• 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.

these wave people are just as bad as the brady bunch

turbojohn41

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2009
Messages
67
Location
Oak Creek
imported post

Why the change?
We are bewildered by the Journal Sentinel's readiness to back legalization of carrying concealed weapons for several reasons.

Most importantly, although proponents of concealed-carry laws claim "more guns, less crime," the research is clear: The legalization of carrying concealed weapons does not decrease overall violent crime as promised. However, it is associated with an increase in firearm homicides. As a gun violence prevention organization, guided by empirical evidence, we have opposed and will continue to oppose a policy that may well lead to more firearm murders.

Also, since we currently have a lower firearm death rate than the vast majority of states with "shall issue" laws, the argument that we should change our law just because most other states have done so is absurd and reckless. Why would we try to emulate any state that has more of a firearm violence problem than we do?

Rather, we should be promoting a legislative package that will actually reduce gun violence. According to researchers, that package should require criminal background checks prior to all gun sales, including the unregulated, private gun sales that occur at gun shows, through newspaper ads, in alleyways, over the Internet, out of the trunks of cars and at kitchen tables.

No trade-off should be necessary to pass this legislation; it is supported by 84% of likely voters in Wisconsin, including seven of 10 of Wisconsin's National Rifle Association members. Trying to construct a deal that includes concealed carry in an effort to appease the NRA lobbyists from Virginia and their favorite legislators in the Wisconsin Legislature is unwarranted and dangerous.

Jeri Bonavia
WAVE Educational Fund
Milwaukee
 

scorpio_vette

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2009
Messages
635
Location
nowhere
imported post

that package should require criminal background checks prior to all gun sales, including the unregulated, private gun sales that occur at gun shows, through newspaper ads, in alleyways, over the Internet, out of the trunks of cars and at kitchen tables.

do they realize how stupid they sound??? i could be wrong, but i think most "private sales" in alleyways and out of trunks of cars are more common methods used by criminals. and somehow i don't see one bad guy saying to the other bad guy: "dude i'd love to buy this piece off of you, but you know they have this new law now that alleyway sales now need a background check. so you mind taking this piece down to the range with me, and then we can sling some rocks while we're waiting for the papers".
 

KansasKraut

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2010
Messages
116
Location
Verona, WI
imported post

No trade-off should be necessary to pass this legislation; it is supported by 84% of likely voters in Wisconsin, including seven of 10 of Wisconsin's National Rifle Association members. Trying to construct a deal that includes concealed carry in an effort to appease the NRA lobbyists from Virginia and their favorite legislators in the Wisconsin Legislature is unwarranted and dangerous.

Jeri Bonavia
WAVE Educational Fund
Milwaukee
Oh God! Say it ain't so! :uhoh:
 

scorpio_vette

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2009
Messages
635
Location
nowhere
imported post

KansasKraut wrote:
No trade-off should be necessary to pass this legislation; it is supported by 84% of likely voters in Wisconsin, including seven of 10 of Wisconsin's National Rifle Association members. Trying to construct a deal that includes concealed carry in an effort to appease the NRA lobbyists from Virginia and their favorite legislators in the Wisconsin Legislature is unwarranted and dangerous.

Jeri Bonavia
WAVE Educational Fund
Milwaukee
Oh God! Say it ain't so! :uhoh:

first of all, i bet he can't show any REAL proof or statistics, and secondly, anybody that's good at their research and make any statistic look good in their favor. so it doesn't really mean anything.
 

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
imported post

scorpio_vette wrote:
...somehow i don't see one bad guy saying to the other bad guy: "dude i'd love to buy this piece off of you, but you know they have this new law now that alleyway sales now need a background check. so you mind taking this piece down to the range with me, and then we can sling some rocks while we're waiting for the papers".
Dude, I just now realized that I must have been doing things illegally this whole time, because this is exactly what all my firearm purchases have been like. :shock:






j/k heh
 

Lammie

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Feb 18, 2007
Messages
907
Location
, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

Jeri Bonavia is female ( note: I did not say she was a woman). It doesn't pay to get ones dander up over what WAVE or the Brady bunch say. In fact they enjoy people getting upset and cussing them out. That tells them their message is being read. They don't care if they tell half-truths or lies. They don't have to prove anything. Both organizations operate under the premis that "noise" is good. They know that in politics it is the "squeaky wheel" and "noisy minority" that gets most things to happen. The only way to combat them is to be noisier than they. Debating an issue with them is futle.
 

Landose_theghost

Regular Member
Joined
May 17, 2009
Messages
512
Location
Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

Using the 1st ammendment to bash the 2nd? Classic anti crap. I wonder if these dumba**es were dropped on thier head as children?:banghead:

I vote we start our own group, we'll call it the WABSE (Wisconsin-Anti-BullSh*t-Effort) we'll start lobbying today tomake it illegal for Idiots like this to open thier mouths.:celebrate
 

BJA

Campaign Veteran
Joined
May 4, 2008
Messages
503
Location
SOuth Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

According to researchers, that package should require criminal background checks prior to all gun sales, including the unregulated, private gun sales that occur at gun shows, through newspaper ads, in alleyways, over the Internet, out of the trunks of cars and at kitchen tables.

This made my day LMAO!! I'm kind of surprised they couldn't think of anymore....like out of boats or carnivals.

junkintrunk.jpg
 

Nutczak

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 2, 2008
Messages
2,165
Location
The Northwoods, lakeland area, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

BJA wrote:
According to researchers, that package should require criminal background checks prior to all gun sales, including the unregulated, private gun sales that occur at gun shows, through newspaper ads, in alleyways, over the Internet, out of the trunks of cars and at kitchen tables.

