Gun dealer shoots bar patron dead after an argument

[zinnisking]

The 63-year-old Glenbeulah man arrested for allegedly shooting and killing a man at a Plymouth-area bar is a registered gun dealer.

Authorities say Hvizdak shot and killed Jason TenPas, 31, of Cascade, about 11:15 p.m. Tuesday outside Racer’s Hall, W4408 County C, between Plymouth and Sheboygan Falls.

Few details have been released on the circumstances leading up to the shooting, but sheriff’s Capt. Dave Adams said investigators believe TenPas and the alleged shooter had not met each other before Tuesday night. WTMJ-AM radio in Milwaukee reported the shooting may have stemmed from a heated political argument, but Adams would not confirm that account.

http://www.sheboyganpress.com/article/20100902/SHE0101/100902056/Suspect-in-fatal-bar-shooting-is-gun-dealer

[baldguy]

1. He was just defending himself.

Using deadly force against words.

[Doctor_J]

9. This is the result of too many gun laws

;-)

[friendly_iconoclast]

38. No, this is the result of a murderous asshole being a murderous asshole.

If he'd done in the victim with a broken bottle, would the liquor industry be at fault?

[SteveM]

53. You should read what Gandhi has to say about violence...

He advocated and lived a life that required he defend his life, his family, his possession, his religion, by confronting a violent threat and thwarting that threat without hurting the attacker, even to the point of giving up his own life.

Of course he knew that most people could not live "his" life, so he believed that a citizen is obligated to stop the attacker by "despatching" (his spelling) him in order to save lives, property, religion, etc.

Then there is the third way: to do nothing and let the attacker have his way. This he termed cowardice.

Gandhi also believed that the gravest mistake Great Britain made in trying to suppress India's colonial revolt was to disarm the population.

Concerning your "argument," do you wish to engage, or is it just more sarcasm?

[AtheistCrusader]

44. How nice to know that you were there.

Can you elaborate on the news story, it's a little sparse on details.

[Stevenmarc]

2. Because Guns+Alcohol+Stupid is always a great mix

[uponit7771]

6. +1

[demigoddess]

8. +2

[Parker CA]

10. +5000

[PavePusher]

33. I doubt anyone here will dispute that. n/t

[xchrom]

3. Recommend

[joeybee12]

4. Reccing before this dies a slow and painful death after being moved to

the gungeon.

[zinnisking]

5. Oh, there's a gungeon?

I knew there was a dungeon. If I change the subject will they allow me to keep it here? I am not anti-gun, but this is from my area and there is something to be said about this story other than just the gun regulating argument.

I am quite certain this guy was a teabagger. Given the politically motivated shootings from the teabag movement in the past two years, this story needs to be told.

There will be more coming out about what led up to the argument. It may not have even been about politics (though one of Jason's relatives says it was, his friends say it wasn't). We will find out more.

Jason was my best friend for at least a year in middle school. RIP

[Doctor_J]

11. Was jason a lefty/Dem?

If so this could be classified as another assassination by the rabid right.

[zinnisking]

13. IDK

I haven't seen him in a few years. Whatever his opinions were, I'm sure he made them known. He was extremely cocky much like myself. A cocky lefty and an armed, unstable teabagger (oxy moron) is a dangerous situation.

[zinnisking]

108. eh

"unstable teabagger (oxy moron)"

What I meant to say was "...unstable teabagger (please excuse the redundancy)..."

Even though this thread was buried, I had to clear that up.

:blush:

[Euromutt]

43. The Teabagger movement hasn't even been around for two years

Their first public gathering was about a month after Obama's inauguration, IIRC (which, incidentally, is why I'm rather incredulous at their claims that race has nothing to do with it), so that's about a year and a half ago.

And how many politically motivated shootings have there been since then? That is, motivated by specifically Teabagger politics? You could count the murder of George Tiller and the Holocaust Museum shooting though, frankly, the perpetrators in both had histories going back to long before anyone ever heard of Barack Obama. Sure, Von Brunn was a Birther, but then, he was also a 9/11 "Truther" and he was convicted of attempting in 1981 to kidnap members of the Federal Reserve Board (he called it "a citizen's arrest for treason"); the guy was an all-round whackjob.

Much as I dislike Teabaggers, it's not exactly as if there's a been a systematic pattern of assassination committed by Palinistas. The 1990s "Patriot"/Freemen/Sovereign Citizens movement committed more violence than the Teabaggers have so far, so let's not get precipitate.

I mean, I'm sorry about your friend, and I won't disagree that the story needs to be told, but it'll have more impact if it doesn't come with embellishments with no evidence to back them up. Maybe the shooter was just a mean drunk. I mean, if he'd wanted to murder a Democrat, he could have probably found an elected one at some city or county government building.

[zinnisking]

47. Rank-and-file tea-baggers existed two years ago.

They just called themselves Republicans.

