Saturday, July 3, 2010

Grandstanding DA Endangers Lives

What the heck is going on with some of the state's DAs?

First, there was the grandstanding DA in Juneau County that threatened to prosecute teachers who followed the law. (He is now facing a recall attempt.)

Now, from Jackson County, we find a DA that says he won't enforce the state laws regarding guns. He claims that a recent Supreme Court ruling about a Chicago case made the Wisconsin laws unconstitutional (I thought there was a process for this, but maybe he thinks he is above that.) To demonstrate just where this guy is coming from, he provides a quote that he will be probably end up regretting:

"Only by the strictest adherence to firearm safety rules and common sense will we show that the elitists who seek to disarm all of us are wrong, and that every law abiding citizen can be trusted to protect themselves and their neighbors safely."

Eerily, the day before this story appeared, the ever-talented and possibly clairvoyant Stuart Carlson had already responded to this kind of nonsense:

Jill Sixpack talks about both of these grandstanding DAs, while Xoff laments the return to the wild west mentality.


  1. I feel like I should have more of an opinion on this, because it's my county we're talking about. One thing I have a big problem with:

    Section 941.237, prohibiting the possession of firearms in establishments where alcohol
    may be sold or served

    Guns in bars? No thank you.

  2. Sad when local bloggers believe state law supersedes a supreme court ruling and the 2nd amendment.

  3. oh yes it's so sad when local bloggers have intelligent opinion. it's also sad the way that right wing gun nuts have seized upon the 2nd amendment to justify keeping huge stockpiles of weapons. a well regulated militia might have made sense in the 1700's. and it's possible you could consider the police, the national guard and other individuals meet fit the meaning of that phrase as well regulated militias.

  4. Intelligent opinion?

    Seized upon the 2nd amendment?

    Nice to see your real words, "might have made sense in the 1700's". Are there any other amendments you now think should not apply?

    Ignorance is never understanding the reason these 10 were put in place to begin with; protecting the people from the government. Now the lemmings want the government to infringe on our nations history and take away rights GUARANTEED in the bill of rights.

  5. The Constitution has been amended a number of times since it was created. If it was a perfect document, it wouldn't have needed so many amendments. Remember, it was created by men over two hundred years ago, not by a Higher Power.

  6. The bill of rights are not part of the constitution...they are the first ten amendments to it.

    History, like facts, is such a tough thing to grasp.

  7. History, like the fact that amendments can be altered, or even repealed?

    Proper grammar apparently is a difficult thing to understand, as well.

  8. So which of the amendments do think need changed or repealed?