Mr. Craver,

I could not disagree with you more. It is hard to believe that you, as a history major, would take this stand, unless your a Democrat at heart.

Yes, it’s all about the differences between Republicans and Democrats. To sum it up, Republicans, like myself, believe in individual freedom and the right to choose for oneself. Democrats believe that they know what is best for an individual and pass/veto laws accordingly (just review Sen. Obamas’ recent tirade). Aside from the fact that Gov. Doyle is a Democrat, the two major cities (Milwaukee and Madison) are controlled by Democratic Assemblypersons.

That being said, the Badger Poll you quoted is so seriously flawed that I cannot even begin to cover it all. It was even stated in the poll that had the questions been worded differently, the results would have been different.

The one thing that was correct in the poll, and history has born it out, gun control is not crime control. I have yet to meet a Democrat who can grasp this simple fact of history. Another fact they do not want to talk about is that the 2nd Amendment was not added so American people can hunt and target shoot. It is there to insure the American people have the ability to protect themselves against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

Study your history and you will see that the first thing all governments do when they take over a country is to confiscate all guns…gee, I wonder why.

As a Republican, I respect your right to not own or carry a gun, this is a decision for you to make, not some body of legislators. If you feel uncomfortable knowing that I am carrying a gun, just think how uncomfortable the criminal feels. And, if we are all in class and someone starts shooting, do you want the shooter pointing his gun at you or would you feel better that he was pointing at me because I would be shooting at him. Keep in mind that those who carry concealed in the other 48 states do so after proper training and licensing and are more mindful of their responsibilities than anyone can imagine.

Please examine SHEEP, WOLVES, and SHEEPDOGS http://www.degrata.com/pdf/onsheep.pdf

Thanks,

Mark Davis Barron, Wisconsin

Mark Davis, that was one of the most ignorant Republican tirades Ive ever heard about gun control, and also strayed off the topic of the article completely. Ive heard before this notion that school shootings would be less severe if students were allowed to have guns; they could simply return the fire. This is ABSOLUTELY ridiculous. Not only would it serve to enrage the school shooter, it would cause him to shoot more bullets. You, the defender, would probably be scared and probably arent the best shot in the world thus you would be randomly shooting, no doubt hitting and killing innocents in order to protect yourself. Also, when the police come and they see two people with guns, they wont know which one is the “good” guy and they will most likely kill both of you.

Your response does not address the article; the piece was questioning why the votes regarding gun-control are not representative of the peoples true feelings on gun-control. It is clear that the reason for this is that people against gun-control are simply more passionate about the cause, like yourself.

There’s nothing radical about supporting the individual’s right to self defense.

You say: “The right to own guns for the purpose of hunting deer or ducks is universally welcomed.” But the 2nd amendment has absolutely nothing to do with hunting or sport shooting.

Are people who contest to have their right to defend themselves and others protected really “militant fanatics”? Or are they passionate about protecting their human rights as protected by our constitution.

Certainly an armed campus shouldn’t be taken lightly. Certainly it should involve extra checking and training. But shall we ignore the last year of history where shooting after shooting in gun free zones like schools and malls led to large numbers of injuries or deaths, but in the one place where guns were permitted, a church, an armed citizen defended untold numbers against an assailant.

Individual citizens not part of the police force are just as relevant as protectors of the community. Firearms in the hands of such lawful and responsible citizens are an asset to the security of the community.

We need to be certain that the rights of the lawful and responsible citizens to keep and bear arms, even concealed, are protected, while those who are criminal or irresponsible are prevented access.

Mark,

You and your ilk are an anachronism.

I love this old, tired debate. It sure helps to distract from real issues that are actually raping my wallet.

In the meanwhile, allow these gun-nuts to have a vigilante style shoot-out on campus. That would be hilarious, just like a Hollywood moving staring Bruce Willis or Chris Tucker.

Wow. The previous commenter said you’re a history major. You missed your calling. You should have gone into journalism.

You’ve got all the anti-gun misleading catch phrases down pat, you’re obviously well versed in the art of the ad-hominem and your profligate employment of hyperbole is breathtaking.

I’d refute the facts and statistics that you cite to back up your hysterical rant but…there aren’t any. The whole missive is nothing more than emotional ravings based on your own bigotry.

I wonder if Micheal Bellesiles is looking for a protege? Of course, as far as I know, he’s still unemployed so he may not be able to pay much.

Mark, if you support the right of radicals (ISO, communists, and anarchists for example) or Muslims to carry arms, then I’ll support your right to conceal carry.