This made my day LMAO!! I'm kind of surprised they couldn't think of anymore....like out of boats or carnivals.

As delusional as this WAVE peson is, I bet she thinks we have carnivals up-north where you pay $1.00 for 3 ping-pong balls and if you land one in a goldfish bowl you get your choice of either a fully decked out AR-15 or an AK-47 with full auto capabilitiesplus 1,000 rounds of incindiary, armor-piercing, tracer rounds and a bus ticket to Milwaukee to go shoot at people in downtown Milwaukee.

If I lived closer, I would like to attend one of their meetings. I would ask a few questions like how I should defend myself or my family against an amed intruder. When they say "Just call 911" I would agree with them, but say "oh, didn't the mayor try that tactic, if I remember correctly it didn't work out too well for him"
I would play along for a little while, but then calmly and tactfully show how I feel their ideas are flawed.

Maybe this woman is just the ultimate scammer? getting donations from several entities, and spending most on herself?
 

professor gun

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2008
Messages
178
Location
, ,
imported post

My favorite term: "gun violence".

Remember the guy who put a video cam on an AR-15 or an AK leaning against a wall, put the camera feed up on the internet somewhere and asked everyone to keep an eye on the gun for him to make sure it did not become violent and hurt someone?
 

Landose_theghost

Regular Member
Joined
May 17, 2009
Messages
512
Location
Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

Why the change?
We are bewildered by the Journal Sentinel's readiness to back legalization that lets people say what they want,whenever they want forseveral reasons.

Most importantly, although proponents ofthisFree Speechlaw"more talk, less BS," the research is clear: The legalization ofspeaking freely for noreasondoes not decreaseBSas promised. However, it is associated with an increase in BS,and people posting crap to push thier own agendas. As aAnti BSorganization, guided by empirical evidence, we have opposed and will continue to oppose a policy that may well lead to more BS because of people speaking freely.

Also, since we currently havelessBSthan the vast majority of states with "shall issue" laws, the argument that we should change our law just because most other states have done so is absurd and reckless. Why would we try to emulate any state that has moreBSthan we do?

Rather, we should be promoting a legislative package that will actually reduceBS,yellingand free speechin general. According to researchers, that package should require criminal background checks prior to all Conversations, including the unregulated, privateconversationsthat occuron talkshows, through newspaper ads, in alleyways, over the Internet, or incars and at kitchen tables.

No trade-off should be necessary to pass this legislation; it is supported by 84% of likely voters in Wisconsin, including seven of 10 of Wisconsin'sAnti BS Effortmembers. Trying to construct a deal that includesFree speechin an effort to appease thetalk lobbyists from Virginia and their favorite legislators in the Wisconsin Legislature is unwarranted and dangerous.
Landose
WABSE Educational Fund
Green Bay

I Think I may send this to Ole Jeri with another note that states: "This doesn't make any sense when you apply this to any other of your constitional rights does it?"

PS. Iposted this as a joke, but the more I read this, the more this looks like thepatriot act!:D
 

Old Grump

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2010
Messages
387
Location
Blue River, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

Landose_theghost wrote:
Using the 1st ammendment to bash the 2nd? Classic anti crap. I wonder if these dumba**es were dropped on thier head as children?:banghead:

I vote we start our own group, we'll call it the WABSE (Wisconsin-Anti-BullSh*t-Effort) we'll start lobbying today tomake it illegal for Idiots like this to open thier mouths.:celebrate
Not exactly, not dropped on their heads but they did grow up in non gun families and went to public schools and universities where socialist professors did their best to fill them full of fear and develop their paranoia about anything gun related.

I think we are in such a group, (WABSE), but with a less politically and socially objectionable name. We just need more of us and for us to keep a cool head and stick to the facts when talking with these people. We won't turn many of them around but the general public watching the fight will be able to choose between cold hard facts and histrionics. I choose to believe most people are reasonable.
 

Flipper

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
1,140
Location
, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

scorpio_vette wrote:
KansasKraut wrote:
No trade-off should be necessary to pass this legislation; it is supported by 84% of likely voters in Wisconsin, including seven of 10 of Wisconsin's National Rifle Association members. Trying to construct a deal that includes concealed carry in an effort to appease the NRA lobbyists from Virginia and their favorite legislators in the Wisconsin Legislature is unwarranted and dangerous.

Jeri Bonavia
WAVE Educational Fund
Milwaukee
Oh God! Say it ain't so! :uhoh:

first of all, i bet he can't show any REAL proof or statistics, and secondly, anybody that's good at their research and make any statistic look good in their favor. so it doesn't really mean anything.



My post on this subject. Should have been posted in this thread.

http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum57/37810.html

The NRA response to this "poll."

http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Federal/Read.aspx?id=5252

The poll:

http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/downloads/pdf/luntz_poll_questionnaire_and_responses.pdf

Hmmm.... look at the first statement in item 15/16. Could be understood to say thatmost Americans would favor unrestricted carry for defensive purposes.

A comment on the poll by "Don't Call 911 - oops I forgot my armed bodyguards were NOT with me" Barrett.

http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/html/media-center/milwaukee_012310.shtml

Media Matters article on pollster:

http://mediamatters.org/research/200409030018

The Brady gouls are all aglow of Barrett's brillance:

http://blog.bradycampaign.org/?p=1734

Goul Definition:

informal: someone who is very interested in death and unpleasant things

(Definition of ghoul noun from the Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary)
 
Top