Cabin Fever...

It's that time of year when I get a little jumpy. I'm tired of winter, even though it has been a mild one. I'm ready for fishing (not through a hole), baseball, bike riding and a sun that shines until I am ready to go to bed. I know it is on its way, but this time of year it is hard for me to be patient.

It's this time of year where I need to be careful about the things I say because it is also the spring election season. So at a time when even more eyes are on me, I'm at my lowest. That could be dangerous.

Let me discuss a few of the things, in generalities, that really bother me about candidates, and admittedly, probably bother me more when I am suffering from cabin fever...

Candidates who stress details about their platform that are insignificant:

I've already mentioned my disdain for people who use their faith as a marketing tool for elected office. I should vote for someone because they are Catholic, Lutheran or "accepted Jesus"? Why?  If i vote for the Muslim am I sinning?  What if I vote for the gay candidate?  What about the woman, the black, or senior candidate.  Aren't we all "created equal"?  Aren't we all constitutionally able to run for office?  Stop pimping your religious beliefs in an effort to make my vote for you seem more valid in Gods eyes.  I'm guessing that God wouldn't vote for you anyway.

Those who trumpet larger, national, issues such as being pro-life or pro-choice, when running for a local office. Does anyone really think that, if elected, they will have ANY impact on that issue? My favorite was the coroner candidate (failed) who was pro-life...really seemed like a bad business model.

Recently the trend has been toward trumpeting some stance on a constitutional issue. In Wisconsin, the 2nd amendment has been front and center. When a candidate boasts about being 'Pro-2nd Amendment" I want to ask them "what about the other ones?". It seems to me that there are other constitutional amendments that you should be equally 'pro" about. Unless the Bill of Rights is a smorgasbord and you can pick and choose which rights are most important.

Finally, lists. Lists of their "skills", especially when they look like they simply cut and pasted everything from a Microsoft template.

"Critical Thinking"

"Problem Solving"

Here's a news flash. We are human beings. Critical thinking and problem solving are traits we all have. How about you expound upon this unique skill of yours. Tell me HOW you problem solve. Tell me what "Critical Thinking" means to you...from my experience with some of these candidates, they belive it simply means being critical of everything that is thought of by someone else.

It seems that the discussions about what is really important are completely lost in the rhetoric of politics. There is one single thing I want to understand about a candidate.

Leadership and what it means to you.

When I ran for elected office, I had the slogan "Listen. Lead. Succeed." Those words were selected for very specific reasons and put in that order for very specific reasons. Even the punctuation is important.

Listen. First of all, before you can lead anything, you need to understand it. You need to listen. This can be tough when you come in with an agenda or a "plan". Until you learn the system and understand how we got where we are, you can't lead anyone to a different place.

Lead. Leading isn't about being in charge. In fact, I personally believe it is about putting others in charge. The most successful leaders in the world had better people around them. A good leader selects smarter/stronger people to work around them...and then gets out of their way. I can't take credit for that, it's a quote by several famous people, including Lee Iacocca.

Succeed. This one is the toughest to define. Personally, I believe it is unachievable. I only say that because once a goal is achieved, it's time to aim higher. Success only comes when you are done leading and you look back and say that things are better than when you started. It's like owning a stock. The price may go up, but you only make a "profit" when you sell. The same goes for failure.

So, all candidates for public office... dump the rhetoric and macro-political mumbo-jumbo and talk about the specific issues and how you would handle them. If you don't know, that is perfectly okay...admit that, I will have more respect for you.

One more thing before I go...hobbies...really?  We never won a war because a President promoted a General that shared his love of collectable baseball cards.

Off to dream of warmer days and green grass...

The Second Amendment

“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”

Wisconsin has recently made some changes to their gun laws, specifically to the ability for residents to conceal and carry.

Since passage of the Conceal and Carry law, Wisconsin joins 48 other states that allow law abiding citizens to carry a concealed weapon. Even before this law was passed, it was legal to open carry in Wisconsin, the new law simply allows you to conceal the weapon. Only Illinois currently still prohibits conceal and carry.

While I'm not sure I completely understand why this was a top priority, I support the right. I honestly don't see a major problem with allowing law abiding citizens to carry a concealed weapon; but like every right, there are responsibilities that come with it.

We have the right to free speech, but you can’t yell “Fire” in a theater.

Rights can only exist when we all agree that there need to be rules to keep one person’s rights from infringing on others rights.  Society needs rules.  It’s what separates humans from animals.  We organize in society and create rules.

In the City of Marshfield, the Common Council voted unanimously (with two members absent) to prohibit conceal and carry in City owned facilities. A few weeks later, this was adjusted to prohibiting only in specific buildings as some logical arguments were made for exempting certain buildings. For example, the State law specifically prevents local units of governments from prohibiting conceal and carry in parks. However, the original city ordinance prohibited carrying in any city building. If you are at the park, and need to use the restroom; what do you do with your concealed weapon? That was corrected.

