So I called Laura Cnare...

Her comments have clearly exposed her understanding of it being a legal activity, no preemption question at all. What she stated was that her greatest concern was preserving the culture of Madison. Something to the effect that we have no understanding of the society of Madison which does NOT include people carrying guns! This clearly puts her personal preference and opinion above her duty to uphold the Constitutions and the law. Impeach or recall, whichever is the proper action.

In effect she said I know it is legal but I don't care. When in our town you will act the way we want you to or stay home. Then the police chief memo answers by saying if you do come we will harass and arrest you so you never want to come again.

I found her reply to another;
"Thanks for the publicity. I take my responsibilities to protect the integrity and atmosphere of my city very seriously and am painfully aware that the majority of conflict between people happens when others are not respectful of commonly accepted norms. We do not pack pistols in restaurants in Madison. Why not? Simply not necessary or appropriate. It's too bad that some people feel that exercising their rights to make a point has to be such an issue. Frankly, visits that cause these kinds of disturbances aren't economic stimuli for our city. That poor restaurant probably lost sales due to the show. As you note, you are not a Madison resident, thus don't know the flavor of our community. This could be the best campaign incident in a long time!"

anmut said:

I'm sure she has a couple degrees and the people at her book clubs think that she's very intelligent.

Click to expand...

Hey! Some of us resemble that remark.

i can't comment on my i.q. i don't know if i have one. i can give my current age though:

100.437 precisely, measured in your years
(where is this phrase from you rocket scientists in attendance?)


added on edit; this one sat for awhile, by God for once i got the smart little whipper-snappers!
i'll throw the answer in here if they don't get it by the end of the day.

double add; i just can't let the young ones hang; they'll burn their computer search engines out on this question. the answer is:

how spock's dad responded to a question from doctor McCoy as to how old he was- star trek, original series, journey to babel empisode i beleive.

2 For, 2 Against

Cnare and Kerr Against
Thuy and Sanborn For
____________________________________________________________________________
I also do not think you should (or anyone else) should openly carrying guns in Madison and feel quite confident that the vast majority of actual Madisonians that I represent agree.

You and your family are welcome to visit, but please leave your deadly weapons at home.

Julia Kerr, Alderperson
_____________________________________________________________________________
I find the response disgusting, and while it is not the "official" stance of Madison government, it is unfortunately the predominate one.

-Jed Sanborn
______________________________________________________________________________
I am sorry that you and your friends had such an unpleasant experience visiting our area.
It's unfortunate the incident has been blown way out of proportion.

I am doubly sorry that Alder C'nare, who happened to be the Pro-tem for Madison Common Council, has such a flippant response showing so little respect for visitors to Madison.
My apologies to you for her lack of common courtesy and class.
I hope this won't keep you from returning to Madison.

Sincerely,
Alder Thuy/District 20

I also noticed that Alder Thuy is not afraid to let her position be known as she copied vicki at WIBA the response to me.

Shows how much she knows. Kids aren't allowed to carry guns, so carrying a gun can't possibly be childish.

What amazes me is the "this is the way it should be, screw the constitution and laws" attitude of C'nare and Kerr.

Just not right.

bhancock said:

Cnare and Kerr Against
Thuy and Sanborn For
<SNIP>
_____________________________________________________________________________
I find the response disgusting, and while it is not the "official" stance of Madison government, it is unfortunately the predominate one.

-Jed Sanborn
______________________________________________________________________________
<SNIP>

Click to expand...

I just got a response from Alder Sanborn in regards to the letter I sent him. I live in District 1. Let's just say he is one of the good ones!

Found this article along with a picture of District 3 Alder Lauren Cnare

Madison alder declares constitutional freedoms to be ‘childish’
September 25th, 2010 3:39 pm CT
By John Pierce, Minneapolis Gun Rights Examiner

The ‘Madison 5’ incident continues to spread ripples across Wisconsin as the city and the police department struggle to defend their actions.

