Tuesday, May 12, 2009

The First Annual Paranoid Sociopaths Picnic

WEAU TV is reporting that a group of gun lovers, headed by one Hubert Hoffman, want to hold a picnic for fellow gun lovers. The picnic is supposed to be for those that support open carry opinion of J. B. Van Hollen.

The Badger Blogger guys are all excited. They're not the only ones, so are these idiots.

I remember from just three years ago the results of someone bringing his gun to a picnic in the park.

But judging from the gun lover/sociopath in the news report, and the things that Van Hollen has been saying, this is obviously nothing more than a heavy handed method of trying to force concealed carry down our throats.

But there is a problem to their faulty logic. Even if Wisconsin would be asinine enough to pass a CCW law, that would do nothing to eliminate the likes Hoffman or the other open carry advocates.

What it would do is set the two at odds with each other, in the sense of who could be the bigger detriment to society. Would it be the untrained, open carry guy, or would it be the trained and certified, but concealed carry guy. I could see a lot of arguments about which is better, who is faster, who is more dangerous, etc. Boy, picnics could be a lot more interesting with Uncle Louie and Cousin Mikey having contests like that. Just make sure the potato salad is in a bullet proof dish. Not that anyone will have much appetite after Aunt Betty gets offed by a stray bullet.

And CCW wouldn't be a great thing anyway. If you have Joe Schmoe that fails the training course for CCW, he can always strap his steel to his thigh openly and still go out to kill someone.

Thanks for that J.B.

But it does lead to an interesting question: Is there any sane people running for Attorney General next year?


  1. Ahh humor, always good. Thankfully, Wisconsin is finally coming around to gun rights and is now recognizaed to bne just like most states - no permit needed to open carry a holstered handgun. See more at Opencarry.org

  2. Capper,

    I challenge you to find anything in the verbiage of my post that leads you to the conclusion that, by linking to a story from an Eau Claire TV station about a dude who mows his lawn with a gun on his belt hosting a barbecue, "the BadgerBlogger guys are all excited."

    I'm fairly certain you'll concede, upon further evaluation, that the statement is not accurate. Please remove the link or retract the statement. It has no basis in fact.


  3. Mike, Haldol will do wonders for your delusions.


    You personally use sarcasm to off-handedly dismiss the concerns of those that don't worship guns or think of them as fashion accessories, as you commenter does.

    I don't find any signs of disapproval. Given that fact and the tenor of the entire site, I do not see any rational reason to believe you are opposed to this assault on common sense.

    If you have proof otherwise, I would be willing to consider it. Otherwise, I will continue to exercise my right of free speech.

  4. Your argument is, essentially, that my alleged "off-handed dismissal" of the concerns which you project upon the issue somehow connotes "excitement?"

    Is "excitement" really the word you intended to use? Your argument is logically flawed.

    I'm again going to ask that you respectfully remove the link, or, at the very least, the word "excitement." There's no "excitement" in posting up a video of a news story which aired LAST FRIDAY NIGHT during the 10:00 PM news in Eau Claire.

    Also, in the last sentence of your post, I'm quote certain you intended to write "Are there any sane people..." not "Is there any sane people..."So you'll probably want to change that, also.

  5. You know, the more I think about it, Capper, your assertion that merely posting a link to a video connotes "excitement" about this "gun picnic" is negated by your own subsequent admission.

    You make reference to my "sarcasm" and "off-handed dismissal" of your potential concerns. How could one be so cavalier with such sarcasm? It's because I don't care.I don't care if the guy has his little armed soiree or doesn't. I posted a link to a story and a video, so that the reader/viewer could watch it and formulate their own opinion. Perhaps the reader will start packing the cooler, or perhaps they'll recoil in fear, but I leave that up to the reader
    to decide.

    There is absolutely nothing in my commentary that suggests that I am "excited" about the Open Carry picnic being held this Saturday in Onalaska.

    When called on this, you cite the comments of the ONE reader who reacted to this posting at BadgerBlogger as fuel for "the
    BadgerBlogger guys" supposed "excitement." Using that logic, wouldn't a more accurate statement be, "A reader at BadgerBlogger's excitement?"

    I will not have words put in my mouth, nor thoughts put in my head. I demand a retraction of the statement "the BadgerBlogger guys are all excited." It has been proven false.

    Be a man and admit that it was a poor choice of words and has no basis in fact.

