One Less Victim in Milwaukee
Written by Brandon Henak on May 6, 2008 – 10:46 am - Welcome, if you're new here, you may want to subscribe to our RSS feed or subscribe to our email newsletter. Thanks for visiting!
While on a recent trip to the range at Badger Guns with my good friend Chuck and his little sister, I personally observed someone refusing to be a victim.
I was waiting in line to pay for range time at Badger Guns (and range) in Milwaukee when a middle-aged woman in front of us inquired about the process for purchasing a gun. The man behind the counter had politely started walking her through the background check, 48 hour waiting period and other details when she blurted out that she had been robbed reported it to the police but she “refused to be a victim again”. They talked through it and then he went into calibers and explained the range time that comes with each gun purchased, etc.
I realize I started a bit of a debate with my last post on purchasing my first handgun, but I wanted to share this as just another example of how responsible gun purchasing and ownership is a positive right. I fully advocate her, or any new gun owners’ participation in safety training and range practice but, each of us must protect our 2nd Amendment rights not just to protect ourselves but, to allow others to do the same.
Last 5 posts by Brandon Henak- Wednesday Hero: Petty Officer 2nd Class Chris Davila - May 14th, 2008
- Can We Ask? Yes We Can! - May 10th, 2008
- Fix Wisconsin with Economics? Texas Tops New York for Most Fortune 500 Companies - May 8th, 2008
- Wednesday Hero: Lance Corporal Matt Croucher - April 30th, 2008
- Wisconsin Nine years behind Minnesota in Scrapping Emissions Testing - April 28th, 2008
Tags: Gun Control, Wisconsin
Posted in Beyond the Facade |
May 6th, 2008 at 9:20 pm
Wisconsin has a huge need for people to upgrade their exercise of this inalienable right. Why are we one of only 2 states in the nation where citizens are denied any form of concealed carry?
Look no further than our jug-headed governor.
Keep spreading these simple truths Brandon.
May 6th, 2008 at 9:56 pm
Perhaps this is a false dichotomy and I recognize that possibility, but: Would you rather
1. Get robbed, lose the $$ in your wallet/credit cards/cell phone (hopefully you could cancel the credit cards before they’re used)
2. Shoot someone who is attempting to rob you and presumably put them in a hospital with a chance of killing them?
Maybe it’s my inner-hippy, but, it’s a close-call for me.
May 6th, 2008 at 10:40 pm
NN: How is concealed carry an inalienable right? If we are going to say that any law that infringes on any weapon is infringment, must we then allow all weapons? Yet, you folks want to disarm Iran? What about their inalienable right to conceal their nukes?
also, I fail to see how more guns on the streets can possibly be a good idea. You get robbed at gun point you lose your wallet, you pull a gun in return there will be shooting.
May 8th, 2008 at 8:05 am
Super Id you really had to stretch to Iranian Nukes to come up with a rebuttal to what I said? That’s hilarious!
And there’s a quote that says, “There’s nothing wrong with a little shooting as long as the right people get shot”
May 8th, 2008 at 2:06 pm
NN: My rebuttal centered on your misuse of the term “inalienable rights,” which means rights that are independent of positive law in a Lockeian sense.
Thus, if your argument were taken to its logical extreme, we would have no right to infringe on Iran’s right to conceal nukes–after all it’s a natural right, endowed by a creator.
I point to Iran for another reason as well. Ironically, the concept of inalienable rights was develped out of early Islamic law, which denied a ruler to take away from his subjects certain rights which inhere in his or her person as a human being. Hence, my reference to the Islamic Republic of Iran’s right to bear and conceal the goods.
Perhaps we should just take a judicial conservative approach to the constitution and interpret “arms” as what the term would mean to the founders. That gives us a right to bear muzzel loaders and sabers? Damn judicial activists putting revolvers on the streets.
May 9th, 2008 at 4:23 pm
Let’s not take anything to an extreme but see the ends to a mean.
The purpose of carrying a gun is not to save the twenty-five bucks in your wallet or purse. To save money on that scenario you would have to have stopped around 8 or 9 attempted robberies before a gun becomes cost effective. It’s to protect you from an assault (whatever the motivation for the assault). What she is protecting in the future is not the few bucks that were lost but her safety.
I don’t feel any obligation to assume someone who attacks or attempts to rob me (with threat of force)will not harm me as long as I get what they want.