I admit that I was avoiding this for a few reasons, but Al’s column in the West Bend Daily News is in need of a good fisking. It’s not an easy task because it’s so full of false assumptions and inane rhetorical questions as to render it a monument to Mr. Fisk, but I’ll try… here we go.
Are we really going to allow firearms in the library where our children go for Story Time, to study and do projects?Yes.
Do guns in the library align with our conservative values?Yes.
Hunting with friends or older children might be a family value,Might? It is.
but morphing that into guns in the library doesn’t make any more sense than guns at work, guns in the hospital or guns in church.Since the premise of gun rights being based in hunting is false, the conclusions aren’t valid.
Where does this gun mania end?Mania, eh? If supporting the 2nd Amendment of the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights is a “mania,” then count me as a maniac.
What is the danger we face in the library?The same as anywhere else. Last time I checked, there weren’t armed guards in the library or security checkpoints. Any fool with a gun could walk in there. Why can’t an armed citizen?
Do we plan to draw down on teens talking above a whisper?No.
Are we standing guard over the late fees?No, but your idiotic questions are wearisome.
I don’t hate firearms.Really?
Actually, I enjoy them.Uh huh.
During my ROTC days, I was a member of the Rifle Club.So your experience with firearms goes back to your ROTC days 40 years ago? And somehow that justifies your anti-gun attitude today? Whatever.
I find firearms interesting. Many are a beautiful display of visual and mechanical craftsmanship. They beg us to handle them and test our skill.I agree.
Many of my friends are gun collectors and/or hunters. They are solid citizens with families and responsible jobs. Some are community leaders. They enjoy displaying and firing their collections, but they also understand the destructive power and safety issues associated with firearms. Almost all of them are sticklers for firearm safety. They know there are places for guns and there are places where weapons don’t belong.I agree with all of that. Gun owners I know are also responsible citizens who respect their power. They also appreciate that guns in the hand of a responsible citizen are a good thing.
The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads, “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” I’m good with that.If you follow that with a “but,” then you really aren’t…
ButThere it is…
don’t we teach our children that with rights come responsibilities?Yes. And?
Is it responsible to brandish weapons in our library?No. Not without cause. And the concealed weapons policy has nothing to do with that. The key word is “concealed.” By definition, a concealed weapon is not brandished.
Just because we can do something doesn’t necessarily mean we should do it.Agree.
Members of our community are losing their homes. Many are without jobs and health insurance. Our schools are struggling to maintain valuable programs, yet we are expending our energy and political capital on guns in the library?Really, how much energy was spent? Were any other initatives put aside for this vote? Were any job initiatives curtailed? Or is this a desperate attempt by the writer to claim that supporting the 2nd Amendment is somehow a drag on jobs?
Is that our priority?Supporting the Bill of Rights? Yes. Why isn’t it yours?
Is this what leadership in West Bend has come to?
Again… if the leadership of West Bend is supporting the Bill of Rights, then thank God it’s come to that.
We are attempting to attract industries to our city. We are competing with every other municipality in the country, and who knows how many venues outside of the U.S. Growth businesses have their pick of sites. Every community knows that these businesses will be investing millions of dollars. Consequently, cities are putting their best foot forward. They know that any black mark can drop them from consideration. So what kind of message does guns in our library send to these potential employers?That’s interesting. Yes, West Bend is competing with cities around the country. And Wisconsin was the 49th of 50 states to pass a concealed carry law. In other words, the vast majority of cities in the nation already support citizens exercising their rights. Wisconsin is just catching up. Are you really saying that companies that have opened up new facilities in South Carolina, Indiana, Texas, etc - all of which have had concealed carry for years - will shun West Bend because we support our rights in public buildings? Really?
Does it say, “Great place to live and work?” Or does it say, “What the heck is going on there?”It says “we support our citizens’ rights.” Don’t you?
I hope we haven’t removed solidly qualified people from the Library Board, and replaced them with less able members simply because of their interpretation of the Second Amendment.That’s an interesting comment because it is based upon the assumption that the current Library Board members are “less able.” On what basis is that comment made? Is there any evidence that the current members are less qualified, or for that matter, that the previous members were more qualified, other than Al’s disagreement with the concealed carry vote? I doesn’t appear so.
Who would have thought it would come to this – Library Board members appointed because of their stand on guns?Yeah, it really sucks that Library Board members support all 10 parts of the Bill fo Rights.
Do we choose our doctor, plumber or mechanic based on their Second Amendment ideology?No, we choose them based on their ability. And to date, Al has not yet shown that the current Library Board members’ abilities are anything short of supurb - except that he disagrees with a single vote.
Why would we choose our Library Board based on it?Because the Library is a public facility and the people who run it should be chosen by the community. It’s funny that he isn’t objecting to the fact that previous board members had a distinct ideology - one that wasn’t in sync with the majority of the community.
We need to decide if we want to make our library the best it can be or the best armed it can be.These are not mutually exclusive objectives. It’s a false choice. My family’s personal library is better than most, but it’s librarians are also better armed than most.
How do we want to be viewed?As a free people endowed by their Creator with inalienable rights.
Do we want to be known as Wild, Wild, West Bend?That’s an old and tired meme. Again, Wisconsin is late to allowing concealed carry and in the previous 48 states - including the 4 that don’t require any permit whatsoever - the fiction of a “wild wild west” has never EVER happened. The fact that Al would trot out this old and tired fear tactic speaks to his old and tired argument.
Or do we want to be seen as we have been for decades, as a community with solid values and a promising future; a community, with enviable schools and beautiful parks; a great place to raise a family?How does that change with the Library Board’s policy? As far as I see, we’ve improved that reputation as a community.
