Barrett's running for gov!

[LTR]

Mayor Tom Barrett will announce this weekend that he is running for governor, the Journal Sentinel has learned.

"You would not be inaccurate to write that," said a top adviser to the two-term mayor on Friday.

A second Milwaukee Democrat who has firsthand knowledge of Barrett's plans also confirmed that the mayor has decided to enter the race to try to replace Gov. Jim Doyle, who announced in August that he would not seek a third term.

Barrett is expected to reveal his plans publicly at noon Sunday, ending three months of pondering and speculation.

http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/70048152.html

This is very good news. Barrett will be a very strong candidate.

[undeterred]

1. I'm glad he's stepping up to it.

:applause:

[Archae]

2. Walker is toast.

First, Walker wants Sarah Palin's endorsement.

Now Tom Barrett is running.
I love it.

[ewagner]

3. Going to the basement

To dust off my old Barrett for Gov sign!

[Dinger]

4. He's Got My Vote!

:patriot:

[mb7588a]

5. Donate now!

He's assembling a great team. This is going to be a really really good campaign.

http://www.barrett4wisconsin.com/index.html

[Broca]

6. A poll on who you would vote for

at http://www.fox6now.com/witi-091113-vote-for-gov-poll,0,5649932,post.poll

Barrett was ahead when I voted.

[dragonlady]

7. Still ahead, but just barely n/t

[eqfan592]

9. Barrett has a pretty solid lead now.

But what surprises me is Mark Neumann's performance in the poll. He's well ahead of Scott Walker. I personally loath Walker, but I don't know enough about Neumann to say if he'd be better or worse.

[midnight]

16. Thanks I just voted,Sat. Nov. 21., and Barrett is still ahead with 46.7% Neumann trailing at

39.2% and Walker at 14%.

[eqfan592]

8. I'll say the same thing here I've said elsewhere.

If he would finally pull his head out of his arse and get behind concealed carry in this state, he'd win in a heart beat, and he'd do it supporting our civil rights more than any other Dem in this state has besides Russ Feingold (mind you, I'm unsure of Feingold's support of CCW as this is not an issue I believe he's ever had to deal with, but he's good when it comes to our other liberties, and he even spoke a little against renewal of the defunct and useless assault weapons ban).

[undeterred]

10. Let me say what I've said elsewhere...

If I were the mayor of a very large city and I was recently assaulted while rescuing someone from harm, I don't think I'd be pushing legislation that would make it easier for the public to be armed.

[eqfan592]

11. And that makes sense why?

The criminals that want to carry a firearm ARE ALREADY DOING SO. Not allowing law abiding citizens to carry concealed is doing nothing to stop this from happening, and in fact is morally reprehensible when you consider that the supreme court has ruled on several occasions that the police have NO responsibility for your personal safety.

So basically, not allowing concealed carry (and harassing those who open carry) is like saying "Not only do we not have to protect you personally, but we're also going to make it as difficult as possible for you to protect yourself."

If you've really said that elsewhere, then you're doing a disservice to yourself and to those foolish enough to think what you've said makes even a single bit of sense.

[undeterred]

12. I disagree with you.

There is no bright dividing line between criminals and law abiding citizens. And calling me foolish or saying that a politician who doesn't agree with you has his "head up his arse" is not persuasive or productive.

[eqfan592]

13. No, there isn't a bright, shining line.

But that doesn't give the state the right to treat the entire population as criminals either, which is exactly what it's doing.

And take a look at the criminal statistics of CCW holders around the country to people in the general population. CCW holders are significantly LESS likely to commit a crime. This is because in order to even get a CCW in most shall-issue states, you still have to go through some sort of training and a background check.

But ultimately you have to ask your self what does NOT allowing CCW do to prevent people who may cross the line from law abiding to criminal from carrying a concealed weapon? Absolutely nothing. Laws are not magical incarnations that actively stop things from happening. Because of this, we have a situation that is specifically designed to do the most harm to the people who are the least likely to be criminals. That is an unacceptable situation in my book, and it should be unacceptable to anybody who actually gives a damn about crime.