I don't care when their first phony rally was. '1 year, 6 months, and 2 weeks' is within 2 years. I rounded up.

Don't forget the Unitarian church shooter who wished to kill liberals. That's what he did.

You give sound advise, but conjecture is sometimes ok as long as you don't present it as gospel. As you should be able to see, I didn't. I didn't even include it in the OP. I don't know what type of impact you think I tried to make. I posted this article at the DU. An unhinged, reactionary gun nut shot a man he never met before after an argument.

Nobody has said that he was on a mission to kill a Democrat. Politics may not even have been an element of the argument.

I do have reason to believe that he is a tea-bagger.

While some of the moderates on the various DU sub-forums may not like my uncompromising biases against tea-baggers, I know enough of them personally and they are FUCKING STUPID ...and reactionary. That is a dangerous combination.

Here's an update.

http://www.sheboyganpress.com/article/20100903/SHE0101/9030395/Suspect-charged-in-fatal-shooting-at-bar

The best irony here is that he was going around bragging about how he was a Black-Belt. Some tough-guy eh? Fucking coward!

[MineralMan]

7. Yah...carrying in a bar is such a good idea...every time.

Click the link to see the photo of the perp. Nice-looking guy, with a fairly obvious alcohol problem, based on his complexion.

Gun control is a bitch when you've had a few, I guess.

[corkhead]

12. I say, shooting your customers is no way to get ahead in business, son.

[valerief]

14. People don't shoot people. Guns do. nt

[SteveM]

56. Yeah, if I don't lock it up, it'll "walk on down the hall!"

[Cheap_Trick]

15. But at least his 2A rights were in no way impeded.

THAT'S the most important thing.

[red red red]

16. Oh no!...

(Snark) Heard by a NRA conservative: "How is the gun - was it hurt?" :sarcasm:

[county worker]

17. Everyday we are cutting in on those positive concealed carry no shootings statistics.

Only a matter of time till they turn negative. It takes a rational person to see that the more people carry guns the more people will engage in gun violence.

I'm ready for another round of the good statistics guys.

[jazzhound]

18. Well..........not so much

Only a matter of time till they turn negative.

You betcha. Decades of history proving otherwise, but any day now the fundamental nature of human nature will flip. :crazy:

It takes a rational person to see that the more people carry guns the more people will engage in gun violence.

Actually, no it doesn't. It takes a factose-intolerant person who refuses to look at concealed carry stats or listen to what left-leaning criminologists have to say on the matter.

I'm ready for another round of the good statistics guys.

Ready to dismiss honest research in favor of faith-based bullsh*t, you mean.

[Callisto32]

19. You really don't do much math, eh?

[spin]

24. Wisconsin is a "no issue" state. Concealed carry is illegal ...

No-Issue

A No-Issue jurisdiction is one that does not allow any private citizen to carry a concealed handgun. The term refers to the fact that no concealed carry permits will be issued (or recognized).

Illinois and Wisconsin are No-Issue jurisdictions. The District of Columbia also has a No-Issue policy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concealed_carry_in_the_United_States

The "good statistics" guys talk about people with a concealed weapons permit and even they don't argue that those with concealed weapons permits are angels who NEVER misuse their firearms. We make no attempt to stand up for people who carry firearms illegally. Obviously the man charged with the murder, Frank Hvizdak of Glenbeulah, was breaking the law by carrying a concealed weapon.

I will agree that a rational person would state that allowing more people to carry concealed firearms would lead to more shootings. However, at one time, rational people believed the world was flat.

The state of Florida publishes a monthly report on concealed carry that covers almost 23 years (from October 1, 1987 - August 31, 2010). http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/stats/cw_monthly.html

In that period of time, 1,842,237 concealed weapons permits have been issued and 754,548 licenses are currently valid. Only 168 licenses have been revoked for a crime involving the use of a firearm after the license was issued. Not all of the licenses have been revoked because the holder shot someone. many were pulled because the holder violated the rules of where he/she could carry. But to be fair, a number of revoked licenses did involve criminal shootings including murder.

As I said, people with a concealed carry permit do not have halos surrounding their heads. They are, however, a sub group of gun owners that act far more responsibly then other groups.


How many permit-holders use guns to commit crimes?

The Violence Policy Center found that in the United States between May 2007 and April 2009, fifty-six deaths resulted from gun crimes committed by CCW permit-holders. Whether this anti-gun organization derived its number objectively or creatively, we accept the claim. Using the VPC data, U.S. Department of Justice statistics on nationwide gun murders, and Arizona's 290 firearms homicides spread over a population of 6.5 million, your chances of being gunned down by a CCW permit-holder in that state are a bit more than one in ten million.

