Last night, I wrote a post opining about the court decision letting a West Allis resident run around with an open carry firearm.
Predictably, a group of gun lovers took umbrage at the notion that the rights of everyone else in the neighborhood should take precedence over the right of an individual to endanger everyone else so he could get some gun loving going on.
The braver ones left comments in the comment thread. The really brave ones even used a name or at least a pseudonym.
They also have their own site where they can share in their mass paranoia. Most of the arguments are either of the survivalist mentality, or they are in the order of "It's my God given right to carry a gun, dammit!" (Note: They won't let just anyone comment. They are afraid a rational person might come into their circle trigger jerk.)
Two things there. One, God did not give anyone the right to carry a gun.
Secondly, just because you have a right to do something, doesn't mean it's the right thing to do.
And as an auxiliary, your rights end when they infringe on the rights of others.
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
What does this mean? "And as an auxiliary, your rights end when they infringe on the rights of others."
ReplyDeleteWho's an "auxiliary" buddy?
The reight to bear amrs means the right to carry them openly - open carry IS the Second Amendment.
Wisconsin is just like most states - no permit needed to open carry.
Mr Mike,
ReplyDeleteThose of us who are also gun owners, who recollect at least a bit of high school English from 40 years ago, and are not apparently seething with fear, will immediately understand that, "auxiliary," used in the above context is not referring to any, "who," but is referring to a, "what," as in an idea or an additional thought connected to the previous two thoughts listed.
Nonquixote is correct. I refer to no one as an auxiliary. It was merely an addendum to the theme of the post. But your defensiveness kind of proves the point, doesn't it.
ReplyDelete"Secondly, just because you have a right to do something, doesn't mean it's the right thing to do. "
ReplyDeleteWhen is carrying a gun in West Allis "the right thing to do"?
Mr. Capper:
ReplyDeleteAs someone who just happened onto you blog, I would like to state for the record that I agree with your “labels” 100% (Guns, Mental Health, Society in Crisis) count not be more true. Society is in crisis as it relates to the mental health of those who possess fear of firearms and bigotry towards those who own/carry firearms
I would like to address you last statement first and point out that although you are correct, I fail to understand how an individual carrying a firearm for any legal purpose infringes on your rights. If you could explain that in further detail, I would be glad to read it.
As to you second point, you are again correct, just because you have the RIGHT to do something, doesn’t mean it’s the right thing to do. Just look at the civil rights movement of the 1960’s. The African American individuals like Dr. King who stood up and demanded acknowledgement of fundamental rights, or Ms. Rosa Parks, she had a RIGHT to sit where she chose but it doesn’t mean she should have. I am certain that many Caucasian people felt fear, and felt they were in some physical danger of being harmed by having to sit next to an African American or drink from the same fountain as an African American. Just because the African Americans have the RIGHT to do these things, doesn’t mean it was the right thing to do. Additionally, you do have the right to state your opinion here, but that doesn’t mean it was the right thing to do.
We could use a more recent example of the Evangelical Christians in California. There was that young lady, Christine Cloud, who went to a public park and sang Amazing Grace. She was subsequently attacked and assaulted by some pro gay rights people. She too had the RIGHT to sing the song; it just wasn't the right thing to do.
Protesting government actions, like the war is ones RIGHT, but that doesn't mean it's the right thing to do.
Protesting in favor or against abortion is ones RIGHT, but that doesn't mean it's the right thing to do.
One could make the argument that exercising the RIGHT to protest (pro/con) the war endangers lives. People DID make the argument that the African Americans were endangering the health and welfare of the Caucasians. It certainly endangered lives, look at home many people were killed during the civil rights movement of the 1960's. One could make the argument that exercising the RIGHT to protest abortion (pro/con) endangers lives. One could make the argument (pro/con) that the young woman exercising her right to sing Amazing Grace endangered lives. In addition, one could make the argument that exercising ones RIGHT to possess a firearm endangers lives, which you did.
I would submit that ALL these actions have the potential to endanger lives. The issue here is WHO (you, me, the government) decides/dictates what is the right thing to do? That is why we have the constitutions. The constitutions are documents that tell us no ONE individual, set of individuals or even government can dictate/decide what is the right thing to do, when it comes to our RIGHTS, each individual has the ability to decide for themselves.
