• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Jeri B's Idiotic Words of Nonsense

Flipper

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
1,140
Location
, Wisconsin, USA
From WAVE Facebook:

Quote

"For all of us without a criminal history, our risk of being killed by a "bad guy" is quite low. Rather, our risk comes from "the good guys" in our lives (ie. people who -- based on their lack of criminal histories -- would qualify for a CCW permit)."
 

Max

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 30, 2008
Messages
335
Location
, Wisconsin, USA
Anti-gunners

Why is it when the anti-gunners what to ban guns or enact new, restrictive laws concerning guns it is because "over 16,000 murders happen every year", and "the US is the murder capital of the world" or "blood is flowing in the streets because of guns" but now they are arguing (on facebook) that law abiding citizens do not need to carry guns because our society is not dangerous enough to merit it?
 

SFCRetired

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2008
Messages
1,764
Location
Montgomery, Alabama, USA
Why is it when the anti-gunners what to ban guns or enact new, restrictive laws concerning guns it is because "over 16,000 murders happen every year", and "the US is the murder capital of the world" or "blood is flowing in the streets because of guns" but now they are arguing (on facebook) that law abiding citizens do not need to carry guns because our society is not dangerous enough to merit it?
I've said it before and I'll say it again, "It is all about power and control."

The majority of those who are anti are also "Progressive" (read "durn near Communist") and want an all-powerful central government to provide cradle-to-grave care for everyone. There is no way for any group to achieve that sort of power as long as the masses retain the right of self-defense and the weaponry necessary to exercise that right.

The fact that a steadily growing number of citizens are taking responsibility for their, and their families', safety also erodes the quest for power by undermining the notion that the state, by means of police forces, is responsible for safeguarding citizens. Why do you think that certain (by no means all) police officers and certain police agencies are so anti-open carry? Could it be because it infects the sheeple with the virus that removes them from "subject" status and places them in the "citizen" category?

Believe me, we have a few of these looney tunes down here in the South and we have a few LEAs that have yet to be educated. We're, as are you, working on it.

Keep up the good fight!! And a Happy New Year from the Great State of Alabama!
 

GlockRDH

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2010
Messages
626
Location
north of the Peoples Republic of Madison
From WAVE Facebook:

Quote

"For all of us without a criminal history, our risk of being killed by a "bad guy" is quite low. Rather, our risk comes from "the good guys" in our lives (ie. people who -- based on their lack of criminal histories -- would qualify for a CCW permit)."


Isnt that ALL THE MORE REASON to carry? If you cant trust the 'good guy next to you?
 

Russf

Regular Member
Joined
May 13, 2009
Messages
107
Location
, ,
I dont get it.....

Hey Jeri B

Heres an idea, instead of putting your efforts into people trying to protect themselves and thier families, why dont you put your efforts into the cause of gun violence...I.E the drug epidemic in this country, the umemployed in this country, the mentally ill in this country, and what about the terrorist who threaten attacks in the U.S.A- on guess who the CITIZENS of this country. Put a prohibition on ALCOHOL and you will see many saved lives. What about Doctors who by mistake kill hundreds if not thousands of people a year. (honest mistake thier doctors, just sue them in court).
What about the durg cartels in other countries that spill there blood on U.S soil and why because of what (DRUGS). What about stopping illegal entry of Mexican drug cartels. (Oh thats right lets give them immunity). It is stupid thinking that you can stop the LAW ABIDING from a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to protect themselves from these threats. (oh thats right our constitution is outdated and we need a new one). What about our own goverment that keeps its people down (Yes we do need some protection from them even if you dont believe that statement). Do you think that we could not stop the illegal flow of drugs into this country, we have an army that can do it. The problem is our goverment wants to keep the addicted addicted. (Well or police our out maned and they are doing their best to stop theses drug addicts and dealers) B.S then why do I get stopped for having a tail light out or why people get stopped in the street for J-walking or not wearing a helmet while riding a bike or someone spitting on the sidewalk, or someone swearing on the bus (Oh 500.00 dollar fine) Thats fricken rediculous. (But the police are there to protect me). Problem is they are protecting me from the wrong things. Do we need laws like this on the book in some cases yes and some cases no, my point is people like you want to bubble wrap everyone to make them safe, when we dont need it and we pass stupid law after law because of people like you. That time is in the past because of people like us who believe in a FREE SOCIETY. The people are tired of this B.S and we are going to change this country by our vote and get rid of the dumb thinking idiots like you.

