• 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.

And the Gun control begins.


Regular Member
Nov 19, 2008
Minocqua, Wisconsin, ,
I don't think so. Unless things have changed, he was shooting a Glock with an extended mag. Not an assault weapon. They will try anything. If we sit quietly by and allow the BS to flow, they might get traction. If we stand up for a change, I don't think it will fly!

I'll be the first to admit I don't know a lot about various kinds of weapons. But I knew enough that the pistol certainly wasn't an 'assault' weapon. Either the writer doesn't have a clue about guns or he is gun savvy and will deceive in any way possible to further his agenda. This will be in the Journal/Sentinel in a couple days. We need to step up and write our responses. As an editor for the paper, we need to show what an uninformed fool he is.


Campaign Veteran
Apr 21, 2009
, Wisconsin, USA
The attack seems to be going after "high" capacity mags. Remember many states have limitations now, making it a no cost gun control vote for members of congress from those states. The other attack is making it socially unacceptable for Walmart to sell ammunition. The old "guns are worthless without ammunition" or "lets make ammunition prohibitly expensive" routine.


the government reaction(s) to this point have been inappropriate and un-needed; both bills introduced have nothing to do with, nor will affect a tragedy from happening. Limiting the rights of the law abiding have no effect on the criminal element. increasing the rights of the law abiding is the only real effective response that should be given. more armed citizens means less crime, and less tragedies. This incident has been catapulted to the front of the public eye, while the normal nobody citizens that are shot by the lawless every day in this country continue to suffer, without any real voice for them. Perhapse if an Open Carrier favors a candidate, to show his support, and social responsibility they should show up in proximity to their candidate legally, and lawfully armed.

added on edit; if challenge was made to a OC'er in proximity to an elected official, one should answer; this elected official is paid with my tax dollars, and I am here to protect my investment.
Last edited:

Brass Magnet

Founder's Club Member
Apr 23, 2009
Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
The douchebaggery of the moonbats knows no bounds. They are always trying to force their left wing states agendas on others. The lawmakers should make a point of letting the states deal with their own gun laws and I think this would be the best statement for the conservatives to make when confronted with the law. Not only that, but with the practice of listing constitutional authority for the proposed laws now in effect, it will be interesting to see if a commerce clause argument will win against a now federally recognized fundemental right to bear arms.

The ASB expired in 2004. That means they have been waiting with baited breath for 6 years for something to happen like this so they could somehow take advantage of it. Think about that. Six years! In that time way more people were killed with knives, baseball bats, bare hands, swimming pools, and trampolines than supposed "assault weapons".

Remember the video? Mcarthy was the one who didn't even know WTF a barrel shroud was in her own legislation. As if a barrel shroud (ie. a glorified forearm), made something more dangerous. Her soul purpose was and is, to ban legal ownership of firearms.

I'm hoping the newly elected conservatives go about this the right way.


Dec 13, 2009
La Crosse, Wisconsin, USA
Here in AZ the shootings are all you hear or see in the news media but I have to say that the reporting and even the editorials are fairly balanced. For every gun-hater there is a supporter to counter the claim.

Will the far left attempt to capitalize on the event? Surely, and when don't they?
Will anything they do have any lasting effect on our 2A rights? No way.
Last edited:


Regular Member
Jul 18, 2009
Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
As soon as I saw this on the news Sat. afternoon I knew the hand wringing and gnashing of the teeth would immediately follow. Not only the guns I've heard some want to make threatening dialogue/remarks a federal crime :cuss:.