Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 29

Thread: 'Guns are weapons, not accessories', Community Columnist, Kristin Hansen a nonprofit professional

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    across Death's Door on Washington Island, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,382

    Post imported post

    http://www.jsonline.com/news/opinion/87395757.html

    Kristin Hansen:There seems to be a shooting in the news every day, and not once has it been due to "a well-regulated Militia." There's a resurgence of people who are so concerned about exercising their Second Amendment rights that they have lost all perspective on what a gun actually is. It is a weapon designed for killing efficiently. It is not a fashion accessory to hang on your belt, nor is it a security blanket to make you feel safe.

    A few weeks ago, gun rights activists made their point by going to Starbucks in New Berlin wearing side arms. My question is not whether this should or should not be a "right," but rather why anyone would feel it necessary to be armed in order to get a latte in an upscale suburb. For pity's sake, this isn't the Wild Wild West. Black Bart is not going to jump out and challenge you to a duel.

    A Racine man recently won a judgment from the city and two police officers, who arrested him as he was sitting on his porch wearing a holstered weapon. There were complaints of shots fired, so naturally police questioned the guy with a gun. He refused to answer their questions. Again, rights aside, if you are so proud of your status as a "law-abiding citizen," why refuse to give your name? Maybe the police wouldn't have acted at all if he had cooperated in the first place.

    In the news this week, I read about a man who police say was unhappy with his financial advisers in Dallas, so he shot the advisers, a father and son, and then himself. Is dissatisfaction with financial advice a reason to get angry, maybe to rant and rave and even sue? Possibly. Is it a reason to pull out a gun and shoot two people? No, it's not.

    No more than five minutes after I read that story, another one broke. A disgruntled employee at Ohio State University shot two co-workers, killing one of them and then killing himself. Is conflict at work a reason to get a gun and kill people? No, it's not.
    One could say that these are "isolated incidents," but when something happens every day, many times a day, is it isolated? When these "law-abiding citizens" purchased their guns, did they intend to use them to kill innocent people? Probably not, but at some point, having a gun for protection against deadly force turned to using that gun because somebody made the gun owner angry. Anger is not a reason to use a gun.

    My point is this: If weapons become nothing more than lethal accessories, gun owners lose perspective on what is or is not a real reason to carry a weapon and a real reason to use a weapon. The more comfortable you are with your weapon as a daily companion, the less you are conscious of its power. Possession of guns may be legal, but carry and use of them should be rare and for good reason.

    Kristin Hansen of Waukesha is a returning student at Carroll University and a nonprofit professional[my emphasis and my point]. E-mail kristinhwaukesha@gmail.com.


  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    La Crosse, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,185

    Post imported post

    There is so much wrong with this editorial that it would be like bailing the ocean out with a spoon to address it.

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    across Death's Door on Washington Island, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,382

    Post imported post

    True but it was posted by a 'professional' and there are many of those here on OCDO and its Wisconsin sub-forum. My question, my point and my emphasis is to the meaning of the self-assigned epithet professional.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    nowhere
    Posts
    631

    Post imported post

    so the day that i forget that a car is nothing more than a means of transportation with the ability to turn lethal, is the day that i'll use it as a car bomb???

    wow......you know with all the ******** that comes out of peoples heads on a daily basis, it's amazing that we don't see more fecal matter flying through the air on a daily basis and that we aren't all walking around in hazmat suits.

  5. #5
    Regular Member CUOfficer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    La Crosse, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    194

    Post imported post

    Did anyone send her an email?

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    across Death's Door on Washington Island, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,382

    Post imported post

    Waste of air, skin and electrons too.

  7. #7
    Regular Member hunter9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Greenfield, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    255

    Post imported post

    Here are the "Comments" posted on the JSOnline article posted above...



    wiwolfe - Mar 11, 2010 10:20 PM
    Kristen, you are missing the point and probably because you are misinterpeting the 2nd ammendment that says "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." these are two seperate but related rights. One is the right to a well regulated militia, and the second is the right of the people, both of which is not a priviledge that is bestowed upon us by the government, but a guaranteed right that the government can not infringe on. This has been clarified by the Supreme Court in Heller vs. D.C. and many times over that the statement of "the right of the people" means the individuals and not inclusive to a "regulated militia". If your need for safety is so great, just commit a crime and go to jail, you will be safe you will both be fed and have your health care taken care of...and all you will have to give up is your individual freedom.