How does dying at gunpoint stack up against other ways to go? According to the U.S. Office of Hazardous Materials Safety, from 1999 to 2003, the likelihood of being killed by lightning was one in 6,061,000, or 28 percent greater than the likelihood of being cut down by a licensed hand-gunner. During the same timeframe, people in America had a one-in-18,700 chance of death by poisoning. The restaurant that doesn't nail you by taking your gun from your hand when you need it has a 400-times-better shot at killing you with over-the-hill thousand-island dressing.

The benefits of having decent citizens carry concealed guns outweigh the one-in-ten-million chance that one of those citizens will turn not-so-decent and shoot you. Law-abiding Americans brandish handguns in 2.5 million defensive incidents a year -- once every 12½ seconds. In most cases, a gun's mere appearance settles a brewing conflict. The National Center for Policy Analysis found that major crime plunges when law-abiding citizens carry concealed handguns . The same NCPA study, covering every American county, found that murders dropped by 8.5 percent, while rapes and serious assaults fell up to 7 percent in states with licensed concealed carry. Furthermore, if states without licensed concealed carry would institute it, then 1570 murders, 4180 rapes, and over 60,000 aggravated assaults would not happen each year.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/handgun_derangement_syndrome_g.html

Since you're ready for my reply, I look forward to your response.

[friendly_iconoclast]

45. Are all your posts this accurate? n/t

[cleanhippie]

49. I guess you really were NOT ready for another round of statistics.

Total and complete FAIL.

[one-eyed fat man]

20. Concealed weapons are prohibited in Wisconsin.

There is no permit or any other way to legally carry any concealed weapon in Wisconsin, except for certain law enforcement officers.

Even if he is a licensed gun dealer as the article claims, an FFL is not a license to carry anywhere. The ATF maintains a nifty website we all pay for where answers are just a few clicks away.

ATF Frequently asked questions

Q: Does a Federal firearms license allow the licensee to carry a firearm in the course of business?

No. A Federal firearms license confers no right or privilege to carry a firearm, concealed or otherwise. Permits to carry are issued by State or local authorities.

[Glassunion]

21. You and your stoopid so-called facts... nt

[zinnisking]

22. The subject title...my only faux pas?

Or is it all shootings in general that get moved to the "gungeon" (hehe)?

I knew by using this title I was risking reprimand from PC gunners. But this guy is a gun DEALER who was illegally carrying a gun in a Wisconsin tavern and killed someone in cold blood.So the title was appropriate IMO.

There might be significant updates to this story and I would like to share it with a wider DU audience. I don't want the story to get punished because I chose an inappropriate headline.

I don't have a gun-control agenda. This is more about a lunatic fringer who killed an old friend of mine, possibly over a political disagreement.

So what...word the title differently next time?

[X_Digger]

23. Since nobody's taken the time to do so..

.. condolences on the loss of your friend.

[zinnisking]

26. TY

He was a nice guy and most everyone liked him.

[spin]

25. I also am sorry for your loss. (n/t)

[zinnisking]

27. .

TY too.

[shadowrider]

29. Possibly a tea-bagger, possibly a political disagreement. Why don't you wait for facts

before engaging in needless gossip and conjecture.

[jazzhound]

31. Shame on me for my reflexive response to jive post #17.

In the process I missed not only that you lost a friend, but that the event took place in (no-issue) Wisconsin.

Sorry to hear of your loss.

[friendly_iconoclast]

32. I want to add my condolences to those already posted.

I unexpectedly lost a good friend over a decade ago (health issues, not homicide), and still miss the dude. It gets easier over time-

but you never do forget them (here's to ya, Pete!)


If this was a politically-motivated shooting, I would definitely hope any updates could stay in GD or LBN. I think the fringes

of the right-wing might get more and more violent.

[krispos42]

40. If it's a breaking national news event, the mods generally leave them where they start

E.g., Virginia Tech, Dr. Tiller's murder, the guy in New Hampshire packing heat at an Obama rally, etc.


If it's a story posted to start a discussion about an aspect of gun laws or the theories of gun control (pro or con) then it generally gets bumped to the Gungeon.

This would seem to be more of the latter.


Former mod here :hi:

[slackmaster]

28. In photo in the linked article it appears that alleged shooter recently took a blow to the left eye

I'm withholding judgments until more facts are presented.

[shadowrider]

30. You and me both, but people might get mad if we don't jump to conclusions, ya know n/t

[PavePusher]

34. The article says he was seized and beaten by other customers after the shooting.

Of course, that will need to be definitively proven during the investigation.

[Euromutt]

42. I figured he'd incurred the bruises while being subdued

Be it by the cops or, as you rightly note, by other customers. Something like that seemed the most likely explanation, anyway.

[onehandle]

35. No. Go ahead and start making excuses.

All hail the mighty gun owner.

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[friendly_iconoclast]

37. You'll get no defense of Hvizdak's actions from me . He was mean, drunk, crazy, or....

...some combination of the three. And being a gun dealer, he can hardly claim he didn't know carrying a handgun around like that

is illegal in Wisconsin, so that's another felony to go with the murder rap.


The article said that he approached the victim, not vice versa. I strongly suspect this was no heat-of-the-moment killing...

[Euromutt]

41. No, go ahead and keep mischaracterizing

All hail the noble humanitarian, whose moral superiority absolves him of having to be honest or polite.

[slackmaster]

46. That's not my job

Or yours.

[MichaelHarris]

51. All they had to do was read

"DeCecco said Hvizdak was beaten in the moments immediately after the shooting." Evidently the love for the gun didn't allow for that.

[slackmaster]

66. Of course everything you read on the Internet is true

And news articles always get the facts right the first time.

[friendly_iconoclast]

70. That makes even less sense than usual. He openly shot someone in front of a crowd

I rather doubt he would have been subdued by a heartfelt lecture on the virtues of ahimsa and a cup of chamomile....

[SteveM]

54. Still showing? There was time when liberals gave good argument...

now the so-called "liberals" who jump in with their sarcasm think they are ready for prime time. But they have lost the ratings and their culture war and have nothing to more to say than what the average teabagger spouts.

Welcome to their show.

[MichaelHarris]

50. hell

withhold all you want but reading is your friend.

"The complaint said Pfeifer and Mark Gasser tackled Hvizdak after the shooting...DeCecco said Hvizdak was beaten in the moments immediately after the shooting."

I'm sorry the outcome didn't work out for the precious gun though. He can't be your hero now. "he is listed on gunsforsale.com as having a Federal Firearms License and being willing to conduct gun transfers for a fee. He did business as K & B Arms."

[PavePusher]

52. Not sure what you're trying to say in your last paragraph.

Can you clarify, please? TIA.

[friendly_iconoclast]

71. "See! See! See! They *aren't* saints! That one's a murderer!"

Yeah, looks like he is- and this means what, exactly?

That's some pretty thin gruel you're trying to serve us.

[proteus_lives]

39. Ban arguments. It's the only way we'll be safe.

[Vinnie From Indy]

48. LOL

Cheers!

[SteveM]

55. Hell, the gun-control posters here seem to have beat you to it!

[Hoyt]

57. What do you expect. People packing guns in bars, church, Chuck-e-Cheese -- it'll just get worse.

Doesn't matter if they have a permit or not. Few folks have a need to pack in public.

[oneshooter]

58. So speaks the head of the "Department of Need". n/t

[one-eyed fat man]

59. Did you miss the part about ........

concealed carry in Wisconsin, being illegal for everyone, everywhere, all the time, or just ignore it?

[Hoyt]

60. Illegal or legal -- few "need" to pack. Those that "need" to, should be in a real militia

or law enforcement. People don't need to pack. They can play with the dang things in their houses if they want, but they don't need to pack in public, notwithstanding their irrational fears. Just one person's opinion.

[X_Digger]

61. And who's the Secretary of Need?

I'm sure people don't need to protest things they don't like, either.

You get right on that cabinet position for us, why don'cha?

[PavePusher]

62. Do you claim that self-defense is not a legitimate reason for bearing arms?

Are you claiming to be the arbiter of "need"? Who appointed you?

Are you willing to lead a proposal to Amend the Constitution to get your way?

Are you offering to ensure the security of all those you would take guns from?

Somehow, I doubt that you have rational answers for any of those questions.

P.S. What's a resonable militia to you? All I ever see on here is "you should belong to a militia" and then when militias are presented... the rants and raves about how they are all a bunch of wacko's. You can't have it both ways. Oh, and for the record, I am a member of the militia, by U.S. law. So there. (So are you...)

[Hoyt]

65. Some NRA member with a closet full of guns is not a "reasonable, well regulated militia".

How is that?

I am not a member of a "well regulated" militia. And if I were, I still would not feel the need to carry a weapon into public.

[PavePusher]

67. IIRC, we've been over this with you before...

and you're still wrong about your terms, definitions and limitations.

Good luck with that.

[one-eyed fat man]

63. Here's a clue

TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > § 311
§ 311. Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

This means if you don't squat to pee, aren't crippled, lame or crazy and under the age of 45 a member of the militia of the United States. This is why your SON has to register with Selective Service and your daughter does not.

If you have prior military service, you have a militia obligation that subjects you to recall up to age 60. If you are a military retiree, like me, you are subject to recall for LIFE. The Army still issues orders on retirement to certain soldiers in certain MOS what are colloquially termed "hip pocket orders" which give a reporting point and assignment in the event of mobilization. I still have a copy of my orders recalling me to active duty in 91 for Desert Storm.

It might be awfully narrow-minded of me but if I was trustworthy enough to be issued a weapon, and do a couple of combat tours in a couple of wars over 26 years for a soldier's pay, I am trustworthy enough to carry one on my own dime.

[Hoyt]

64. So the 92% of the citizenry who are not vets, must turn in their weapons at age 45?

That's a good start.

The fact remains, no able bodied man needs to carry a gun into a bar, public park, or Chuck-e-Cheese. They may want to or fear not to, but do they really "need" to? I don't think so.

[PavePusher]

68. Are you going to provide any guarantees....

for peoples' safety and security, in return for limiting their defensive options?

This is the second time I have asked you this question.

[Hoyt]

73. Why are you so worried about needing a gun in public? That's irrational.

[X_Digger]

75. Your odds of being the victim of violent crime are 1 in 50. (2007 DOJ data)

The rate of being the victim of a violent crime is 20 / 1,000 overall (as high as 27 / 1,000 for some groups like african americans.) That comes out to 1 in 50.

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=1743



Feel free to ignore the odds. That's your choice. You don't get to make the choice for anyone else.

[PavePusher]

78. I'll give you a third try to answer the question:

What is your proposal to offset the limitations you would impose on peoples means of self-defense?

You do have something, amIright?

[one-eyed fat man]

69. You will hate it

But it is the Bill of Rights, not the Bill of Needs. A right you do not exercise is a right you don't have. I like the old Swiss tradition concerning the right to vote. Back in the beginning you showed up at the Canton meeting bearing the arms you were prepared to bear in the county's defense. If you weren't willing to defend it, you hadn't earned a say how things would be run.

I can vividly recall a time when virtually every male adult was a veteran. Now the median age of veterans is 56 and there are just 25 million of us alive. The active Army today is barely a half million troops and 15% of those are women.

Who's been carrying your water?

[Hoyt]

72. I appreciate your "carrying my water." But, I don't think folks should carry guns in public.

You can play with them, like I used to breaking down a 1911 while blindfolded. I outgrew it. When my neighbor -- who has to strap several guns to his leg before going out -- tells me he will defend me if someone breaks in my house, I tell him to keep his gun holstered because it is my decision if I choose to shoot someone on my property. Other than lives, I have nothing worth shooting someone over. Nor do I need a gun in Chuck-e-Cheese or a bar. You and other toters don't either.

So, when are you going to call for folks to turn their guns in at age 45 (or 64 if a vet)?

[X_Digger]

74. That's not your choice to make.

You get to choose for yourself, not anyone else.

You don't "need" to wear a seat belt. You don't "need" to have a fire extinguisher in your home. Yet both are smart choices to make, given the nature of the risk and the severity of the consequences for failing to do so.

[cleanhippie]

76. And that is your opinion and you are entitled to it.

But your opinion does not trump the constitution and the way the 2A has been interpreted and upheld over and over and over again.


AT this point, the only thing irrational is someone making an argument based on ideas that have been debunked or not held up as plausible by the SCOTUS.

So, what is your reasoning for not wanting anyone to carry a gun again?

[Hoyt]

77. "Trumped"?

Hey, the only thing I see is some discussion above about Title 10 that says non-military folks have to turn their guns in at 45 because they'd no longer be in a militia, well regulated or not.

The Constitution has been misinterpreted any number of times. And besides, lots of things are legal, but aren't "polite." I just don't think it is good for society and our kids to see adults walking around with guns strapped to their legs or hidden in their pants playing cowboy. Just one person's opinion, of course.

[spin]

83. Some poster mentioned that idea people should be required to turn in their firearms ...

if they were non military and over the age of 45.

No government agency is considering doing anything like this. It would lead to a revolution and even if the revolt failed, the disruption to the country and the loss of life would be tragic and hard to overcome.

I personally have little interest in open carry. I carry concealed and am very careful to never expose my weapon. No kids will ever know that I am carrying, and no adults have ever noticed that I have a weapon on me (to the best of my knowledge).

I just like being viewed as a friendly older gentleman with a bad limp. I'm no cowboy by any means.

[one-eyed fat man]

85. Hey, rephrase that

{b]"Title 10 that says non-military folks have to turn their guns in at 45 because they'd no longer be in a militia..."

Title 10 does not say that YOU and ONLY YOU say that...or feverishly want Title 10 to say that!

What Title 10 does is impose an obligation on certain people to serve in the militia of the United States. It is little different than many states' modern posse comitatus statutes. For example the Kentucky statute gives any sheriff the power to "command and take with him the power of the county or a part thereof, to aid him in the execution of the duties of his office" (Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 70.060)

Though rarely used, the posse comitatus continues to be a modern legal institution. In June 1977, for example, the Aspen, Colorado, sheriff called out the posse comitatus—ordinary citizens with their own weapons—to hunt for escaped mass murderer Ted Bundy.

Similarly, last used in 1972, the authority of the Militia statutes allowed individual militia members to be "Selective"(ly) ordered to fulfill their "Service" obligation. Did you avoid it then? Would you avoid it now? If the sheriff in your county now called for a "posse" would you see it as a civic duty, or would you be like one of those sophists who crack on juries being comprised of people "too stupid to get off" and feign any excuse to avoid it?

You argue the "militia" no longer exists. The US Code says you are mistaken, so then you claim it says the right to arms ends when militia obligation ends. Cut the crap. What YOU want the Second Amendment to say, "You only have a right to bear arms as Government minion if Hoyt lets you."

[shadowrider]

79. I don't carry my gun in public. It's cleverly concealed. n/t

[one-eyed fat man]

80. You still won't like it.

"So, when are you going to call for folks to turn their guns in at age 45 (or 64 if a vet)"

I'm not, because militia service is not the basis for the individual right to arms and self defense and never has been.

The ONLY reason militia is ever part of this discussion is there are those who firmly believe that unless it serves the needs of the state, no ordinary citizen should be armed. You know, those folks who sneeringly say if you want a gun you should be in a "real militia."

Coincidentally, a disproportionate number of those people seem to be the same folks who look down on military service.

Now, if you truly believe that only agents of the state have the right to be armed. Great! If you think that arms in the hands of ordinary citizens is an anathema, well, that's fine too, there are plenty of historical figures who agree with you.

"Germans who wish to use firearms should join the SS or the SA - ordinary citizens don't need guns, as their having guns doesn't serve the State." - -Heinrich Himmler

You are certainly well within your rights to not own a gun. And that is precisely where your rights end. How you feel has no bearing on the lawful exercise of my rights. I care not a whit if your house is broken into or if you are assaulted. After all, has not that been the reality since Kitty Genovese got hacked to death 46 years ago? One of her neighbors complained how her screaming made him have to turn up the TV so he could hear the program.

"25 States allow anyone to buy a gun, strap it on, and walk down the street with no permit of any kind: some say it's crazy. However, 4 out of 5 U.S. murders are committed in the other half of the country: so who is crazy?" -- Andrew Ford

The thugs and scofflaws are not restrained or intimidated by the law. You don't solve the problem of drunk driving by taking the keys away from sober people.

[Glassunion]

81. Quick question... I was never in the military...

But would you deny me my membership in a militia based on my sex, age, religion, sexual orientation, etc...? Once answered, I think we can all see exactly who the militia really is.

But as you said, the right to bear arms has nothing to do with being in a militia. I'm just looking forward to the day when my state does not require a license to carry. Until then, I will continue to renew mine.

[one-eyed fat man]

84. Title 10 and Title 32 define the Armed Forces of the US

Right now, by definition, the militia of the United States consists of able-bodied male citizens (and those who have declared their intention to become citizens)between the ages of 17 and 45. It also includes certain female officers of the National Guard.

These are the persons whose militia service is REQUIRED. In practical terms, the militia laws are the authority for Selective Service. Simply, that is the pool of people who are subject to being "drafted." The law has never been amended to include drafting women. So their service is not obliged!

As far as enlisting in the Regular Army or the organized Militia, aka the National or Naval Guard your age, disabilities, gender may limit your eligibility for some jobs, but so do being too fat, too skinny, having certain chronic diseases, or being convicted of certain crimes. A misdemeanor domestic violence conviction is an absolute disqualification under the Lautenberg amendment. But barring those all it takes is going down to the recruiter and raising your hand.

Women do not have a militia OBLIGATION. That does not mean they can not be in the militia, it means they don't HAVE to be.

Does that clear things up?

[Glassunion]

86. So if my grandma wanted to be in the militia... She could. I like that.

She is wickedly accurate with a rifle.

[Euromutt]

99. I think I'd love to meet your grandma

And hoist a few of her preferred beverages with her. She sounds like one hell of a woman.

[spin]

82. I understand your view ...

however I feel you are overlooking the fact that some people have a need to carry in public.

For an example, my daughter attracted the attentions of a stalker. She, of course, filed and obtained a restraining order against the individual. He viewed the restraining order as a item to ignore and violated it numerous times. My daughter reported each violation, but since a police officer didn't witness the event, he was able to continue harassing my daughter. We found out that the stalker had a criminal record including assaulting a police office and resisting arrest. He also had a lengthy arrest record for driving while intoxicated.

My daughter has a concealed weapons permit and carries. The stalker was aware that her husband carried a firearm and he attempted to file a restraining order against both my daughter and her husband. The judge refuse this restraining order. A mistake occurred at the court house and my daughter received some registered mail that told her to turn in her license. She immediately called the judge and he got the situation straightened out. The strange part is my son in law never received a letter in the mail to turn in his permit. (Sometimes the government is not very effective.) The judge actually asked her if she had stopped carrying her weapon after the letter. She responded, "No, it was a clerical error." The judge approved of her decision. My daughter believes that the stalker was unaware that she had a carry permit and once he learned he was far more careful when he harassed her.

It seems that this individual is merely a bully who enjoys pestering women as he had also stalked other women. Currently one of my daughter's friends has a restraining order filed against him and it has an indefinite time frame He never actually threatened my daughter in any manner that might have caused serious injury. My daughter viewed him as a pain in the ass, but the fact that she was "packing heat" and is a good shot took a lot of stress away. She had absolutely no desire to shoot this fool, but if he had endangered her she would have used her weapon to stop his attack.

As it was, he finally pushed too far and ended up in jail for a number of weekends. The judge also threatened him with a year in prison if he violated the restraining order again. He appears to have learned his lesson. My daughter occasionally sees him in the small town we live in, but he no longer follows her around like a dog in heat.

My daughter also recently had a job that took her into a lot of bad areas interviewing people. She carried while doing this job and fortunately never had a reason to draw her weapon.

Now I know that you might argue that my daughter really never had a need to carry and everything would have worked out fine if she had not been allowed the privilege. While that may be true, she would have had a lot more stress and the stalker would have enjoyed terrifying her far more than he did. My son in law would have solved the problem by simply confronting him and beating him up. But he was willing to stay within the law because he feared that he might lose his concealed weapons permit and he knew my daughter was legally carrying a weapon and was quite capable of defending herself.

[Hoyt]

87. Yes, some people like your daughter have a reason to carry. Most here really don't.

I don't think we ought to glamorize or condone people packing on playgrounds, in bars, etc. It's not good for us -- maybe necessary at times, but not good for us.

[oneshooter]

88. Or not good for you? n/t

[PavePusher]

89. Your precognition must be much better than mine.

Can you hang around a while so people can check in with you about when they will "need" to be armed? I'm sure we'll all feel a lot better knowing when to be prepared and when it is unneccesary.

Just one thing... what gaurantees do you offer? What if you predict incorrectly? Will you personnaly be responsible for any harm that falls to us?

[Hoyt]

90. What "guarantee" will assuage irrational fear. A gun in your pants is not a guarantee either.

If it were me, I would try to come to terms with how little threat you actually face. If you feel threatened in a bar, play ground, church, Chuck-e-Cheese, etc., don't go.

[PavePusher]

91. Have you considered the possibility...

that the reason crime rates have gone down is in part due to kore Citizens being armed? While there is no hard data to conclusively prove this, it is certtain that more legally armed people have not raised crime rates.

Also, having been a victim of crime more than once, I know very well what threats exist and their approxamite probabilities. Non-zero is the term you are looking for.

If you feel threatened by a legally armed Citizen, perhaps you should find a way to "assuage your irrational fear" that does not restrict my Rights.

[Hoyt]

95. I have, and don't buy it. Pro-gun propaganda.

[PavePusher]

97. Then how do you explain it?

What is your theory and what is your evidence?

And how do you explain the drop in crime vs. the increase in legal firearms ownership and increases in carriers?

[one-eyed fat man]

104. He can't; he won't and it doesn't matter.

The drop in crime rate may have absolutely nothing to do with the fact that more people are legally armed carrying concealed weapons. It is entirely possible that the two events are merely coincidental.

However, the fact that remains is even less palatable to him. That the increasing numbers of legally armed individuals the NOT result in the predicted bloodbath: shootouts over parking spaces, and all the images of Tombstone and Dodge City gunplay did not materialize.

In fact if you look that has really happened is a few people because they were legally armed were able to successfully defend themselves. From a practical standpoint, in a nation of 325 million people, the number is likely statistically insignificant. But if you are the woman who didn't get raped because the sight of a .38 caused the attacker to flee, it is hugely significant.

That fact that a drunk scofflaw carries a gun, in a state that has absolutely prohibited concealed weapons for over a century, into a bar, and shoots someone over nothing only proves that drunks, scofflaws, thugs, and criminals will do what they have always done. They continue to completely disregard laws, rules of society, common courtesy and any other restriction that doesn't suit their self-centered vision of entitlement that let's them feel they are able to do what they want, whenever they want, to whomever they want. Unless they are stopped by the only means they understand......and your strongly worded moral imperative, ain't it!

[jazzhound]

92. Fail after fail after fail after fail.

If you feel threatened in a bar, play ground, church, Chuck-e-Cheese, etc., don't go.

First of all, there is a world of difference between acknowledging that I am not excluded from the pool of persons who might be assaulted and feeling threatened. It's what people who carry think of as an absence of arrogance ---- not to be confused with what dishonest persons refer to as paranoia, or "feeling threatened". Your penchant for constructing strawmen persists.

Secondly, that very same absence of arrogance tells us that we cannot predict when and where a predator might choose to strike. Perhaps it's in a grocery store parking lot late at night. I don't carry, but I like to shop late at night on my home from other places to save time. Your list of places a person might "feel threatened" (or be a potential victim of assault) is endless ---- ergo your statement is absurd.

[Hoyt]

94. Fortunately, I don't grab a gun when I go out because it is unlikely I'll run into a "predator".

Thanks God I don't look at the world like that. Of course, the more armed folks in Chuck-e-Cheese who do view the world as full of "predators" make such incidents more likely. Good luck.

[Glassunion]

96. You contradict yourself...

You label someone who carries a gun as "paranoid" "who do view the world as full of predators".

Yet you exibit the same(your label not mine) paranoia as "it'll just get worse".

So to recap... You label others as paranoid because "you say" they are afraid of the general public, yet you exibit those same fears of the general public who carry a firearm.

I do not fear the general public nor do I fear those in the general public who are armed.

[jazzhound]

101. Not surprisingly, you dodged my main point.

Thanks God I don't look at the world like that.

You are thanking God that somehow you are miraculously excluded from the group of citizens who may suffer a violent assault over the course of their lifetime? How exactly have you earned this elevated status?

You are thanking God that you lack the humility to acknowledge the fact that you just might become a victim of a violent assault at some point? Why, exactly?

Kindly explain -- in specific terms -- what exactly you are thanking God for.

EDITED TO ADD: When you can't deal with the actual content of an argument, toss out a vague insult at your opponents world view. Stay classy now!

[jazzhound]

102. Trotting out yet more failing argument.

Of course, the more armed folks in Chuck-e-Cheese who do view the world as full of "predators" make such incidents more likely. Good luck.

So apparently you join our other illustrious poster who claims that "any day now" all dem eebil gunz will "make such incidents more likely" despite the fact that decades of experience with concealed carry indicates the contrary.

It is your team, sir, that needs the luck!!

[spin]

93. You agree that my daughter has a reason to carry ...

my daughter did nothing to attract the attentions of the stalker. He was a man she had met once or twice and never had a relationship with.

He was stalking one of my daughter's friends although my daughter was initially unaware of that fact. The man may have mental problems which might explain his sudden fascination with my daughter.

Fortunately, my daughter had a concealed carry permit when the incidents started. Otherwise she would have had to take a class and get fingerprinted and wait as long as three months for the permit to process.

She has had her permit for years and has renewed it once or twice. She often carried her weapon before the stalking started and definitely carried it while she was being harassed.

You would have placed her in the category of people who have no reason to have a carry permit prior to the stalking incident.

I not saying that everyone who can should run out and obtain a concealed carry permit just to have one in case it is ever necessary. That's a personal decision. Still, you can never predict the future or what turn events might take.

She made a wise decision when she got her permit.

[PavePusher]

98. He still hasn't offered to help others with his precognition.

I find that worrisome....

[Euromutt]

100. Why should I turn them in, when I can serve in a non-combat role?

The way I figure, if the 17-45 year-olds get called up for active service in the militia, the guys over 45 years of age will be the ones left to instruct the under-17s in the fine arts of weapons handling and marksmanship. Therefore, you can't require the over-45s to turn in their guns, because they need them to train the under-17s while the 17-45 year-olds are off fighting.

I mean, what are you trying to prove here, Hoyt? That you don't have fucking clue how to run an army? Or even an insurgency?

[oneshooter]

103. He just doesn't have a clue at all. n/t

[friendly_iconoclast]

105. Better bust out the Windex and some clean rags, Kreskin.

Looks like your crystal ball is cloudy:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=339309&mesg_id=339309

[PavePusher]

106. Note that s/he has repeatedly avoided answering direct question.

Quel suprise!

[zinnisking]

107. update...Sheriff's Department re-opens 2005 investigation

Sheboygan County Sheriff's Department re-opens 2005 investigation involving alleged bar shooter from Glenbeulah

The Sheboygan County Sheriff’s Department has re-opened a five-year-old investigation involving Frank S. Hvizdak, the Glenbeulah man charged with shooting and killing a man at a Plymouth-area tavern.

Authorities denied an open records request by The Sheboygan Press seeking the 2005 report, but the denial letter says the prior investigation “may be relevant to the new charges” and could be used as “other acts” of evidence in Hvizdak’s current case. The letter said the prior offenses could shed light on Hvizdak’s character and conduct in the homicide case.

No further details were released on the prior case, which did not result in criminal charges for Hvizdak.


http://www.sheboyganpress.com/article/20100917/SHE0101/100917040/Sheriff-re-opens-2005-investigation-involving-alleged-bar-shooter

.....................

There was another incident this year where Hvisdak pulled a gun on someone after losing a game of pool. Unfortunately it was never reported to police. I heard directly from the guy that it happened to.

There was someone in this thread who was positively sure there just had to be more to the story than just some guy shooting someone over an argument. Well now you know.