don't but if it was their job to PROTECT US why aren't there more lawsuits when people are murdered? They INVESTIGATE CRIMES folks. If you want protection, you need to provide for yourself...WI NEEDS Concealed carry...it is a right of each and everyone of us to be able to protect ourselves, and our families...wake up and look at the world around you. Why do you need a gun to go shopping? Look at what happened at the Hastings (a music and book store) in Whichita Falls, TX a few months back...guy walked in with a shotgun and started random targeting folks. Think about it...

“It’s our right to carry. It’s for protection,” Jeff said.

Okay. What evidence do these two have that wearing guns in, say, Walmart makes them "safer"? And have they asked themselves why they feel so scared all the time in the first place? Personally, I feel no fear at all when I'm out shopping. What accounts for that difference?

And have these two thought about the chilling social effect that the very sight of their weapons creates? If they cared about others, they would take this into consideration. And if they don't care about others, then . . . their guns are really problematic.

Look, guns have only one purpose: to kill. And a person who wears a gun casually in public (as opposed to police officers who wear guns under authority) is in fact a menace to the public, since he can kill anybody he wants.

I suggest that these two consider carrying fly swatters instead of guns. They'd be more likely to actually use them, would they not? And killing flies has some benefit to the community.

Yes, it's their legal right to carry the guns. We got that already. I do have a couple of questions however. One person posting here stated that it is illegal to have the gun loaded? Is that true? Also, how do these guys protect themselves from an armed or unarmed criminal who comes up behind them, demands they not move, and takes the gun from them? Just wondering and hoping to stay away from future gun battles here in town.

People inherently fear what they do not understand...

So now we have a drunk behind a wheel, and packing,,,,, great!
Yep! really feel safe doing my banking now charlie, Tom, Dick, and... are standing at the ready.
Is there a law saying you can't wear a mask or veil in public?
"Tom looks nervous this morning Dick."
"I think he forgot to take his meds."

The one thing that does worry me about those photos though is the fact that the holsters those guns are in offer little in weapon retention. If I were to start carrying openly, I would purchase a Blackhawk Serpa holster that requires you to push a button on the outside of the holster to unlock the gun from the hoster. Something that is quick, easy and becomes 2nd nature to the user, but almost impossible for a thug to actuate while trying to grab and remove the weapon.

Lest we never forget Sam Aegerter.

what a bunch of ignorant people! Because you don't agree with something, you ridicule, slander, and make them out to be evil! If you go back and read the posts on this blog, you will see the gun proponents being polite and not making fun of of the anti-gun crowd, while the anti-gun crowd resorts to name calling and spreading fear to feel better. I bet the three people murdered in their trailer home felt safe in Janesville right up until the night they died. I bet the family that lives on Canvasback Dr. here in lilly white Janesville feels a lot less safer knowing that while they slept, a burglar roamed their home and stole most of their stuff, even the family dog knew nothing of what was going on down the hall.

Go ahead and call the cops on people open carrying, it will be you that is wasting the police officers time and the tax payers money, because they are doing a lawful act, and will be charged with nothing, or if they are, the charges will be thrown out in court. I hope they charge you with making a false police report.

Criminals will think twice about carrying out a crime if there are armed citizens around. Wouldnt you? They might think twice about walking in a bank to rob it knowing there might be someone like this in there...packing. 100 years ago this was nothing out of the ordinary. People should be happy about this, there is less danger behind this than a lot of people behind the wheel.

I can just see the wanna be guys next year at the 4H fair. Cowboy hats,
cut off shirt sleeves, cowboy boots and packing. Just the place to be on a hot sticky day. Maybe they will have a best of show. (can see the wife or girl friends grooming them and walking em around the ring).

One question...Why? I understand the "rights" issue, but why in the world do you need to carry your gun on you while shopping....in Janesville for that matter? Just stupid.

That's a nice Kimber Crimson Carry that John is carrying. I prefer Ed Brown's, but at least he's carrying a 1911 :)

Yada, the poor football player's gun didn't just go off!by itself!!!! He pulled the trigger. Guns don't just decide to work all by themselves. That is the problem here, a bunch of naive people spouting opinions about a subject the know NOTHING about! He either miss-handled the firearm while playing with it, or it discharged while he was holstering it while his finger, or something else was in the trigger guard.