I say this because progressives, in general, have a better idea on how to solve the crime issue than conservatives, but because of the idiotic stance some progressives take on firearms we lose credibility in the eyes of much of the population, which costs us elections and thus hampers our ability to really get to the roots of the crime problems. These roots are not in firearms, they are in education, poverty, and other socioeconomic factors.

So I stand by my assertion that Barrett has his head up his arse on this issue, and it's going to cost him, and Wisconsin, in the long run.

[eqfan592]

14. To quote another DU'er here who really summed this up nicely.

"Warren v. District of Columbia: "fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen."

DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services: "Constitutional duties of care and protection only exist as to certain individuals, such as incarcerated prisoners, involuntarily committed mental patients and others restrained against their will and therefore unable to protect themselves. The affirmative duty to protect arises not from the State's knowledge of the individual's predicament or from its expressions of intent to help him, but from the limitation which it has imposed on his freedom to act on his own behalf."

Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Department: In this particular case, Ms. Balistreri was beaten and harassed by her estranged husband whom she had a restraining order against. The police failed to protect her but were found to be under no accountability for her protection as she was not in direct police custody.

In not so many words, the public sector is NOT responsible for idividual safety/defense. This is not even in question as evidence fully supports. Given that REAL WORLD fact, when a private (or public) party prohibits one from carrying a firearm for defense/protection and simultaneously is under NO responsibility to respond to crime or provide protection... then people are left defenseless by mandate of the controlling party. Whomever strips citizens of the right to protect themselves should in turn be accountable for that protection (or lack thereof).

OneTenthOfOnePercent esq."

[midnight]

15. Good call....

[eqfan592]

17. Wow

I'm constantly amazed at how so called "progressives" can be presented with the facts of an issue and still completely ignore them. The facts are in, Barrett is wrong on this issue, the majority of Wisconsinites are aware of this, and it's going to cost Barrett votes.

[Broca]

18. The Concealed Carry issue

has several problems. One, there are lots of issues with their claims: http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2009/07/20-1
Two, almost 33,000 people are killed by gunshot IN America each year and the CC promotion keeps a big element of those killings circulating.
Perhaps it would be more ethically responible for politicians to change the constitution to make it clear that handguns can be forbidden.

[eqfan592]

19. Take a look at those numbers.

CCW holders killed 85 people over a 2.5 year period. Compare these numbers to the general population and you'll find that you are actually much more likely to be struck by lightening than killed by a CCW permit holder. To expect a 100% performance rating is unrealistic at best. If we held that same standard for drivers, nobody would be driving - period. Also, the VPC used multiple cases that hadn't even gone to trial yet in order to boost their numbers and counted these as "wrongful deaths," which is disingenuous at best.

For your second claim, and given what was just stated, how exactly does the CC promotion keep a "big element" of those killings circulating? In fact, it doesn't. The reality is that CCW and gun ownership in general does not appear to have any significant impact on the violent crime rate at all. Gun ownership has continued to increase every year while the violent crime rate has gone down over the last 20 years. The only evidence of any impact of CCW is a slight reduction in crimes such as rape (see FBI crime statistics). There are many factors behind the violence problem (education, poverty, etc.), the private ownership of firearms is not among them.

As to your third claim, how can you possibly argue that the banning of pistols would be the most "ethical" thing for them to do? Given the supreme court cases I have sighted that clearly point out that the police and government in general has NO responsibility for your personal safety, the only ethical thing the government can do is to allow law abiding citizens to defend themselves in the best and most reasonable means available. This means concealed and open carry of pistols. The criminals are already concealed carrying. Not allowing it only does harm to those of us who would not abuse it and leaves us vulnerable to those who have no care for the law. It's immoral and unethical, and it's time that progressives got their act together on this issue.

EDIT: Take a look at this thread for more good discussion on this issue. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x269339