    carryx1 - Mar 12, 2010 7:24 AM
    "carry and use of them should be rare and for good reason"
    Use should indeed be rare and for good reason - most hope to never have to
    use their gun (except at the range).
    But if you rarely carry it, most likely when you actually need to use it, you will
    not have it. A gun is useless if you don't have it when you need it.


    gunowner - Mar 12, 2010 8:32 AM
    You are correct. Not once, has it been due to a "well regulated militia". It has to do with nutbars, carrying weapons illegally. That's the bottom line. Are you going to be able to rid the world of guns? NO. Unfortunately, it's a chance you take when you get up every morning. The gun right's activists were just making a point. These people are out there in the world. Sane people do not lose perspective on how powerful and devastating a weapon can be. Someone like me, who grew up with firearms in my home, was taught at a very early age, the respect needed to even be around weapons. Unfortunately, we are always going to have these "cowboys" in society. This does not mean that you should take away other's rights to protect themselves against this type of behavior. I do not agree that becoming "comfortable with carrying a weapon", makes you less conscious of it's power. People who shoot on a regular basis, are very conscious of the power, and it's consequences. Unfortunately, these people you write about, would have used a baseball bat, a tire iron, a table leg, etc. The only way to stop any of this, is to make all guns illegal. Good luck. The exact thing that you write about, is the exact reason, and a good reason why people need the right to protect themselves, and be able to carry, legally. I do agree with your comments about the guy in Racine. All the police had to do was smell his gun, used or not used. I do not believe that he should have won a judgement of any kind, and that if he did not want to answer their questions, he should have been thrown in jail, or fined for obstruction. As long as guns are out there, we need the right to carry, and protect ourselves. The only other alternative, is to move to England, where they are not allowed to possess a gun, even for hunting, and they can search your home for guns at any time, if they feel that you have one. I don't think that would go over too well in the good old USA. So, until then??? The problem with this reporter is that she already has her mind "Made-up" on this issue. Unfortunately 10,000 emails to her will not change it. As we continue to try and educate the public, there will always be those that will refuse our logic over their own bias opinions.





    We could analise her article and pick it apart line by line, have really good comments and rationalizations, and she would just blow us off. Some people just choose to have a different outlook or opinion. That's what our forefathers fought for (with guns BTW) to give us a free country.



    Just my 2 cents....


  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    512

    Post imported post

    Judging by her strong opinions, I'm guessing she doesn't like guns?Eithway, ppl like her can shut their d@mn mouths, they always seem to forget that NONE of the shootings were commited by ppl who were OC'n/CC. And, that as soon as they decided to take out their guns and use them on their fellow man, they BECAME a criminal, and thus, cannot be tied in with us law abiding. And lastly, it never stops amazing me that they get their panties in a bunch when people go postal and shoot up some place, but they forget one tiny lil' detail, the4 people who shot up offices/bussinesses are only4 out of 250+ Million law abiding gun owners! I'm no mathmatician, but they account forfar less than 1% of all gun owners!And they never EVERhave an answer to the age ole' question, What if the victims had been armed aswell?

    Anyways, rant complete. Landose out.
    Nemo Me Impune Lacesset

  9. #9
    Regular Member hardballer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    West Coast of Wisconsin
    Posts
    925

    Post imported post

    Would be great if someone from that area could put together a lucid, fact filled, informational rebuttal to Kristin's ill conceived and incredibly misinformed and diatribe.

    Focused on the 2A and expanded upon, utilizing one of the many fine missives on the 2A.

    The 2A is not a new concept and goes back as far as cave men.

    Using weapons/spears/clubs to protect themselves from saber toothed tigers or other bands or tribes was obvious. Always armed.

    Not so obvious today. We still have fierce animals, bands or tribes (read: gangs, hoods, car jackers, thugs, etc.) Tyranny and evil.

    The problem of the social control of weapons is not new. In 124 B.C. the Imperial Chancellor Kung-Sun Hung petitioned the Emperor Han to take the people's arms from them. The emperor replied:
    Your subject has heard that when the ancients made the five kinds of weapons, it was not for the purpose of killing each other, but to prevent tyranny and to punish evil. When people lived in peace, these weapons were to be prepared against emergencies and to kill the fierce animals. If there were military affairs, then the weapons were used to set up defenses and form battle arrays…[1]
    The petition was turned down, stressing the right of the individual to bear arms for the common protection of society and the individual.
    The more we respond, the better it will be. Don't let idiots or namby pambies or libtards have their say with out articulate, intelligent rebuttal.