You’re a history major and you think that the will of the majority trumps Constitutional rights? I think you need to go hit those books a little harder, especially the ones that explain the concept of a “right”.

Um, the will of the people??? The representatives of the people voted twice for concealed carry, it’s the Governer who was forced to veto it twice, and even with all of his political backroom deals, was almost overridden twice.

The will of the people indeed!

Look for concealed carry coming soon anyway.

By the way, I’ve noticed a lot of anti concealed carry stories coming from college publications lately… is somebody getting a pat on the head from their ultra liberal tenured person?

-Kevin

“This is ABSOLUTELY ridiculous. Not only would it serve to enrage the school shooter, it would cause him to shoot more bullets.”

So…don’t try and defend yourself because that might make your attacker more angry. You’re well on your way to prominent career in the Democratic Party. Congrats!

Go troll somewhere else, Mr Davis! You don’t even appear to be a current student or an alumni according to the database. Do you just sit there Googling gun articles every morning? Seriously, get a life.

Wow… Imagine average citizens actually shooting back at the bad guys. How would that work out? You don’t have to think too hard about it. Just look at the results in Israel in the early days of the intifada. Terrorists were pulling out AK47’s in the markets in broad daylight with the intent to masacre as many Israelis as possible. They were often shot dead promply by multiple armed citizens well before the police or armed forces could intervene. The technique of firing back immediately was so successful at stoping the threat that the terrorists were forced to switch tactics and began using suicide bomb belts. So… Do you think armed citizens could stop the bad guys here before the police arived? Nah! That’s just NRA gunnut propaganda to boost gun sales.

In many cases the things that the anti gun people state are impossible have happened or are currently happening somewhere in the world. But their minds refuse to be confused by historical facts.

I find it damned difficult to carry on an intelligent conversation with anti gun people. As William F. Buckley once said on “Firing Line”: “I would like to take what you say seriously, But then I would be insulting your intellegence.”

Mr. Davis,

Republicans are also the party trying to overturn Roe v. Wade, implement a national law banning gay marriage, extend domestic wiretapping, keep open Guantanamo Bay, take away habeas corpus, legitimize racial profiling and legalize the practice of torture.

To say that you represent the party of “choice” and “individual freedom” is quite laughable.

Jack you’re beautiful.

-Sam

Farkel: Those who would “hunt people” already have all the tools they need. CCW is about permitting the “game” to protect themselves.

I’ve suggested elsewhere that students be employed as undercover security guards. Think “air marshalls”; you’d never know they were there, nor would the bad guy. Start with ROTC, National Guard, ex-militaty, maybe police science students. Vet them, train them, deploy them, pay them with tuition credits or even credit hours. In return, they carry conceled whenever on campus (legally, even in Wisconsin or Illinois, because they are part of the police force) with the express purpose of directing the second shot in any shootout AT the perpetrator.

Finally, enough with the NRA-bashing. Don’t disparage what you don’t understand. Clearly, if your source for information on the NRA is the mass media, you DON’T understand.

The problem is that because the laws currently favor the anti-gun crowd, they have nothing to complain about and therefore don’t care as much. I’m glad that someone wrote in response to the concealed carry madness that some people are trying to bring to campus, but we all need to stand up and make it very clear that the majority of us are NOT for bringing these deadly weapons here. We can’t wait until it’s too late. As for those who claim that the carriers would be people who are ‘well trained’, etc, did the Virginia Tech shooter not buy his guns perfectly legally? Even the mentally ill and unstable can pass the flimsy ‘tests’ we have in place for gun ownership.

“This is ABSOLUTELY ridiculous. Not only would it serve to enrage the school shooter, it would cause him to shoot more bullets.”

because my biggest concern should be worrying about making someone who is shooting at me angry…

“If you don’t read the newspaper, you are uninformed. If you do read the newspaper, you are misinformed.”

One of the most used ploys by the uninformed is to redirect the issue to something that they feel is more important. My reply to this is always the same; what is more important than securing your Consitutional Rights? These rights are God given rights, the Constitution just serves to secure them.

However, over the years America has, to a large degree, surrendered the Constitution in favor of Administrative Law. A perfect example: In 1919, the People did not want liquor and proceeded to pass the 18th Amendment. When they changed their mind in 1933, they passed the 21st Amendment to abolish the 18th. Is this Constitutional process done today…NO. I do not and have not ever used marijuana, but how did it become illegal in all States? Not by due process, but by Administrative Edict.

