anti "editorial" in today's west bend daily news

http://activepaper.olivesoftware.co...MDA2MDA=&Mode=HTML&Locale=english-skin-custom

Basically, his entire editorial is flawed, because he thinks that people who carry only do so for the purpose of "fighting crime" and being "vigilantes" who think we're cops. We don't carry for your every day joe blow non-violent crime. If some dude grabs a lady's purse and takes off, I'm not going to draw my gun. I carry so that if a mad gunman comes into someplace that me or my family happen to be, we have at least the chance to save ourselves.

He needs to be told the rules of armed self defense are: 1. avoid a situation 2. get away from a situation if possible 3. hide behind cover if possible 4. defend yourself and love ones if you have to

His case is FULL of flaws.

Guns have no place in courtrooms where emotions run high. Family law cases are especially emotional and decisions affecting children and money often leave one of the parties very unhappy and we don’t want any more courthouse shootings.

Click to expand...

So...Mr Waring R. Fincke, I'm sitting in the court and some bozo decides to shoot everyone, if there are no firearms, how do I defend myself. By your own admission there are shootings in courthouses.

His email is available with a simple search of his name, btw. (not that I'm advocating emailing him - antis are illogical and impossible to sway ime.)

From the above linked article:

You should remember that you will not be successful with all anti–gun people. Some people are so terrified and have such strong defenses, that it’s not possible for someone without professional training to get through.

(Some) people have made a conscious choice to oppose firearms ownership and self–defense. They almost always gain power, prestige, and money from their anti–gun politics. They are not interested in the facts or in saving lives. They know the facts and understand the consequences of their actions, and will happily sacrifice innocent people if it furthers their selfish agenda. Do not use these techniques on such people. They only respond to fears of losing the power, prestige and money that they covet

Click to expand...

Guns have no place in courtrooms where emotions run high.

Click to expand...

So he thinks that bailiffs & deputies should be disarmed in courthouses.
Fine by me.
As long as EVERYONE coming into the building goes through the metal detector / groping. No exceptions for people who work there. Heck, how many post office shootings were by PO employees, & how many by citizens?

And apparently he hasn't bothered to read the law, or he'd know that (in WI) courthouses are off-limits to law-abiding armed citizens. Of course, there were laws before about citizens not carrying firearms into gov't buildings, but criminals ignore those... That's how you get courthouse shootings.

Besides, what's the problem with carry in a library? A stack of books is a "safe direction", so there's lots to hide behind if a criminal does something stupid.

Schools are another place we wisely prohibit firearms... Learning cannot take place when you fear a classmate or teacher might be packing.

Click to expand...

Experience from other states proves him wrong. A few colleges don't prohibit 2A rights on campus, and in some states people with licenses can carry into K-12 schools.
And minors generally can't possess firearms (legally) anyway, so of course they couldn't take them into a school. That would be breaking at least 2 laws.

The only logical rationale for concealed carry is to allow citizens to prevent crime.

Click to expand...

So he'd prefer open carry? We can do that.
And what rationale does he accept for people voting, worshiping, publishing a blog...?

Perhaps there is a fear that someone will come in and take the library fine coin box and armed citizens should be present to deter the theft.

Click to expand...

:banghead:
For a lawyer, he sure doesn't know the law very well.

Waring R. Fincke practices law

Click to expand...

http://web.me.com/wrfincke1/Waring_R._Fincke_Criminal_Defense_Lawyer/Welcome.html
"If you are looking for a lawyer to defend your liberty who believes in the presumption of innocence..."
Certainly doesn't look that way from his statements.
His editorial looks to me like he's assuming the worst about people he's probably never met, & certainly never talked with.

What if we invite him to the Delavan thing tomorrow? What other OC events are coming up that might be more in that area?

i am not a vigilante', i am vigilant, there is a difference.

Although I must say, in reading through his site, the advice under "busted" & "know your rights" seems good & could be useful in the wrong circumstances.

This attorney is also VERY liberal, and in fact, is pretty much head of the recall walker effort in this area.

He also seems to hunt for reasons to get his name in the media. He likes to get into anything in the public. A recent example was he was the attorney for the LBGT group at west bend high school in their fight against the school/community.

McX said:

i am not a vigilante', i am vigilant, there is a difference.

Click to expand...

Now thats a good come back. Well put.

This guy is an ass-pirate criminal defense attorney who is against anything that may take business away from his pathetic attorney practice.

I've seen his pieces in the paper over the few years that I've lived up here, and it's always good for a head shake and a brief fake laugh. Unfortunately, these are the people that are listened to the most.

That being said, I do not support a citizenry roaming about the community with hidden firearms, striking out with vigilante justice at perceived illegal or threatening behavior.

Click to expand...

Who does?

Just more propaganda...

:banghead:

HandyHamlet said:

Who does?

Just more propaganda...

:banghead:

Click to expand...

Hyperbole runs rampant when facts are scarce on the side of the speaker.

That being said, I do not support a citizenry roaming about the community with hidden firearms, striking out with vigilante justice at perceived illegal or threatening behavior.

Click to expand...

Look at the disingenuous imagery the writer attempts to create with the use of a few key words. It makes the unsuspecting reader visualize gun toting mall ninja zombies making bad decisions.

bmwguy11 said:

http://activepaper.olivesoftware.co...MDA2MDA=&Mode=HTML&Locale=english-skin-custom

Basically, his entire editorial is flawed, because he thinks that people who carry only do so for the purpose of "fighting crime" and being "vigilantes" who think we're cops. We don't carry for your every day joe blow non-violent crime. If some dude grabs a lady's purse and takes off, I'm not going to draw my gun. I carry so that if a mad gunman comes into someplace that me or my family happen to be, we have at least the chance to save ourselves.

Click to expand...

This guy should go back and read the law.

1. Agree, where did the idea come from about "Vigilante" justice?

2. IMHO, schools is just where we should be allowed. After all, one must wonder, how many lives could have been saved at "Columbine"?

3. His reference to "West Bend", and "Wild West-Style", as if those who carry are out looking for a showdown.

4. I'm not sure what "hunting" references have to do with personal protection.

5. Where did he get the idea that "Metal Detectors" were needed in Waukesha when posting?

6. He must be a card carrying member of "WAVE". JMHO

JJC