    Go get em.

    Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid. Han Solo

    http://buffaloholstercompany.blogspot.com/ Concealment holsters IWB, SOB, and belt slide. Open Carry too. New from Buffalo Holster, Women's holsters for concealment and or belt carry.

  10. #10
    Wisconsin Carry, Inc. Wisconsin Carry, Inc. - Chairman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,197

    Post imported post

    The 2nd amendment and "rights" is lost on people like Ms. Hansen.

    Remember, liberals think the constitution is an old outdated document that was great when we all rode on horses and farmed our own fields to live, but not applicable to modern times.

    As such, the best way to deal with liberals is to speak their emotional-language. Use her own scenario's to spotlight the lack of logic in her statements:

    Ms. Hansen says:
    in the news this week, I read about a man who police say was unhappy with his financial advisers in Dallas, so he shot the advisers, a father and son, and then himself. Is dissatisfaction with financial advice a reason to get angry, maybe to rant and rave and even sue? Possibly. Is it a reason to pull out a gun and shoot two people? No, it's not.
    The point to raise with her is that it is illegal to kill, but the finacial adviser, a father and son are all dead. If a crime is going to be committed, and there is going to be a victim, I'd MUCH rather the victim would be the criminal, not the bystanders.

    Thats what the right to carry is all about. CRIME IS GOING TO HAPPEN. Banning guns didn't change that... Banning carry of guns won't change that. So you either have dead defenseless victims or you have dead criminals because victims defended themselves.

    She MAKES THE CASE for carry for self-defense. She asks why you need to carry in Starbucks. WELL WHY WOULD A FINANCIAL ADVISOR NEED TO CARRY IN HIS OFFICE. Well.. CLEARLY because a deranged individual could come in and kill 3 victims. I'd much prefer the only dead person was the deranged criminal, not the 3 innocent standers-by. So I would pose the rhetorical question to MS Hansen... Would a law prohibiting people from carrying guns have prevented the shooting in Texas she references? I mean murder is illegal and a capital offense, but THAT didn't stop a suicidal maniac. A gun on the hip of the financial advisor WOULD have stopped a suicidal maniac and saved 3 lives.

    Remember that liberals are creatures of EMOTION. You have to speak to them emotionally if you ever want to win a debate. Play on "Ms Hansen's" emotions. "Ms. Hansen, had that innocent financial advisor had a side-arm, he may have been able to protect himself from a suicidal maniac and made it home to his wife and children." "had someone else in the office had a sidearm they could have prevented the murder of the father and son" "would you tell the grieving widow of that financial advisor that you are GLAD he didn't have a sidearm to protect himself" No law... No regulation is going to stop a suicidal deranged criminal. Its unfortunate but its true. The best we CAN do is minimize ability of those wack-jobs of hurting innocent people by giving the innocent the ability to protect themselves.
    www.wisconsincarry.org Wisconsin Carry, Inc. is not affiliated with opencarry.org or these web forums. Questions about discussion forum policy or forum moderation should be directed to the owners of opencarry.org not Wisconsin Carry, Inc.

  11. #11
    Regular Member hardballer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    West Coast of Wisconsin
    Posts
    925

    Post imported post

    Wisconsin Carry, Inc. - Chairman wrote:
    The 2nd amendment and "rights" is lost on people like Ms. Hansen.

    Remember, liberals think the constitution is an old outdated document that was great when we all rode on horses and farmed our own fields to live, but not applicable to modern times.

    As such, the best way to deal with liberals is to speak their emotional-language. Use her own scenario's to spotlight the lack of logic in her statements:
    I agree. Good to hit with a one two punch so to speak. It is not only liberals who read this garbage though so maybe a couple of editorials hitting on the emotional side and the logical/facts side would be good. Great if it could be written by a woman with strong 2A views. In any case, I believe it is best to always respond in kind to get our side in the public eye.

    No argument from me here.
    Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid. Han Solo

    http://buffaloholstercompany.blogspot.com/ Concealment holsters IWB, SOB, and belt slide. Open Carry too. New from Buffalo Holster, Women's holsters for concealment and or belt carry.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    512

    Post imported post

    Wisconsin Carry, Inc. - Chairman wrote:
    I'd MUCH rather the victim would be the criminal
    +1


    Nemo Me Impune Lacesset

  13. #13
    Regular Member hunter9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Greenfield, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    255

    Post imported post

    Here's one that fits Kristen's logic...