  6. Be a man? How does one define a man? An individual so lacking in self worth that he must carry a side arm to mow his lawn? An individual who needs to join en mass with other like minded folks and carry weapons to have a barbeque in turbulent, violent, crime ridden Onalaska Wisconsin?

    I used to live in Onalaska. I went to the park all the time. I never needed to carry a weapon to feel safe. Guess I need to "be a man" too and strap one on.

  7. I also see where the wonderful folks at "White Pride World Wide" have linked to this event...right under the David Duke speech link.

    Is it fair to say they are excited about it? I wouldn't want to presume.

    I mean, you get to carry your gun in Onalaska. Other than a minority Hmung population, Onalaksa is virtually all Caucasian. Now that takes GUTS!

    All this under the White Pride World Wide cross logo. This is no doubt in reference to their saviour, who they believe was Skandanavian, I guess.

    But I wouldn't want to say they were excited to post the notice. Can we agree on mildly interested?

    Can we also agree that the level of excitment is less important than taking a position on whether we are more or less safe with these opoen carry partys?

    Picture it in your mind. A group of people openly carrying their firearms, making hamburgers, playing a little music, in a park near your home. They can be of any color, race, or creed. They are not carrying firearms for protection, but just to make a point, just to prove they can.

    Let THAT debate begin.

  8. Prove what point? That we have no civilization?

    The point is if you have to parade around with a visible firearm proclaims that you feel you are not safe, and the lays out a bad message.

    The founding fathers of course talked all the time about rights, but they knew these rights had to be questioned and automatically assumed to be untouchable.

  9. I assume when bloggers post on any given topic on their blogs and they don't offer an opinion on how they feel about the topic they are endorsing what they are posting on. The best way to clear up any confusion would be to offer an opinion on the post otherwise it is up to the reader to interpret what the are reading. To come on here after the fact and demand for capper to change his post is wrong.

  10. I find it so very predictable the company that the lawn mowing, picnic going gun carriers suddenly find themselves in. It was as inevitable as thunder following lightning.

    I think the problem stems from one simple misconception on the part of the "I'll mow my lawn with my .45 semi-automatic weapon if I want to" crowd.

    See if you agree.

    When these picnic goers mass and carry handguns, saying they are proving the point that "law abiding citizens" don't need to give any reason for carrying a weapon...in their minds, when they picture a "law abiding citizen", he or she is always caucasian.

    Now, that shouldn't color the debate. The merit of "open carry for no reason and to hell with the public if their peace is disturbed" should be debated on that topic alone.

    But I think you will find that many proponents of this stance will suddenly grow mute and begin to ponder if they consider the possibility that a law abiding citizen may have originated anywhere other than Europe. And that is why the White Pride Worldwide group (I was going to say clan) is all over this. A thoughtful man upon seeing this development might reconsider his position given the company he suddenly finds himself in. A thoughtful man might...

    Also, when one chooses his or her position on this arguement, it has to be realized that many, many terrible gun crimes are caused by individuals who would have previously been considered "law abiding citizens". There are many factors that can cause an ordinarily civil and law abiding man to resort to violence.

    Paradoxically (sp?),feeling that one's child is being threatened by some nut or nuts cooking hamburgers with a side arm, is rather high on that list.

  11. What does mowing the lawn with a holstered pistol have to do with a well regulated militia?

    Let us review the nexus of the "right to bear arms" controversy:

    "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."

    The intent of the amendment was to insure the existence of non-federal, state run, well regulated militias. This was intended to be like the Swiss militia, where every citizen serves in the military and has a rifle in their house.

    Per the 1792 Militia Act this was to apply to all males between 18 and 45. Therefore, every citizen has the right to bear arms because every citizen is required to be a member of the well regulated state militia.

    The amendment was established so that, states could repel foreign invasion, to act as a political counterweight to vesting the federal executive with monarchical powers, and to act as a reserve force in the event of war.

    The political balance against monarchical power is implicit in the state militias being explicitly mentioned in the war powers granted congress within the main body of the Constitution. In theory Congress can direct the militia outside the authority of the President within the framework of the state command structure.

    "To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

    "To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"

    These war powers where expressly withheld from the president to assuage public fear of a monarchical Presidency and to insure that the military was controlled by "The People." As Hamilton points out in Federalist Paper 69:

    "The President is to be commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the United States. In this respect his authority would be nominally the same with that of the king of Great Britain, but in substance much inferior to it. It would amount to nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the military and naval forces, as first General and admiral of the Confederacy; while that of the British king extends to the DECLARING of war and to the RAISING and REGULATING of fleets and armies, all which, by the Constitution under consideration, would appertain to the legislature."

