• 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.

Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett says concealed carry permit = gun trafficking

DangerClose

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2011
Messages
570
Location
The mean streets of WI
Mayor Barrett of Milwaukee wrote an opinion piece for JSOnline.
http://www.jsonline.com/news/opinion/a-bill-fit-for-the-nations-gun-traffickers-132831543.html
It goes without saying that the NRA ignores the consequences of this ill-conceived proposal. For one thing, the National Right-To-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011 (HR 822) would empower gun traffickers and threaten the safety of our police officers. Gun traffickers with a permit to carry concealed weapons from another state would be able to easily travel to our state with a variety of firearms in tow, and police would be unable to stop them until they actually witnessed an illegal gun sale.
How would police stop someone with guns before witnessing an illegal gun sale?

Why would I get a CC permit to transport guns when I can already transport them in the trunk without a permit?
 

TyGuy

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2010
Messages
775
Location
, ,
I'm glad that Chicago isn't the only city with a mayor that is so out of touch on 2A issues.
 

pkbites

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 2, 2006
Messages
773
Location
Milwaukee, Wisconsin, ,
There is a very good letter in Wednesdays Journal:


Barrett or his fellow Democrats routinely have forced federal laws upon the individual states. Drinking ages, seat-belt laws, drunken driving standards and highway speed limits, just to name a few. Barrett did little during his tenure to obey and defend the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.Now that he is on the receiving end of such legislation, he starts spouting about states' rights? What hypocrisy!

EXCELLENT point!!!! Barrett was in Congress for a decade and I recall him never voting against or speaking against federal mandates that shackled the rights of the individual states to set their own laws/standards. Now that the same thing is happening regarding something he disagrees with, he's babbling about "states rights"!

The HUGE difference is, national concealed carry has to do with an actual Constitutional Amendment: The Second Amendment! The 55 speed limit, seat belts, et al are not items mentioned in the Constitution! Barrett is a hypocrite and was a failure as a Representative because he did not adequately defend, protect, nor OBEY the U.S. Constitution!!!!!!!!!!
 

wild boar

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2011
Messages
445
Location
wisconsin
I know there is no quick fix...

...for stupid, only time. This dumb ass gets a platform any time he wants to spread his propaganda. We; on the other hand, are forced to live with it, and the fallout. Like I said, we have time, stupid comes, and stupid goes. boar out.
 

xenophon

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2008
Messages
316
Location
Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
There is a very good letter in Wednesdays Journal:


Barrett or his fellow Democrats routinely have forced federal laws upon the individual states. Drinking ages, seat-belt laws, drunken driving standards and highway speed limits, just to name a few. Barrett did little during his tenure to obey and defend the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.Now that he is on the receiving end of such legislation, he starts spouting about states' rights? What hypocrisy!

EXCELLENT point!!!! Barrett was in Congress for a decade and I recall him never voting against or speaking against federal mandates that shackled the rights of the individual states to set their own laws/standards. Now that the same thing is happening regarding something he disagrees with, he's babbling about "states rights"!

The HUGE difference is, national concealed carry has to do with an actual Constitutional Amendment: The Second Amendment! The 55 speed limit, seat belts, et al are not items mentioned in the Constitution! Barrett is a hypocrite and was a failure as a Representative because he did not adequately defend, protect, nor OBEY the U.S. Constitution!!!!!!!!!!

That's an awesome point. But typical hypocrisy. Say nothing on most things, but the ONE thing you hate most, oh boy, it's just SO WRONG now.
 

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,823
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
When someone begins their argument with "It goes without saying..." you can almost assuredly bet your bottom dollar that someone is about to try and pull the wool over your eyes.
 

Old Grump

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2010
Messages
387
Location
Blue River, Wisconsin, USA
There is a very good letter in Wednesdays Journal:


Barrett or his fellow Democrats routinely have forced federal laws upon the individual states. Drinking ages, seat-belt laws, drunken driving standards and highway speed limits, just to name a few. Barrett did little during his tenure to obey and defend the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.Now that he is on the receiving end of such legislation, he starts spouting about states' rights? What hypocrisy!

EXCELLENT point!!!! Barrett was in Congress for a decade and I recall him never voting against or speaking against federal mandates that shackled the rights of the individual states to set their own laws/standards. Now that the same thing is happening regarding something he disagrees with, he's babbling about "states rights"!

The HUGE difference is, national concealed carry has to do with an actual Constitutional Amendment: The Second Amendment! The 55 speed limit, seat belts, et al are not items mentioned in the Constitution! Barrett is a hypocrite and was a failure as a Representative because he did not adequately defend, protect, nor OBEY the U.S. Constitution!!!!!!!!!!
He is not being a hypocrite but very consistent. All those acts he supports are people control acts and he is all for them. Any at that gives people control over their own actions and allows them the freedom to defend themselves is completely against the Socialist agenda. The man is wrong but he is consistently wrong.
 

DangerClose

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2011
Messages
570
Location
The mean streets of WI
lol, I like the letter right below that one:
I, for one, do not understand why civilized citizens living in a civilized society feel safer having a gun on their hips.
If I considered the Milwaukee area "civilized society," I wouldn't feel I need a gun. :lol:
 

pkbites

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 2, 2006
Messages
773
Location
Milwaukee, Wisconsin, ,
He is not being a hypocrite

Yes he is. I implore you to rethink your position. Barrett was a congressman and he routinely voted for federal laws that trumped states rights, or he voted against bills that gave rights back to states (such as highway speed limits). He was never a champion of "states rights" when he was in congress, and was, in fact, the enemy of states rights.

Now he starts yammering about states rights when it serves him? What word would you use to describe that?





A word allowed to be used on this forum, anyway. :p
 

Old Grump

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2010
Messages
387
Location
Blue River, Wisconsin, USA
Yes he is. I implore you to rethink your position. Barrett was a congressman and he routinely voted for federal laws that trumped states rights, or he voted against bills that gave rights back to states (such as highway speed limits). He was never a champion of "states rights" when he was in congress, and was, in fact, the enemy of states rights.

Now he starts yammering about states rights when it serves him? What word would you use to describe that?





A word allowed to be used on this forum, anyway. :p

Didn't read my post or just took one line out of it and ignored the rest didn't you?
 
Top