I just got a little off topic, but not really…it is all connected.

Someone who elected to stay anonymous didn’t believe that I was a student or an alumni and that I should just leave. They are right, I am not. I can only conclude that they either wish to censor my thoughts or refuse to even acknowledge my right to speak them. Am I wrong in assuming that UW is an institution of learning? As a taxpayer and American Citizen, it is not only my right, but my obligation to learn what our institutions are doing. You are the future of America, this not only affects you, but all of us.

And no, as a Republican, I do not agree with everything Republicans do or say. And when I disagree, I discuss with an open mind. However, does anyone really want ANY of the Bill of Rights compromised? If so, we may not be having this conversation. It is the 2nd Amendment that helps secure the others.

One final example: When discussing the 2nd Amendment, ALL the current presidential candidates (McCain included) only refer to it as pertaining to hunting, collecting, and target shooting. Never for self-defense. Just listen to the soundbites. This is political doublespeak. They all say that they support the 2nd just to get more votes, but their records and future plans (except McCain) are for total gun confiscation and if you don’t believe me, just research them and what their counterparts have done in recent years to the citizens of Great Britain, Canada, and Australia.

Mr Craver, I’m a bit confused by your intitial comment “Tragedies often allow radical elements in society to gain legitimacy”

A more recent(gallup 2008) poll shows a (72%) majority believe the 2nd Amendment confirms the right of Americans to own guns.

Since I’m sure the SCCC falls into that 72% catagory, doesn’t that make YOU the radical fringe element. Doesn’t seem to make sense does it?

Maybe the 48 other states you casually dismiss as in thrall to the NRA have weighed the facts, and come up with different conclusions.

The insightful gist of your piece, “they’ve got a club, so we need a club’ speaks volumes. As does the empirical evidence you’ve presented to bolster your position.

Maybe a transfer to a Utah college is in order. Just to allow you the benefit of some perspetive.

The media never talks about how students or other citizens that have a firearm legally are able to stop criminals because they want to continue the fear that the anti-gun people share. You never hear anything about how two students at Appalachian law school got their guns and were able to stop a school shooter from killing more people after he already shot two others. It was also very difficult to find a story about the woman who had a concealed firearm at church when a crazied shooter opened fire, as already mentioned above. The media also will always say that the shooter had an automatic firearm, but these are illegal but they know most people are misinformed and don’t know the difference between an automatic and a semi-automatic weapon. This is all about putting fear in the misinformed just as Mr. Craver has tried to do.

It would appear that this discussion has pretty much run it course and I thank Mr. Craver for this open forum. However, I do wish to present something of a challenge to the Badger Herald and the students of UW.

As just previously mentioned, the media does hide/minimize information from the American public. There are two parties to this problem: Those in power that wish to do things in secrecy and those who are too concerned with their everyday lives to pay attention. I do not blame the latter, but nobody ever said that freedom was easy.

The evidence is there that the powers that be have set forth plans to form a North American Union which includes Canada, United States, and Mexico. This Union is modeled after the European Union with plans for no borders, a central government (not elected) and a single currency (Amero) with complete lost of National Sovereignty.

It would take too much time to put forth the evidence I have unearthed, and besides, this type of information must be sought out by oneself in order that you may draw your own conclusions as to the meaning of such events.

One needs to search the following items: North American Union (NAU) NAFTA NAFTA Superhighway SPP (Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America) U.S.-Mexico Social Security Totalization Agreement Amero NORTHCOM

Just to give you a starting point…NORTHCOM was established on 04/17/2002 as a military partnership with Canada. This unvoted agreement allows for the use of Canadian Soldiers on American soil in times of civil unrest. This should be of special concern to the students of every university in American (remember Kent State?).

My challenge is simple: Research, verify, and expose to all fellow students what has been going on behind their backs for years and what will happen if nothing is done.

good discussion.

Wheres the argument it would create more jobs and income for the state. Processing applicants, income from the permit fee, jobs for gun training, etc…

Maybe I have carried before…. shhhh

Seriously, anyone who wants to conceal a gun would do it illegally anyway. What’s to stop them? Well, they’d think twice if the person next to them might have a gun too. I mean, c’mon! Let’s use your example. If the person next to you had a gun and was planning to shoot you, do you really think he would follow the law. No! He’d conceal it anyway! Do you know that states with strict gun control laws have the highest crimerate? There’s the problem. Fix that with your anti-gun laws.