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

imported post

KristaBurns wrote: [/b]

Krista Burns Friend of the 2nd Amendment

I am a friend of the 2a. 

I believe in the Constitution as is,  and am disturbed by how our rights have been eroded.

I am in favor of law abiding citizens carrying guns openly, as well as concealed. 

I do believe there should be some licensing and training necessary

I am opposed to regulations designed to increase the expense of gun ownership, the usability of guns legally owned, or restrict gun ownership. 

Click to expand...

I would like to know just how the above quote in red lines up with "I believe in the Constitution as is".

I know perfection is unobtainable but come on. Don't support or vote for someone out of desperation. We are buried in "reasonable" statutes "for the public good".

imported post

hardballer wrote:

I would like to know just how the above quote in red lines up with "I believe in the Constitution as is".

I know perfection is unobtainable but come on. Don't support or vote for someone out of desperation. We are buried in "reasonable" statutes "for the public good".

Click to expand...

So, to be clear. If Krista is running against a person who says (no OC, no CC), you wouldn't vote at all?

If so, isn't that shooting yourself in the foot? How can you ever vote for someone?

imported post

Given the circumstances, I might not vote or I might write in Mickey Mouse. I am soooooooooo freakin' tired of these control freaks who want to license and permit and control the law abiding population "for our own good" when in reality, this is a deep seated fear in their own hearts driving them.

I suppose you are fine with licensing and permits. So you want to elect an unknown that already tells you she does believe in the Constitution but only her version cause the framers of the Constitution, our laws, really didn't have a handle on it? Whatever!

Permits and licensing is REGISTRATION. Don't you get it?

This will not go as planned for them or us until we draw a line in the sand and proclaim in a loud voice, ENOUGH!

imported post

hardballer wrote:

I suppose you are fine with licensing and permits. So you want to elect an unknown that already tells you she does believe in the Constitution but only her version cause the framers of the Constitution, our laws, really didn't have a handle on it? Whatever!

Click to expand...

Yes, I am OK with having to get a permit for CC. Before anyone crucifies me, I said OK.

I WANT Constitutional Carry but if I had a choice of voting for a relatively pro 2A (I know, an oxymoron) candidate that won't screw with OC but will 'allow' me to CC with a permit, I'd vote for them. Just staying home or voting for Mickey Mouse lets the anti win.

AZ didn't get Constitutional Carry overnight. They got permitted CC 1st and then dropped the permit.

Can you honestly say that everyone you have ever voted for met 100% of your criteria? I can honestly say I cannot recall voting for someone I liked completely.

I voted for Bush twice because I thought Gore would be worse and Kerry was an idiot. I voted for McCain because he had Palin on the ticket and was better than Obama. On McCain I had to hold my nose.

Hardballer, I appreciate you work for the carrying movement and I believe we both want the same thing.

imported post

Even baby steps are still steps; as long as the steps are in the right direction. Permitted CC is not be the ultimate goal, but regardless how much disdain we might have for a permit, it WOULD be a step forward non-the-less.

imported post

paul@paul-fisher.com wrote:

hardballer wrote:

I suppose you are fine with licensing and permits. So you want to elect an unknown that already tells you she does believe in the Constitution but only her version cause the framers of the Constitution, our laws, really didn't have a handle on it? Whatever!

Click to expand...

Yes, I am OK with having to get a permit for CC. Before anyone crucifies me, I said OK.

I WANT Constitutional Carry but if I had a choice of voting for a relatively pro 2A (I know, an oxymoron) candidate that won't screw with OC but will 'allow' me to CC with a permit, I'd vote for them. Just staying home or voting for Mickey Mouse lets the anti win.

AZ didn't get Constitutional Carry overnight. They got permitted CC 1st and then dropped the permit.

Can you honestly say that everyone you have ever voted for met 100% of your criteria? I can honestly say I cannot recall voting for someone I liked completely.

I voted for Bush twice because I thought Gore would be worse and Kerry was an idiot. I voted for McCain because he had Palin on the ticket and was better than Obama. On McCain I had to hold my nose.

Hardballer, I appreciate you work for the carrying movement and I believe we both want the same thing.

Click to expand...

Thanks Paul, you are a gentleman sir. I get a little agitated once in a while. I did the same thing you did in the last couple of elections and for the very same reasons. I see we're not so different at all. You're right, I just don't have the patience. I believe we do both want the same thing.

imported post

hardballer wrote:

Thanks Paul, you are a gentleman sir. I get a little agitated once in a while. I did the same thing you did in the last couple of elections and for the very same reasons. I see we're not so different at all. You're right, I just don't have the patience. I believe we do both want the same thing.

Click to expand...