However, there are still concerns by many gun rights supporters regarding how the City defines "weapons" as well as concerns over the very constitutionality of this prohibition. While State statutes clearly define the way in which local governments can prohibit the law in defined areas, many will argue that the State is in conflict with what they feel is a very clear statement in the constitution, specifically the second amendment.

I would argue the second amendment is anything but clear.

First, before anyone goes off saying that I am anti-gun, let it be known that I am not. I was in the military, I qualified as an expert with my rifle and I could still tear that M16 apart and put it together in a dark room and have it come out clean enough for a white glove inspection. I've hunted and I've done recreational shooting as well. Guns don't kill people, people kill people....I agree with that.

But, back to the second amendment...

"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"

This is actually revision B of this amendment...the one passed by congress is a little different. This was what was ratified by the States.

"A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state..."

Some will argue that this was meant to apply only to the militia, meaning that the National Guard (minute men in colonial times) were given the right to keep weapons.

I disagree. I think it was broader then that because the militia today is more organized, it's really not even a militia in the sense that it was in colonial times. It’s government run and the whole premise, in my mind, of the 2^nd amendment was to provide checks and balances.  We give government the power to create laws and generally define how our society works.  If at some time our government was to abuse that power, the people needed to be able to take their government back.  The second amendment was most certainly, in my mind, meant to allow the average person to have guns.  I agree with that.

"... the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

This is the tough part.

What does it mean to bear arms?

Those firmly on the side of gun rights will say that the second amendment guarantees guns, essentially like an inalienable right. Life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness and guns. They'll further argue that all of the inalienable rights are subject to being lost unless we retain the right to keep and bear arms, meaning that without guns, Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are in jeopardy. There may be something to that.

However, there is a real question about how we adjust to changes in technology and culture and how we modify our constitution to show that.  This is where the gun rights groups and I part ways.

The constitution is an amazing document.  It was crafted by some brilliant people who knew that as times changed, we needed to be able to adjust our constitution to meet the needs of the time.

We originally didn’t prohibit slavery, but we did with the 13^th Amendment because the times had changed, we had grown as a country to a point where we no longer viewed the ownership of humans as acceptable.

We originally didn’t allow women to vote, but that changed with the 19^th amendment, because we again decided, as a country, to change what the constitution said to meet the demands of our society.

This brings us back to the second amendment.  This was written at a time when we were just starting as a country.  We had to fight for our independence and the fear of it being taken away from us again was very real.  We wanted and needed guns everywhere so that if there was ever a threat, we could respond by taking up our arms and charging to the battle field to protect the country.

Mission accomplished.  We have lots of guns now.  We are a super power, arguable THE super power

When written, we didn’t have semi-automatic weapons.  We didn’t have anything close to the technology we have today.  Times have changed.  While I support the right for the average, law-abiding citizen to keep arms, I have some issue with how we define bearing of those arms.

Here’s my whole point, and if you’re still reading, thank you.

I am supportive of you having anything you want in your house.  I am supportive of you having a howitzer to shoot on the weekend if you want.  No problem with that at all.

However, when you go out into “society” we have to consider the needs and views of others and balance those with the real threats to and in society.  We have to have reasonable rules about what is acceptable and what is not.  We have to agree to live within those rules.

This is why I am not completely opposed to conceal and carry.  I actually prefer it to open carry.  If you feel you need a gun, then by all means, pack that heat.

However, there are exceptions, just like yelling “Fire” in a theater, there are places that guns should not be allowed.

Schools, and not many people are arguing against that.

Courtrooms, except for the Judge, DA and Assistant DA (apparently the defense attorneys are on their own).

And finally, where prohibited by local government.

In Marshfield, we prohibited carrying at City Hall (and other city buildings). 

Why? 

We have some heated discussions at council meetings, it may be an upset home owner or it may be a discussion about a particularly polarizing decision the council has or is about to make.  Things get emotional at times. People stand in front of TV cameras and their neighbors and speak for or against issues that others in attendance may have the opposite view on.

People need to feel safe and while a gun owner may say that they only feel safe when they are wearing a gun, others will say they don't feel safe when they are arguing a counterpoint and the other person has a gun on their side.  Who wins in this argument?  Are people feelings really heard or are they censored out of intimidation?

Does the costitutional right to bear arms trump your right to free speech?  We see government using intimidation to prevent free speech in many areas, even in this country.  If the potential is there for intimidation, we should remove it.  That's my opinion.

I read the constitution from top to bottom.  The freedom of speech comes first and is followed by the right to bear arms.  I don't think that's an accident.

Come visit me at City Hall, I'd love to talk to you.  But please, leave your gun at home or in the car, because I won't be wearing one and you don't need to either.