Wyoming not being a dangerous place, sounds like a true tree hugging liberal! Wyoming has moose, bear, poisonous snakes, all which will attacked with little provocation, not to mention the two legged danger which is located in ALL states and cities.

Arizona, Alaska, and Vermont all allow concealed carry without a permit, I would feel safer there then in my own neighborhood here in Janesville. Don't hear about a lot of crime in Vermont on the news do ya'??

Zeke: "I'm going to belly up to the bar and get me a double-dip chocolate chip and don't rile me partner 'cause I'm carrying a gun."
Clem: "Remember, never carry a six-shooter when facing seven injuns.'
Zeke: "I never worry 'bout that Clem 'cause I can't count that high, anyways. Double means two, right?"

"He would like the law to allow people to carry a gun openly or concealed without needing a permit or training."
.
This is the problem I'm having with this. No training??? No permit??? Nice. Of course, I'm sure there are people who don't think they need training because they've learned to shoot a gun by watching TV.

All you people who do not agree with this open carry should take a good look at what is happening in today's world, You have a choice to carry or not to carry a gun.If people elect to carry a gun that is there choice to do so.

Mannyb- Jeff and John did NOT "protect" any rights. They exercised their rights. Big diff.
Yada- THe term African American is ridiculous. It assumes all black people came from Africa (there are a large proportion that come from S. America... Brazilian sugar slave trade?) I also know a few white African Americans (Afrikaaners)
White people call themselves white, not German-Irish-Norwegian American.
In this time of globalization and easy immigration, the labels are going to have to come off at some point.

business's can deny service to anyone for any reason. They do not have to allow them in their stores. They have the safety of their sane customers to consider and I can guarantee there will be more places turning away gun toting morans than letting them in. Have to be some what crazy to think you need to carry one , the one's who carry are the scary ones.

any one who have followed evansvillehousewife's commnets on the gazette know that to get along with her you have to be white, straight, and republican. I some how think her comment is just what it sounds like. Racist.

BigRoadie- I get the reasons a truck driver( I'm guessing) might carry a CONCEALED gun to travel through cities such as Detroit, East St. Louis, Chicago etc.in case he/she needs it for protection. What I don't get is why two grown men, most likly Tea Party activists, find it necessary to carry at the Cold Stone Creamery in Janesville. And by the way, I've traveled extensively and I can assure you none of the trips were guided tours.

If you want to strut around advertising how dangerous you are by the fire-power you're packing because you have something to prove it’s your prerogative - to stress and intimidate fantasy attackers, business owners, and your fellow citizens under current Wisconsin law. But.... life isn’t like movies. The good guy isn’t always invincible and, more often than not, won't "win" when the "need" for demonstrating that gun arises.

It might be your right but it's unnecessary. Unfortunately, some day it probably will be necessary.

Regarding the comment from a housewife from a small town - "Scary black people" - I know you are not being racist, but those words may be offensive. I remember a 2007 Gallup poll that indicated a preference toward using African American instead - political correctness. Most people understand that you are trying to be respectful when you use African American.

The best time to carry a gun is around 11:30pm after you get lubed up at the local still.

"A little bush time in AK/rural Wyoming/ Chicago can really open your eyes to necessities in self protection that do not apply in your normal daily life."
Really?! Wyoming?! I lived in "rual WY" for 8 eight years, I never seen a need out there, nothing happens!! Are you sure your not thinking Utah? I live in Beloit, so believe me when I say nothing happens in WY!

jeff and john thank you for protecting our rights

I would imagine the listed biz(cross them off of my list of places to shop) above gave them permission to carry the handguns in each store. According to the article they must have permssion to enter the store with gun in holster. So if the gun accidentally goes off like it did for the NFL football player - will they also face charges of reckless endangerment or if a bullet strays and kills someone - manslaughter - seems like it's not wise to carry for eveyones safety. Keep the guns at home and I have no problem.

"Not meant to be racist" ? What always follows that disclaimer is a racist comment by a well-intentioned moron.

"Hey, Pops, let's go get a single dip. Oh, don't forget your gun." (Sarcasm intended and attacks on me for MY OPINION expected.)