"When it
passed a new ordinance banning weapons in city buildings last week, the
City Council also sent a message to all Racine citizens: Our safety is
more important than yours.
"That’s not only a curious message, it’s an arrogant one.
"If city aldermen buy into the argument that their safety is at issue unless they’re allowed to carry a gun into the council chambers to protect themselves, why should a state-licensed concealed carry permit holder have any less rights to defend themselves?
"Like many of the disputes around guns and gun controls, we get inflamed rhetoric, emotions and few facts.
"Alderman Greg Helding, who proposed that aldermen be exempted from the ban on weapons in city buildings, argued that the exemption was justified because elected officials can be marked as targets.
"He compared aldermen to courtrooms where judges and district attorneys are allowed to carry concealed weapons.
"We would submit that judges and district attorneys are usually dealing with accused criminals and not the interested citizens who normally appear in the council gallery. Moreover, judges and district attorneys are in the business of assessing life-affecting penalties — putting convicted criminals behind bars for years — or making decisions on things like the custody of children.
"That’s not the same as deciding who gets a streetlight, a zoning variance or a city permit, and Helding and the rest of the council members know that.
"No doubt aldermen get threats from time to time — we get them in the newspaper business as well. But, unless we missed it, aldermen offered up no proof of a history of serious threats of death or violence against them during the debates on this issue. Nor do we recall any incidents of gunplay in the council chambers in the past few decades.
"Indeed, one could suggest that aldermen themselves have demonstrated more of a propensity toward violence than gallery onlookers, given the recent criminal accusations against a couple of the council members. Perhaps the safest course would be to have a uniformed police officer handing out weapons to citizens when they enter the gallery.
"We’re not seriously suggesting that, of course.
"But we are serious about suggesting this is merely an exercise in arrogance.
"If the City Council meetings pose a real danger of armed violence, then the council should address it either by adding a uniformed police officer to the council chambers on meeting nights or enforcing the ban by adding weapon detectors at City Hall.
"That would provide a better defense than armed aldermen and flimsy decals on the City Hall doors."
http://journaltimes.com/news/opinion/editorial/journal-times-editorial-aldermen-don-t-need-weapons/article_5de7a2fe-a2fb-11e2-8df3-0019bb2963f4.html
I about choked when I read the above. I did a double take to make sure it was the Journal Times. This editorial is a sensible response to the hysteria and lies that have been coming from City Hall. I still find it hard to believe that it's in the Journal Times.
If you have been threatened online, please, please, please provide examples. You know, if someone threatens you online, you can get a judge to order the release of the IP address and account name of the perpetrator. So why haven't you done that? Or is this like Dickert's "embezzler"? Making claims with no supporting evidence, so the lie just hangs there in the air, stinking up everything. If Dickert knows of an embezzler, he is morally bound to give that information to prosecutors. Same for online threats. As a member of Racine's blogging community, I don't want people making online threats anymore than Helding or Kaplan do. So please just point out where you were threatened. Please, please, don't let this be another administration lie. Racine is really hurting and we can't take much more of your dishonesty.
P.S. Here is a story and video from FOX6 wherein Alderman Kaplan claims that threats have been made online: http://fox6now.com/2013/04/03/racine-officials-want-to-exempt-themselves-from-gun-ban/
Here is Racine Exposed's response to Kaplan: http://racineexposed.wordpress.com/2013/04/12/my-shot/
"That’s not only a curious message, it’s an arrogant one.
"If city aldermen buy into the argument that their safety is at issue unless they’re allowed to carry a gun into the council chambers to protect themselves, why should a state-licensed concealed carry permit holder have any less rights to defend themselves?
"Like many of the disputes around guns and gun controls, we get inflamed rhetoric, emotions and few facts.
"Alderman Greg Helding, who proposed that aldermen be exempted from the ban on weapons in city buildings, argued that the exemption was justified because elected officials can be marked as targets.
"He compared aldermen to courtrooms where judges and district attorneys are allowed to carry concealed weapons.