Now if we get people working in this country we can stop some of the gun violence but not all because some people want to live off our tax dollars and what they do not get for free they will take and how will they take it (BY ROBBING AND KILLING innocent people). Well lets pass more stupid laws to give out more free tax payer money and not get jobs for the people. Free health care for everyone, how about jobs so people can get thier own insurance. I am not saying that there are those who are in need of health care and food to put on the table for thier kids. We do need those programs to continue. My point here is, we can't give out more and more free money because it will not stop the criminal element from doing what they do.

I have alot more to say I just do not have the time right now.

Thanks and have a well protected life.....I know I will!!!!!!
 

Krusty

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2010
Messages
281
Location
Trempealeau County, Wisconsin
From WAVE Facebook:

Quote

"For all of us without a criminal history, our risk of being killed by a "bad guy" is quite low. Rather, our risk comes from "the good guys" in our lives (ie. people who -- based on their lack of criminal histories -- would qualify for a CCW permit)."

Hmmm is she talking about the cops?? She is truly a nut case!
 

MKEgal

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
4,383
Location
in front of my computer, WI
One of WAVEs more recent posts was a study claiming that:
"Workplaces where guns were specifically permitted were 5 to 7 times more likely to be the site of a worker homicide relative to those where all weapons were prohibited."
Study at: http://ajph.aphapublications.org/cgi/content/full/95/5/830

They started with 296 workplaces, and found 264 had explicit policies either for or against. (So they're excluding about 11% of their respondants right up front.)
The study admits that they ignored places where the person answering questions responded either "we don't have a policy about weapons" or "I don't know the policy". They only focussed on "weapons are allowed" and "weapons are prohibited".

Also, they weren't even studying whether it was the employees who were killing:
"The design of the study facilitated examination of workplace-level policies but did not allow for questions about individuals, such as whether employees brought weapons to work and whether workers’ weapons were used in violent events."

"workplaces at highest risk for crime also might be those most likely to allow guns."

"We generally did not know how often employees had guns at work, whether workers’ guns were used during the fatal events, and whether perpetrators came armed or used the victims’ own weapons."

It looks like a case of someone starting out knowing what they want to prove, and finding data to support it. They ignore data that might disprove their theory.

If this is the flawed reasoning WAVE uses to support itself, eventually the truth will come out and they'll go away.
 
Last edited:

XDFDE45

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2009
Messages
823
Location
Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
It looks like a case of someone starting out knowing what they want to prove, and finding data to support it. They ignore data that might disprove their theory.

If this is the flawed reasoning WAVE uses to support itself, eventually the truth will come out and they'll go away.

Like all liberals they go on the belief that if you tell a lie enough times it will eventually become the truth. Facts have NO place in their agenda which is to make all of us victims at the expense of their "ideal" gun free society.
 

protias

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
7,308
Location
SE, WI
It looks like a case of someone starting out knowing what they want to prove, and finding data to support it. They ignore data that might disprove their theory.

If this is the flawed reasoning WAVE uses to support itself, eventually the truth will come out and they'll go away.

Like all liberals they go on the belief that if you tell a lie enough times it will eventually become the truth. Facts have NO place in their agenda which is to make all of us victims at the expense of their "ideal" gun free society.
All this was inspired by the principle--which is quite true within itself--that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying.

—Adolf Hitler , Mein Kampf, vol. I, ch. X
 

Krusty

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2010
Messages
281
Location
Trempealeau County, Wisconsin
Their "study" tells of "workplaces". WHAT workplaces? Were they prisons, police departments, or the local neighborhood tavern? I'm sure this info is also being kept quiet!
 

Flipper

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
1,140
Location
, Wisconsin, USA
One would think that Joyce Foundation director, former Democratic governor of Wisconsin, former head of the Wisconsin DNR would attempt to reign in the Foundation's anti-Constitutional firearm control efforts. Biography:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_S._Earl

well.... after reading his biography....forget about him doing that.

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

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/funderProfile.asp?fndid=5310

Seems like the Foundation has been taken over by a self serving elitist group that is using the Foundation's money to advocate for THEIR social agenda. One wonders if the founder donated to Republicans?
 
Last edited:
Top