Background

Last Wednesday I wrote about the fact that the Wisconsin courts have not only held that a person may not be charged with obstruction for refusing to identify themselves but that "no reasonable person could believe that the obstruction statute includes within its terms persons who fail to identify themselves. Nor could a reasonable person determine that any other statute authorizes the arrest of persons for refusing to state their names. ... Hence, the deputies in this case are not entitled to qualified immunity." Henes v. Morrissey, 533 N.W.2d 802 (1995).
I also wrote about the fact that, facing suits against both the city and the individual officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (deprivation of rights under color of law), the obstruction charges were quickly dropped. However, in a publicly released memo which appears clearly designed to have a chilling effect on the free exercise of rights in Madison, police chief Wray announced that all five law-abiding citizens who were open carrying that night would be charged with disorderly conduct.

According to the memo, these charges are based solely upon the proposition that the citizen who called police was ‘disturbed’ by seeing the men exercising their rights. Mike Stollenwerk, DC Gun Rights Examiner, immediately demonstrated the falsity of this argument in his Friday article in which he included the 911 call from the supposedly ‘disturbed’ citizen wherein she stated that “there’s no problem and it’s no emergency . . .I feel bad then, if they’re not doing anything wrong then it’s my mistake.”

The legal analysis is ...

This is an excerpt ... the rest may be read here

Nice article, John. Thanks for posting it, Don. Hopefully this will start to get some play in the news, too.

Could it be that Alder C'nare is sexually deprived? Maybe she should get some professional help. Seeing her photo I can understand why she is sexually deprived and possibly has permanent PMS.

I will not visit the depraved city of Madison until this is resolved.

A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity. ("General Introduction to Psychoanalysis," S. Freud)

Springfielddx40 said:

A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity. ("General Introduction to Psychoanalysis," S. Freud)

Click to expand...

Now THAT is a quote for the news paper!

Misattributed to Freud on several levels.

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Freud#Misattributed

Misattributed

A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity.
This is not a statement that appears in any translation of any of Freud's works. It is a paraphrase of a statement from the essay "Guns, Murders, and the Constitution" (February 1990) by Don B. Kates, Jr. where Kates summarizes his views of passages in Dreams in Folklore (1958) by Freud and David E. Oppenheim, while disputing statements by Emmanuel Tanay in "Neurotic Attachment to Guns" in a 1976 edition of The Fifty Minute Hour: A Collection of True Psychoanalytic Tales (1955) by Robert Mitchell Lindner:

Dr. Tanay is perhaps unaware of — in any event, he does not cite — other passages more relevant to his argument. In these other passages Freud associates retarded sexual and emotional development not with gun ownership, but with fear and loathing of weapons. The probative importance that ought to be attached to the views of Freud is, of course, a matter of opinion. The point here is only that those views provide no support for the penis theory of gun ownership.

Due to misreading of this essay and its citations, this paraphrase of an opinion about Freud's ideas has been wrongly attributed to Freud himself, and specifically to his 10th Lecture "Symbolism in Dreams" in General Introduction to Psychoanalysis on some internet forum pages: alt.quotations, uk.politics.guns, talk.politics.guns, can.talk.guns , etc.

Click to expand...

Believe nothing that you read or hear without verifying it yourself unless it fits your preexisting worldview.

Doug Huffman said:

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Freud#Misattributed

Believe nothing that you read or hear without verifying it yourself unless it fits your preexisting worldview.

Click to expand...

Hell Doug, even if it is a mis-attributed quote, it's still a good quote and probably, on some levels, even true.

Precisely my point, that one should not "quote" a well known authority with whose works one is not at least passing familiar. Attributing a statement like that to Freud is like calling a lead slug a gold piece.

Without fail Doug. If you are so concerned about it, I suggest you contact NWTC and tell them the books they are teaching us out of are wrong.

Neal Boortz, WSB Atlanta, covered it well today.

http://boortz.com/nealz_nuze/2010/09/let-the-class-war-begin.html

Boortz said:

Some people pursue knowledge, work hard and pay attention to decision-making. They become wealthy. Others squander their education, work 40 hours a week and no more, and make stupid decision. They don't become wealthy. The people who have failed to do what it takes to become wealthy look at those who have succeeded and adopt an attitude something like this:

Click to expand...

Boortz is the one that taught me, "Believe nothing that you read or hear without verifying it yourself unless it fits your preexisting world view."

perhapse she should change her name the Lefty Cnare.

Good examiner article talking about her outrageous comment. She needs to be exposed.