"We would submit that judges and district attorneys are usually dealing with accused criminals and not the interested citizens who normally appear in the council gallery. Moreover, judges and district attorneys are in the business of assessing life-affecting penalties — putting convicted criminals behind bars for years — or making decisions on things like the custody of children.
"That’s not the same as deciding who gets a streetlight, a zoning variance or a city permit, and Helding and the rest of the council members know that.
"No doubt aldermen get threats from time to time — we get them in the newspaper business as well. But, unless we missed it, aldermen offered up no proof of a history of serious threats of death or violence against them during the debates on this issue. Nor do we recall any incidents of gunplay in the council chambers in the past few decades.
"Indeed, one could suggest that aldermen themselves have demonstrated more of a propensity toward violence than gallery onlookers, given the recent criminal accusations against a couple of the council members. Perhaps the safest course would be to have a uniformed police officer handing out weapons to citizens when they enter the gallery.
"We’re not seriously suggesting that, of course.
"But we are serious about suggesting this is merely an exercise in arrogance.
"If the City Council meetings pose a real danger of armed violence, then the council should address it either by adding a uniformed police officer to the council chambers on meeting nights or enforcing the ban by adding weapon detectors at City Hall.
"That would provide a better defense than armed aldermen and flimsy decals on the City Hall doors."
http://journaltimes.com/news/opinion/editorial/journal-times-editorial-aldermen-don-t-need-weapons/article_5de7a2fe-a2fb-11e2-8df3-0019bb2963f4.html
I about choked when I read the above. I did a double take to make sure it was the Journal Times. This editorial is a sensible response to the hysteria and lies that have been coming from City Hall. I still find it hard to believe that it's in the Journal Times.
If you have been threatened online, please, please, please provide examples. You know, if someone threatens you online, you can get a judge to order the release of the IP address and account name of the perpetrator. So why haven't you done that? Or is this like Dickert's "embezzler"? Making claims with no supporting evidence, so the lie just hangs there in the air, stinking up everything. If Dickert knows of an embezzler, he is morally bound to give that information to prosecutors. Same for online threats. As a member of Racine's blogging community, I don't want people making online threats anymore than Helding or Kaplan do. So please just point out where you were threatened. Please, please, don't let this be another administration lie. Racine is really hurting and we can't take much more of your dishonesty.
P.S. Here is a story and video from FOX6 wherein Alderman Kaplan claims that threats have been made online: http://fox6now.com/2013/04/03/racine-officials-want-to-exempt-themselves-from-gun-ban/
Here is Racine Exposed's response to Kaplan: http://racineexposed.wordpress.com/2013/04/12/my-shot/
I agree that the editorial makes sense. And, yes, it surprises me.
ReplyDeleteI think it spells doom for the current administration when the Journal Times makes a commitment to shy away from what they have covered up or elided over in the past. They have supported some terrible behavior in the past by high ranking individuals, until hard evidence proved there was no way to not support it further.
The Racine Equality Project: Organized, educated, well-spoken white men in suits filing legal paperwork against the administration must have finally put enough of a fear into our local paper for them to rescind their stance.
I don't think a complaint to the Ethics Board bothers them. One of lying John's biggest cronies, Doug Nicholson, sits on the board and doesn't have the decency to recuse himself. It will be just another lying John sham full of lies. Who do you complain to when the Ethics Board is unethical?
ReplyDeleteI think Racine Exposed has City Hall insiders filling their pants. Over and over, subject after subject, Racine Exposed has skewered the swine with facts. All of their lies and scams are right there, completely exposed. It has to be hard to continue to steal from the citizens of Racine when your actions are documented and published.
Finally, we'll never hear about the "online threats" that Helding and Kaplan lied about. Just more lies. People may finally be getting fed up with the lies and larceny out of City Hall. As they continue to cut our services so that they can give our money to lying John's cronies, people may get upset. I wouldn't have thought about a shootout at City Hall, but obviously the swine have. They're scared for their lives because the truth about City Hall is coming out. They're afraid that residents they have screwed over and over are finally going to do something. They are terrified of the truth, but it's all coming out anyway.
Party on, lying John!