I will also point out, Wisconsin citizens have had the right to "open carry" firearms since before Wisconsin was a state. Your fear, that exercising that right somehow endangers you, is unfounded. I cannot find a single instance in Wisconsin, where a firearm, peaceably carried in a holster, has discharged endangering or injuring another individual, not one instance in over 100 years.
Let me know if I am seeing this correctly. You suggest that folks who feel the need to arm themselves against violent criminals (the kind that you can read about in any paper on any day of the week) are full of paranoia.
ReplyDeleteYou then continue with the idea that the single act of a man arming himself had in and of itself endangered the entire neighborhood?
May I ask who seems more paranoid?
Mr. Capper,
ReplyDeleteIn regards to you saying "(Note: They won't let just anyone comment. They are afraid a rational person might come into their circle trigger jerk.)," you must be unfamiliar with modern message board software, as most of them require registration to post messages. This isn't something that Opencarry.org has on its own.
In reply to "One, God did not give anyone the right to carry a gun," Constitutions do not give us rights, they affirm that rights exist. Both the national constitution and WI state constitution affirms citizens' rights to bear arms. Whether God himself gave them or not is not the point, instead, the point is that the right existed before this country, or WI, ever existed.
"Secondly, just because you have a right to do something, doesn't mean it's the right thing to do.
And as an auxiliary, your rights end when they infringe on the rights of others."
Despite how "Un-Politically Correct" something like this may be to you, your irrational fear of firearms is not just cause to supersede the law. Individuals in WI have the right to openly carry firearms, and that's a fact, no matter how much you don't like it. Insulting firearm owners on the internet will not change that fact.
Personally, I thought the police showing up with guns drawn and fingers at the trigger put the entire neighborhood in significantly more danger than Mr. Krause choosing to exercise his rights. Will you be making a post(s) condemning the actions of the law enforcement officer(s)?
ReplyDelete----"Two things there. One, God did not give anyone the right to carry a gun."----
ReplyDeleteWell I'm not so sure "god" gave anyone anything.
But I do believe with all my heart that we human beings have a RIGHT to defend ourselves. A gun is the tool by which people are able to do so. Without it, only the powerful would be safe.
By your logic do we have a right to free speech but not a right to use a microphone, bullhorn, newspaper press, television, internet blog to speak freely?
Nik Clark - New Berlin, WI
Many here have stated some of what I was thinking, Caps. So, the un-asked question will now be posed. How did this mans actions, an undrawn, holstered weapon, on his own property, infringe on, or threaten anyone else?
ReplyDeleteAnonymous 12:24PM:
ReplyDeleteExactly how did the WAPD put the entire neighborhood in danger? Let's face it...Mr. Krause intended on receiving this kind of attention from his neighbors and from the WAPD. He's not a naive man who had no idea carrying a gun (holstered) on his property would cause this type of reaction. He was out there making a point. The WAPD handled themselves in a professional manner and they did not endanger anyone's safety.
Bill, that question is worthy a post of its own, but for now, the shorter answer is this: A gun in the holster is not a a danger. It's when it's taken out of said holster that it gets scary.
ReplyDeleteI am equally concerned about my safety due to a wannabe Dirty Harry as I am to the criminal they think they're protecting us from.
How many stories do we hear every day about someone who is experienced and trained in gun safety (supposedly) losing their cool and shooting someone? Or leaving the loaded gun laying around where a child gets their hands on it?
And I say this as an owner of a couple of shotguns and a couple of rifles.
Thousands of legal firearms carriers killed NO ONE yesterday, today looks pretty good too. :-)
ReplyDeleteIf you had any examples of people legally carrying that committed another crime while doing do, I'd love to hear about it. Fact is, it just doesn't happen. Most responsible people I know are gun owners. Sounds like if anyone is paranoid.....just saying.
Happy shooting!
What makes him a wannabe dirty harry? Over the top, sir. Was he chasing alleged criminals and telling them to make his day? I'd like to see the percentage, in terms of total population, of mishaps you mentioned. I'd bet it's not even 1%. The media has been blowing this sutff out of proportion for a long time. Many won't be happy until the 2nd amendment is repealed. They did the same thing with the shark attacks. Blown out of proportion. I only use that as an example of how something can be made to look like an epidemic.
ReplyDelete