Oh trust me, I do. We can also use this to educate the people running. If we use logical arguments and they listen, we may turn a 92% pro 2A into a 95% pro 2A and God forbid a 100% pro 2A!!! As I've said on numerous occasions, when I started getting involved with OC, I didn't realize how much of my rights I was just giving away. Once I realized it and heard some well though out arguments on this and other sites, I realized I was allowing the sheeple to trample on my rights for their comfort. Rights do not involve comfort. It wasn't comfortable for the KKK when Martin Luther King did what he did. Imagine having this discussion about race instead of handguns! The people against us would of been marginalized YEARS ago.

imported post

So the fact that several states have already proven that it is not necessary to go the step by step route and it would be very possible to successfully go directly to Constitutional Carry means nothing?

Everyone knows that if a permit system is staarted in Wisconsin it will never go away period. You are accepting a compromise, which shows that if a candidate will even go a little in your direction they will earn your vote. Compromise plain and simple.

That is exactly why some of the Democratic candidates are switching sides and running as Republicans. So because they went a little in our direction we should just vote for them? Do you really think they mean what they say

Hardballer was right. This candidate is talking double speak.

"I believe in the Constitution as is, and am disturbed by how our rights have been eroded."

and then she says,

"I do believe there should be some licensing and training necessary."

Where does it say in the Constitution that you must have "training and licensing" to exrcise any of your rights? Your telling me that "Training and Licensing" are not infringements? So I guess then in the next year we will be seeing a new amendment to the U.S. Constitution that clearly states that an individual is granted the inherent right to exercise all of the rights listed in the amendments as long as they have what the government deems adaquate training and licensing to do so.

Constitutional Carry period. Stand Strong! or stand divided!
If the meely mouthed politicians get their hands on a permitting system here in Wisconsin it will be all about the money. The system Will never go away because the stupid politicians will use the permit money when trying to balance the state budget. It has been demonstrated throughout Wisconsin history. It will not change just because a few here say it will.

Do Not Weaken because you see a shimmer of light at the end of the tunnel. That is just some crooked politicians front bicycle light.

Stand strong demand Constitutional Carry and save the tax payers millions on legislation, Training, permit and licensing fees. Wisconsin is always the last state to foloow the others. Lets change that on this issue. We can be the forth state to have Constitutional Carry and let the people decide which way to carry is best for them.

there has been no Wild West, no blood running in the streets, No caos in the other three states and there will be none here in Wisconsin as well.

Stand Strong. Stand United!

Carry On and Constitutional Carry Always!

imported post

J.Gleason,

I believe I have made my stand as clear as I can. I challenge you to tell me that EVERY candidate you have voted for has supported EVERY issue important to you.

If that is the case, you either only have one issue or you don't vote in elections that aren't 100%.

imported post

I never said anywhere that I agree with any candidate 100%.

the issue we are referring to here is 2A and CCW/OCW.

You can't be in favor of the constitution as written and then say ""I do believe there should be some licensing and training necessary."

It is an infringement. Maybe she should consider the opinions of her constituents instead of her own.

isn't that the point of being a representative?

imported post

J.Gleason wrote:

I never said anywhere that I agree with any candidate 100%.

the issue we are referring to here is 2A and CCW/OCW.

You can't be in favor of the constitution as written and then say ""I do believe there should be some licensing and training necessary."

It is an infringement. Maybe she should consider the opinions of her constituents instead of her own.

isn't that the point of being a representative?

Click to expand...

That is exactly the point. Period. I don't want to get into a row with anyone here over this. Paul, I understand your point. I just don't want to wait till I am dead in the ground to see the appropriate gun laws enacted in this state.

I am tired of the constant double speak on the national level and local level. I even got that crap from my electric company. I wrote an email asking for the number of homes served by the elec.co. and they asked why I wanted the info. Would not give it to me. Not two months later, I get a fancy, glossy yearly report magazine in the mail and on the front page is the number of folks served by my elec. co. WTF

I am sick of this BS. Once someone gets a little power, it goes straight to their heads. This is enough. Time to Stop.

With the way the world is headed now, this may be a moot point anyway but till that day, I am not going to except this BS, doublespeak that is meant to placate the dumbed down masses any-longer and you shouldn't either.

Tune into another episode of Dancing With the Stars or American Idol. Sheesh. I haven't had broadcast or cable TV for almost 15 years now and I guess I don't miss it.

Wake up.

Rant off

Hardballer out!

imported post

I have posted a few things on this board, used to read it almost everyday, then as time wore on I found myself reading it less and less. The reason is the typical online passive/aggressiveness of a good number of the regularly posting members. This is pro 2a site, and I understand there are quite a few people with incredibly strong beliefs on the 2a, but come on people. With the exception of maybe Madison and the inner city of Milwaukee this is has got to be the most liberal district in the state. I know this, I live here. This lady says shes running and it appears she is 90% pro 2a. Yes, a candidate that is 100% would be preferable, but your gonna rip her apart because she is pro training and is "ok with background checks"? Do you realize how anti-gun the guy thats in there now is?