  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,605

    Post imported post

    Another Wisconsin Liberal play-on to the 'Sheeple' who just do not get it.



  15. #15
    Regular Member Hunting Mama's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Not deep enough in the Woods, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    92

    Post imported post

    How does this draft sound? I am up for any suggestions before submitting.

    Thanks!

    Kristy

    March 12, 2010

    Re: Ms. Kristin Hansen’s online editorial about guns



    Dear Editor,

    I just finished reading Ms. Hansen’s online editorial regarding her disgust for legal open carriers in Wisconsin and have a few corrections. Her far left preaching about why there is no need to carry a gun in public is ludicrous. Those who choose to open carry in public are law abiding citizens. Our Second Amendment rights do provide us with the right to keep and bear arms. What Ms. Hansen is missing in her thought process is that the people who are committing these cold blooded crimes are criminals, not the law abiding citizens.

    She states that our guns are not fashion accessories, this is the one point that I will agree with her on. They definitely are not fashion accessories. They are tools to keep us and our loved ones safe. We are very conscious that guns were made to kill and will not brandish one unless there is signs of imminent danger. We are not out to kill any innocent people. Most open carriers are extremely responsible gun owners and are very proficient with their weapons. A lot of hours are spent getting familiar with their weapon and practicing with it. As for the examples she gave of why guns are bad, the people who committed these atrocities were either mentally ill or criminals. Again, not the law abiding citizen open carrying. It is the people that are bad, not the guns.

    I do not understand how Ms. Hansen can be so closed minded in regards to this very important issue. Why is it hard to believe that there are people in this world who would like to level the playing field with the criminals. The criminals do not open carry, why you may ask? They do not want to have to deal with law enforcement possibly questioning them and finding out that they are on probation or are a felon with a gun. So, they conceal their weapons. Those are the people you should fear.

    A justifiable reason for open carrying hit close to home not all that long ago. In March of 2005 a man came into a church service in Brookfield and killed 7 people before taking his own life. Do you think those people were thinking they needed a gun during church? When Ms. Hansen asked if there is a need to carry in an upscale suburb, the pure and simple answer to this is YES. In a perfect world there would be no need to carry guns, but reality is that there are no boundary lines for criminals.



  16. #16
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    across Death's Door on Washington Island, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,382

    Post imported post

    Hunting Mama wrote:
    2nd amendment
    Spell out and capitalize.

  17. #17
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    across Death's Door on Washington Island, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,382

    Post imported post

    Hunting Mama wrote:
    not fashion accessories; they are tools
    Did you intend to use ';' advisedly?

  18. #18
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    across Death's Door on Washington Island, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,382

    Post imported post

    Hunting Mama wrote:
    of eminent danger.
    imminent

  19. #19
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    across Death's Door on Washington Island, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,382

    Post imported post

    Hunting Mama wrote:
    they on probation or a felon with a gun.
    needs a verb of being, 'are'

  20. #20
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    across Death's Door on Washington Island, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,382

    Post imported post

    Hunting Mama wrote:
    A very justifiable reason
    Modifies an absolute, either justifiable or not.

  21. #21
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    across Death's Door on Washington Island, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,382

    Post imported post

    Good letter.

    The town in SC that I moved from had its first homicide in three years yesterday and in a neighborhood of half-million dollar homes and expensive condos, or they were before I left.

  22. #22
    Regular Member hardballer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    West Coast of Wisconsin
    Posts
    925

    Post imported post

    Hunting Mama wrote:
    How does this draft sound? I am up for any suggestions before submitting.

    Thanks!

    Kristy
    Sounds great Kristy! You wrote a very articulate and bold reply. This is just what I was talking about. With the grammatical and spelling help of Doug, you will be good to go. Thank you for taking this seriously and doing something about it.
    Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid. Han Solo

    http://buffaloholstercompany.blogspot.com/ Concealment holsters IWB, SOB, and belt slide. Open Carry too. New from Buffalo Holster, Women's holsters for concealment and or belt carry.

  23. #23
    Regular Member Hunting Mama's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Not deep enough in the Woods, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    92

    Post imported post

    Thanks guys, I appreciate it. I may not be able to financially afford to help, but I am willing to do what I can.

  24. #24
    McX
    Guest

    Post imported post

    lethal accessory- that works for me.

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    512

    Post imported post

    I prefer, Dead sexy...accessory.
    Nemo Me Impune Lacesset

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •