Rebuttal to La Crosse Tribune Regarding Monroe County 2nd Amendment Sanctuary

Time to read
5 minutes
Read so far

Rebuttal to La Crosse Tribune Regarding Monroe County 2nd Amendment Sanctuary

March 07, 2020 - 09:39
Posted in:

Since the Monroe County Board of Supervisors took a stance on February 26th to establish Monroe County as a Second Amendment Sanctuary and to send a message to Madison and Washington that reads loud and clear,

“Here in Monroe County, We The People will not tolerate unconstitutional changes to the Second Amendment,”

I am reminded once again why I am so glad that we live in a constitutional republic and not an Athenian democracy where fifty-one percent of the population does not possess the power to abolish the rights of the other forty nine, especially after reading a column written by a La Crosse Tribune journalist where she explains in her own opinion why Monroe County was ultimately “wrong” in passing the resolution that protects the civil liberties of those that live in Monroe County. Although I appreciate this journalist exercising her First Amendment Right to express her opposition to the Second, there are a few points she made that are easily debunked and should be addressed.

She starts her column by pointing out the most recent tragedy in Milwaukee where five employees of Molson Coors Brewing Co. fell victim to an active shooter the same day the Second Amendment Sanctuary resolution was passed in Monroe County. She then proceeds to use this tragedy to oppose the action taken by the county board. However, I would like to understand how this event has anything to do with the resolution passed in Monroe County and furthermore, what specific gun measure would have stopped this mass shooting? Mandatory buybacks of AR-15’s would have done nothing because this shooting was carried out with handguns (the most regulated type of firearm on the market). Red Flag laws would have done nothing since a judge in the 1990’s dismissed a charge made against the shooter in which he was accused of brandishing a firearm at an SUV. So, if that judge dismissed the shooter’s case then, how can anyone suggest that the judge would have ordered the confiscation of his firearm if Red Flag laws had been in place? Also, the shooter portrayed no signs of violent behaviors since that incident and was actually described as being nicer than most clients and a "well-adjusted” man by Attorney Stephen Gabert who represented him in a car accident case. So, I’m interested to hear exactly what gun law would have prevented this tragic incident. However, it’s obvious there is no current or proposed law that would have stopped this man from carrying out his egregious intentions.

Next, the journalist from the La Crosse Tribune continues her opposition to Monroe County passing its Second Amendment Sanctuary resolution by suggesting that the resolution contradicts Monroe County Sheriff Wes Revel’s statement where he makes it clear that the resolution passed does not ask for law enforcement to ignore or nullify the current gun laws. However, the Tribune journalist insisted that the resolution does in fact call for the nullification of current gun laws by citing my personal position on the Second Amendment when I stated at the board meeting that I would not use hunting as a justification for my support of the resolution since that is not the intent of the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment was established as a means for the civilian populace to resist government tyranny. Being that I am not an author of the resolution, I don’t know how or why the journalist from the La Crosse Tribune would use my personal stance to debunk the intent of the resolution. She then proceeds to contend my perspective on the Second Amendment (which happens to be the same perspective as the founders of our republic) by stating that my rifle would do nothing against a government that possesses their own “assault rifles,” armor, jets, and nuclear bombs.

It concerns me that this journalist would imply the U.S. would nuke itself in response to a civilian resistance,

It concerns me that this journalist would imply the U.S. would nuke itself in response to a civilian resistance, and I agree with her statement that suggests my single firearm would do virtually nothing against a tyrannical government. However, I am very positive that the other 100-million gun owners in America would be very effective against a military that contains only 1.3 million members. Also, if she believes that it's virtually impossible for a civilian army to effectively resist their national military, I would kindly point her attention to the Middle East where there has been little to no progress made against civilian armies in Iraq and Afghanistan despite the technological superiority that the United States Military has at its disposal and the same can be said for the failed war in Vietnam. In fact, the United States itself was formed as a result of ragtag civilian soldiers (militia) taking up arms in defense of their liberties and defeating the British Empire in 1783, which was the most powerful empire in the world at that time. The notion that the American People would not stand a chance against their government in the event that it was to become tyrannical is easily debunked as history illustrates.

After this contention, the Tribune journalist insists that we should regulate guns the same way we regulate cars, which would be completely unconstitutional and furthermore, is an incomparable policy proposal as the amendment in the Bill of Rights that states, “The right of the people to keep and bear a motorized vehicle” simply does not exist. She also states that we should revoke a person’s license to own a firearm once that person has proven themselves to be a safety concern to society; just like those who drive drunk get their driver’s license revoked for some time. However, it appears she has forgotten that simply revoking one’s license for drunk driving does not stop that individual from operating a motorized vehicle in their continuous disregard for the rule of law, and the same can be said for those who use firearms to carry out their evil acts.

Lastly, she ends her column by stating, “If the people of the city of La Crosse want to say no carrying guns at the grocery store, they should be allowed to do so.”

This contention contradicts a study conducted by the Crime Research Protection Center, which found 96 percent of all public mass shootings that have occurred between the years 1998 and 2015 were in gun-free zones.

So in reality, the journalist’s words would be more accurate if they read, “If the people of the city of La Crosse want to say you should be defenseless from a potential threat at the grocery store, they should be allowed to.” After all, restricting a law-abiding citizen from carrying their legally owned firearm in places that are prime targets for mass shooters, makes themselves and the people around them nothing more than sitting ducks.

All in all, I appreciate that this journalist took the time to express her opposition to those of us here in Monroe County who are willing to uphold, defend, and protect the Constitution of the United States as written and as intended by its framers. I also appreciate that she took the time to inform us that she will “not be coming back to Monroe County any time soon.” It is in this, that I would like to again express my sincerest gratitude that we live in a constitutional republic and not an Athenian democracy where individuals like the La Crosse Tribune journalist possess the freedom to publicly insist that we should enact laws that would infringe upon our right to keep and bear arms while at the same time possessing no comprehensive knowledge of firearms. At the end of the day, our individual liberties are protected under the Constitution and safe from the rule of the mob.

There are 2 Comments

This is a well-articulated defense of the United States Constitution which many of us have taken an oath to defend 'against all enemies, foreign and domestic.' People like the Tribune writer you reference are anti-Constitution and we must continue to defeat them on the battlefield of public discourse. For those who seek to confiscate the legally owned and operated firearms from millions of Americans I request that you perform at least a small amount of research. Google the phrase "Concord and Lexington" to discover what happens when a centralized government entity tries to confiscate the firearms of Americans. After researching that ask yourself and then answer this simple question, "Do you really want to repeat that history again?"

Why is it that time after time, time after time, time after time, time after time, we need to say that criminals don't follow the laws, so the laws only pertain to law abiding citizens. The right of the citizen to bear arms shall not be infringed. If the people who don't like guns want to do something about it, encourage your judges to lock up criminals who threaten someone with a gun, or use a gun while committing a crime against people.

Add new comment

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.