If you plan on sitting back and not supporting candidates unless they fit 100% of your beliefs all you are going to do is give the Barrett and Brady folks a leg up.

"Welcome to our forum, we are glad to see a candidate such as yourself running in a traditionally anti-gun district. Maybe we can discuss your beliefs on training requirements and back ground checks sometime, but in the mean time good luck and let us know how we can help you give that extreme anti 2nd amendment nut the boot!" And then 20 follow on posts welcoming her. THAT is what should have happened.

Rip me apart now- be all aggressive, this is the internet, you're a big man here. No one is more pro 2a than you, make sure you show everyone else that. Let me have it.

imported post

Constitutionalist wrote:

I have posted a few things on this board, used to read it almost everyday, then as time wore on I found myself reading it less and less. The reason is the typical online passive/aggressiveness of a good number of the regularly posting members. This is pro 2a site, and I understand there are quite a few people with incredibly strong beliefs on the 2a, but come on people. With the exception of maybe Madison and the inner city of Milwaukee this is has got to be the most liberal district in the state. I know this, I live here. This lady says shes running and it appears she is 90% pro 2a. Yes, a candidate that is 100% would be preferable, but your gonna rip her apart because she is pro training and is "ok with background checks"?  Do you realize how anti-gun the guy thats in there now is?

If you plan on sitting back and not supporting candidates unless they fit 100% of your beliefs all you are going to do is give the Barrett and Brady folks a leg up.

"Welcome to our forum, we are glad to see a candidate such as yourself running in a traditionally anti-gun district. Maybe we can discuss your beliefs on training requirements and back ground checks sometime, but in the mean time good luck and let us know how we can help you give that extreme anti 2nd amendment nut the boot!" And then 20 follow on posts welcoming her. THAT is what should have happened.

Rip me apart now- be all aggressive, this is the internet, you're a big man here. No one is more pro 2a than you, make sure you show everyone else that. Let me have it.

Click to expand...

+1

imported post

Constitutionalist wrote:

I have posted a few things on this board, used to read it almost everyday, then as time wore on I found myself reading it less and less. The reason is the typical online passive/aggressiveness of a good number of the regularly posting members. This is pro 2a site, and I understand there are quite a few people with incredibly strong beliefs on the 2a, but come on people. With the exception of maybe Madison and the inner city of Milwaukee this is has got to be the most liberal district in the state. I know this, I live here. This lady says shes running and it appears she is 90% pro 2a. Yes, a candidate that is 100% would be preferable, but your gonna rip her apart because she is pro training and is "ok with background checks"?  Do you realize how anti-gun the guy thats in there now is?

If you plan on sitting back and not supporting candidates unless they fit 100% of your beliefs all you are going to do is give the Barrett and Brady folks a leg up.

"Welcome to our forum, we are glad to see a candidate such as yourself running in a traditionally anti-gun district. Maybe we can discuss your beliefs on training requirements and back ground checks sometime, but in the mean time good luck and let us know how we can help you give that extreme anti 2nd amendment nut the boot!" And then 20 follow on posts welcoming her. THAT is what should have happened.

Rip me apart now- be all aggressive, this is the internet, you're a big man here. No one is more pro 2a than you, make sure you show everyone else that. Let me have it.

Click to expand...

Howdy Constitutionalist.

You can be as warm and fuzzy as you want. Appeasement does not work, Nor does being compliment or complacent. Just look at what just happened with the NRA. The perfect example of what can happen when you are not firm and unbending.

The NRA demonstrates appeasement and compromise on a regular basis. They operationally define bi-partisan cooperation. This is great in a business but when we are talking about the Constitution of the United States of America, Hmmmmm, I think it sucks. When you compromise on the Constitution, what happens.

You loose! Why? Because you had it all in the first place. When you compromise, you loose your rights. It took 230 some years whittle our beloved Constitution to it's present remnant. How much farther away do we want to wander.

Hardballer out.

imported post

Constitutionalist wrote:

I have posted a few things on this board, used to read it almost everyday, then as time wore on I found myself reading it less and less. The reason is the typical online passive/aggressiveness of a good number of the regularly posting members. This is pro 2a site, and I understand there are quite a few people with incredibly strong beliefs on the 2a, but come on people. With the exception of maybe Madison and the inner city of Milwaukee this is has got to be the most liberal district in the state. I know this, I live here. This lady says shes running and it appears she is 90% pro 2a. Yes, a candidate that is 100% would be preferable, but your gonna rip her apart because she is pro training and is "ok with background checks"? Do you realize how anti-gun the guy thats in there now is?

If you plan on sitting back and not supporting candidates unless they fit 100% of your beliefs all you are going to do is give the Barrett and Brady folks a leg up.

"Welcome to our forum, we are glad to see a candidate such as yourself running in a traditionally anti-gun district. Maybe we can discuss your beliefs on training requirements and back ground checks sometime, but in the mean time good luck and let us know how we can help you give that extreme anti 2nd amendment nut the boot!" And then 20 follow on posts welcoming her. THAT is what should have happened.

Rip me apart now- be all aggressive, this is the internet, you're a big man here. No one is more pro 2a than you, make sure you show everyone else that. Let me have it.

Click to expand...

Nice to see fellow constituent of the 19th chime in. I believe those taking pot shots from the hinterlands don't get how completely anti and oppressive the Milwaukee area is. This city has banned gun shops and ranges. They continuously harass dealers in the nearby suburbs. The Milwaukee Gun club once located on the north end of the city on Lake Michigan was run out of town years ago. Richards never met a gun control law he wouldn't vote for. Jeff Plale flipped on the CC veto override. Near by we have Lena Taylor and Spencer Coggs who happily introduce bill after bill to infringe on the second. Microstamping - "Close the gun show loophole", all start with Milwaukee legislators. So those in the outer reaches of the state who want change should be pulling for any candidate from this area who is even remotely pro 2a. Because all the loonyness begins here... but effects you out there.

Krista would be a huge step in the right direction. Thanks for signing on Krista. Any opinion on Castle Doctrine?

Could you give this thread a read- http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum57/45130.html -Wisconsin Republican party platform calls for unlicensed concealed carry, and maybe give some thoughts.

imported post

I was thinking all day of an analogy. This is the only one which makes some sense to me.

Let's say you are owed $1,000,000 (your right to constitutional carry). There is no question you are owed this. You even have a contract (the Constitution) that says it.

However, due to bad dealings and some bad people (the incumbent), you haven't received a penny.

All of a sudden, someone steps forward and says they can get you $825,000 (unregulated OC and permit CC).

Would you be stubborn and says, nope, you owe me $1,000,000 and I will not settle for a penny less? Personally, I'd cash that $825,000 check which would allow me to work much more effectively on the $175,000 I am still owed.

I guess I'd be selling out in some of your opinions.

imported post

paul@paul-fisher.com wrote:

I was thinking all day of an analogy. This is the only one which makes some sense to me.

Let's say you are owed $1,000,000 (your right to constitutional carry). There is no question you are owed this. You even have a contract (the Constitution) that says it.

However, due to bad dealings and some bad people (the incumbent), you haven't received a penny.

All of a sudden, someone steps forward and says they can get you $825,000 (unregulated OC and permit CC).

Would you be stubborn and says, nope, you owe me $1,000,000 and I will not settle for a penny less? Personally, I'd cash that $825,000 check which would allow me to work much more effectively on the $175,000 I am still owed.

I guess I'd be selling out in some of your opinions.

Click to expand...

Paul, that's a great analogy. No, I don't think you're a sell out. I think we have differing opinions of which we are entitled.

So far.

The issue of how we carry or what laws apply are shaping up to be bit players in the grand scheme of things when considering the state of the world's and our nation's economy.

The depressed future either looks like a long and painfully drawn out decline or an abrupt, violent flush down the sh--ter. Either way, ripe for BG's.

At this point, I am happy with open carry. Obviously I would appreciate the State's ludicrous Open Season on school children laws changed, It would be great to squash the incredibly duncical, fascist, controling DNR vehicle carry laws as to allow carry in a vehicle.

And I would like to see the parks open to carry as well. Um, let's see, no protection in the dark, remote forest or carry a gun. Tough call that.

As for myself, making a bad choice over a horrible choice, well, I guess only time will tell. We'll see. I don't see the value in quibbling over small things right now.

I can tell you this, one must be blind to not see the writing on the wall. With what is going on in the Gulf, kinda like a grand false flag, and AKA's response, the direction the world's governments are going, fleeing the dollar, (yes I know they are couching it in terms like un-pegging etc. It's just that the fear is palpable.) I believe we will not really have to worry about how we carry for too much longer.

Maybe I am wrong and I hope so but I believe the time is over for tepid words and political correctness. We are at a turning point in this country and we must stand boldly and make our case known with no uncertain terms.

We must stand up to opposition at every turn and accept no compromise. If we compromise, we lose. With Hillary and the UN hot on our heals, we can ill afford the luxury of not speaking our minds and making our case known.

I am no longer a part of the silent majority. We are Free men and women, not slaves.

Hardballer out.

imported post

[font="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"]
[/font]

Meet The Candidate

For those of you in the 19th and even those who are not

Meet The Candidate

Monday, October 18 · 5:30pm - 8:00pm
South Shore Yacht Club
2200 East Nock

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

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

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

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

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