    The 1792 Congress waved its paranoia against making Washington a King by granted the President carte blanche use of the state militias in order to suppress tax revolts. Something that the anti-tax crowd may want to think about. See also http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm

    If the federal court was not "legislating from the bench" it would say, "yes, you have the infringement free right to bear arms, if you are a member of a well regulated state militia."

  12. Funny thing around here: All of the anonymous commenters write in the exact syntax and phrasing as the blog author. Wacky stuff.

  13. Bruce is referring to you as a limp wrist over at the influential Badger Blogger, capmeister. And he added something about jerking off.

    Better a limp wrist than a limp dick. Oh, sorry. Bruce didn't tell anyone about his problem?

    Talk about flip flopping.

  14. WUWM "excited" about "gun picnic"!

    Hey, don't take my word for it. They've provided an even greater level of detail about the gathering than I could have ever dreamed! I guess they're "on board."


    Oh... Hi Tim. Nice to see you optimizing your journalism degree here at capper's blog.

    Hope that works out for you.

  15. Did already. Well off and retired now. Can you say the same?

    Have you been wasting more of your irrelevant time investigating sewage droppings? lol.

    You crack me up.

  16. Tim,

    I should have guessed you were retired. I suspect that when you exited the workforce, Bill the Cat was still culturally relevant. It all makes sense now.

    Nice to hear you boast about being "well off." I can think of no better career with which to produce multi-generational wealth than journalism. You must have been the exception to the norm.

    Seriously, though. Anytime you get to Madison, stop by and I'll introduce you to the front bumper of my Lexus.

    You're a tool.

  17. Oh no, now personal threats.

    Keeping jerking, Bruce. If you can find it.

  18. Capper is using supposition and assumption influenced by his own opinion to tell his readers about the "Badger Blogger guys." He is thereby creating your opinion/position for you Bruce, rather than just dealing with what's actually been said.

    The technique used here and by Others is to interpret silence or inaction in a particular way in order to suit their fabricated argument. Some call it "a straw man" argument.

    It would be like me coming into capper's blog, noting that he hasn't posted anything on Darfur, breast cancer or the French Canadian struggle for independence. I then proceed to trash him at Badger Blogger for not caring about those tragedies because I interpret his silence to mean something. In reality it's more indicative of what I think of capper than what capper really thinks about Darfur.

    And I suppose capper's comment:
    Mike, Haldol will do wonders for your delusions is further evidence of his distaste for personal attacks?

  19. Whew...while I'm typing the last comment, there's all kinds of attacks going on. By your silence, capper, I can only assume you are OK with all the insults...LOL

  20. Dozens of nutty guys with guns. What could possibly go wrong?

    Chances are nothing will. But still, there's no need for this. Curious that it's happening many miles away from any municipal center with heavy gun violence, though.

  21. Bruce 8:04-People is the subject of the sentence. It is a plural, meaning are is the correct conjugation.

    Bruce 9:28-I posted a link to a story and a video, so that the reader/viewer could watch it and formulate their own opinion.But now you want me to not have an opinion? Do make up your mind.

    Bruce 11:20- Um, BB is the one with the resident sockpuppet of gus/mickey.

    Bruce 1:15 You are the one that has more, and is not strictly reporting on it. Nice try.

  22. Roland,

    Did it ever occur to you I might have been working?

  23. Tim-

    I look at the source and realize that I need not concern myself. It is a bunch of children trying to convince themselves that they're tough.

  24. Roland,
    Did it ever occur to you I might have been working?
    My comment at 3:38pm was a tongue-in-cheek example of the tactic I accused you and Other of using in my preceding comment.

    I didn't think it was so subtle as to go over your head...next time I'll dumb it down for you.

  25. Hubert dip**it really messed this up. He even got the trib to delete the debate.

    This is the dumbest thing ever. I mean "hey guys, lets open carry in the country where it's totally legal anyway",,, duh.

    If you want to make a political statement, you do so WITHIN CITY LIMITS, thats the little colored border you see on any map Huby. Jeez. This guy is giving activists a bad rap with this, and proving not one thing, other than providing the antis more "redneck" jokes.

    Hubert, watch your back ... you've stirred up a lot more than you can sweep up by Sunday. Your post on stormfront was seen by many and was a bad move by YOU. I pegged you so hard you had to whine to the trib, amazing.

    If you had spent as much time planning this as promoting it, it would have been a very positive thing. The only thing I'm positive of now is police presence and plENTY of leftovers.