Do you think this is what Alyce and Elmore Kraemer had in mind when they made their $5 million dollar gift for the library expansion?I don’t know. Unless you are prepared to answer the question, don’t answer it. I suspect that they wanted to provide a venue for reading. Nothing has changed.
What do you suppose the past leaders of our community would be saying?The good ones? “Yea!” The crappy ones? “Darn.”
Would they be proud of us?The good ones would.
Would they say that we are honoring their sacrifices by building on what they started?Again, the good ones would.
Or would they say, “What are you thinking?”The bad ones would.
I imagine I will be shouted down for my pleaHere comes the cheap pre-defense. He’s automatically trying to position any opposition to his opinion as “shouting down” and such drivel. If he were a man who could stand by and defend his position, then no such anticipatory statement would be necessary.
to keep guns in perspective and enjoy them in their proper place.The key word there is “proper.” Who defines that word? Al? Me? You? If you support individual liberty, then the key word is “individual.”
And unless more good citizens come forward and object, I will probably lose this appeal for sanity.By his definition, I am a bad citizen and apparently insane. By his definition, the only “good” citizens are those who support his view. But he is correct… he will lose this battle.
But isn’t it time for other reasonable community voices to step up and say, “I’m OK with changes that make West Bend a better place, but this isn’t one of them … no guns in the library.No. It’s time for reasonable community voices to step up and say, “I’m OK with changes that make West Bend a better place, including supporting the 2nd Amendment in the Library.”
Instead, let’s use our energy to help people find jobs, keep their homes and afford insurance.This again? So we can’t put energy into jobs and homes and insurance without supporting the Bill of Rights? These are not mutually exclusive efforts and Al is trying to create a false choice.
And let’s make sure that today’s students are getting the same solid education their older brothers and sisters got.I agree. Complete with a full appreciation for the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. I can think of no better way than to demonstrate our support for our rights in our everday dealings.
Let’s move West Bend forward, and let’s start with no guns in the library. It’s the wrong priority. It’s a step in the wrong direction.It’s only a move in the wrong direction for those who oppose the 2nd Amendment. And for now… the matter is settled. By Al’s own standards, we should not expend any more political capital on this issue. Let it lie
- Logic must not get in the way of a decision based on emotion, and sadly, this is what we’re dealing with here. I’m assuming that his definition of a “proper place” for a gun would include the gun safe and the range, and not much else. He can get that now (for the time being), in Chicago.
Posted by Jason on June 24, 2012 at 0555 hrs - To all the “Incurable Do-Gooders” that are hung up on the West Bend Library gun policy .... get a life.
Posted by Mcbragg on June 24, 2012 at 0604 hrs - I’m amazed at the emotional reaction by a small handful to this decision. Meanwhile, in my district I’ve had exactly one constituent contact me, and it was someone who approved of our action.
Life goes on, and we’re a little freer now. What’s the problem?
Carry on.
Posted by Tony Turner on June 24, 2012 at 0806 hrs Members of our community are losing their homes. Many are without jobs and health insurance. Our schools are struggling to maintain valuable programs, yet we are expending our energy and political capital on guns in the library?
I actually laughed out loud when I read this part in the paper. The library board has zero ability to do anything about people losing their homes, or people struggling with jobs and health insurance, etc.
Posted by Matt Stevens on June 24, 2012 at 0851 hrsThe library board has zero ability to do anything about people losing their homes, or people struggling with jobs and health insurance, etc.
Maybe we can Matt…? With the power of reading!
Posted by Chris Jenkins on June 24, 2012 at 0929 hrs- So, just to be clear here, if someone is in public “brandishing their weapon”, they could be arrested for that, as that has nothing to do with Concealed Carry?
On Friday, an 85 year old man was killed by the police in a senior citizens apartment complex in Hurley WI. Earlier, he had been “brandishing his weapon” in the managers office. The manager successfully took the gun away & the man retreated to his apartment - probably not hard to take the weapon considering the guy is 85. A friend of the man advised police that there were more weapons in the apartment. Eventually the SWAT team had to shoot him to resolve the situation.
Posted by NoName on June 24, 2012 at 1044 hrs - Correct, brandishing a weapon without cause could lead to you getting arrested. Brandishing your weapon means you have actually removed it from it’s holster and you are waving it around or gesturing with it in a threatening manner.
So the man in your story had the gun in his hand, out of it’s holster, and was waving it around or pointing it in a threatening manner. There was obviously something “off” with the guy if they then had to later also shoot him as a last resort to resolving a situation.
You see, one of the biggest misconceptions the anti-gun crowd has is that the presence of guns or the introduction of concealed carry somehow enables otherwise law-abiding citizens to breaking the law. That simply isn’t true, and there is no factual data or information to back up that emotionally charged claim. In direct conflict with their claim, look at the US. We have had huge jumps over the past decade in gun sales, and more states introducing concealed carry or getting less restrictive on gun control. Yet the US overall has had a decrease in violent crime rate over the same period. On the other hand, you have countries like the UK and Canada that have banned guns altogether, and since doing so have seen a jump in violent crime as high as 77% since doing so.
Now why is that? It’s because people who would break the law and commit violent crimes will do so in spite of any gun control laws in place. In fact, it emboldens them to do so. The “hot” in-home burglary rate (hot meaning people are home at the time the burglary takes place) in the united states is 13%. In the UK and Canada it’s over 60%.
Posted by Matt Stevens on June 24, 2012 at 1148 hrs
No comments:
Post a Comment