  26. I see now that a blogger from the other side of this topic has posted on a Racine man who used a gun to protect himself against some youths while riding his bike.

    If the youths were in fact trying to rob him, or assault him, then IT IS GREAT that he was able to defend himself.

    He is said to be in "hot water" with the Racine police for carrying a firearm within 1000 feet of a school, a law that Sykes thinks should be ignored as "feel good" legislation (05-06-09 radio broadcast). I guess only laws Skyes agrees with should be enforced.

    I have a few problems with the story, however. He was riding his bike at 10:30 with his open carry firearm. I believe he has violated other laws then. A bicycle is a conveyance, therefore the gun should have been unloaded and cased. But no matter. If he used it to defend himself against crime, again, GOOD FOR HIM! But did he?

    He says he encountered youths on a corner. Were they in the street, or on the sidewalk, where the cyclist shouldn't have been riding in the first place? If they were on the sidewalk, there is a little problem there. One might conclude that a man carrying a gun riding through a group of young men on a sidewalk rather than going around was, I don't know, looking for a confrontation.

    In either case, on the sidewalk or the street, pedestrians have the right of way. But the man rode through them, saying "bike coming through," rather than yielding the right of way. Again, if in fact the young men were thugs looking to rob somebody, GREAT THAT HE COULD DEFEND HIMSELF. Were they?

    He felt something hit the back of his head. Either these "thugs" are crack stone throwers who used this technique to rob passing cyclists, or perhaps they hit him in anger after getting out of the way of the "bike coming through." Just a thought. I guess I could see that happening.

    The man stopped his bike, drew his weapon and yelled "Gun!" They ran.

    The man later told police he "thought" the young men were trying to rob him. He didn't say they said anything about a robbery, but he "thought" they were.

    Now, although I repeat myself, I want my position to be clear. If they were trying to assault or rob him, GREAT THAT HE COULD DEFEND HIMSELF.

    If he was a man who strapped on a gun and went looking for a confrontation, and the young men were upset that some guy on a bike rode through them saying "bike coming through" as they stood legally on a corner, is that another matter?

    Now, I don't purport to know the answer to this one way or the other. But our hero has appeared to have violated a few laws of both pedestrian rights and legal gun carry, and his "thought" that he was about to be robbed is no more substantial evidence than my supposition that there might be a bit more to the story.

    So before anyone condemns me to hell for my thoughts on what happened, or may have happened, remember that the whole story is based on the cyclist's "thoughts" on what the intent of the other men was.

    But again, if in fact he was about to be robbed or assaulted, GOOD FOR HIM for defending himself. I hope I have made that clear.

  27. Not only all that...he was "hiding" in-between two houses with his gun drawn. If he was on my private property with his gun drawn or even with his gun holstered I would have pressed charges and if the cops wouldn't charge him I would have filed a complaint.

  28. Open Carry is the ONLY way we can legally carry in Wisconsin. This has little to do with "2nd amendment" and much more to with Article 1, Section 25 of the State constitution which was approved by over 70% of the voters in 1998 (11 years ago).

    Mr. Hoffman did an excellent job. The picnic was safe and well organized. The press reported over 200 people attended and that over $800 was raised for Wisconsin Badger Camp.

    Congratulations Mr. Hoffman!

    BTW, how much money did you anti-rights people raise for children with special needs?

  29. An anonymous commenter is trying to defend cowardice. Truly, the irony is delicious.

    BTW, we are the ones that WORK with and for the special needs children. We are not afraid of getting close to others that may or may not be different from us.

  30. As I understand it there "capper" Mr. Hoffman is also one the "we" that "WORK with and for the special needs children."

    It's interesting that a social worker would openly attack (using name calling) someone for trying to educate the public about what their (the people) rights are.

    Further, your implication that those who own/carry firearms are a "detriment to society," truly shows your prejudice. I thought social workers were supposed to stand up against prejudice, not promote it.

  31. A good social worker will confront bad and negative behavior when he or she finds it, just as I have done.

    Sometimes cruder language is required for the person to understand it. It is called effective communication skills.

    Which should not be confused with the ineffective coping skills that the gun nuts practice.

  32. By your own definition,, you cannot be a "good social worker" because you are partaking of and promoting the bad and negative behavior. You are promoting the fear, intolerance, and prejudice.

    A "good social worker" would work to educate the public, not instill fear.

  33. Sorry, anonymous, but a good social worker calls people out when they show maladaptive behavior. That is exactly what I've done.