Sheboygan County DA interview highlights

Let me explain this to him. The 2nd amendment is not about fun or hunting or even personal protection. The 2nd amendment is to dissuade the state from becoming tyrannical.
""As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms." (Tench Coxe in ‘Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution' under the Pseudonym ‘A Pennsylvanian' in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789 at 2 col. 1) ""The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American.... [T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people." (Tench Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.)"
The Constitution does not grant rights. It recognizes them. It restrains the legislature from restricting our God given, self evident, unalienable rights. It is also about the duty of the people to maintain the republic. Law enforcement is not supposed to be better armed than the citizenry. They are a part of the community. They are to work in partnership with the community. They should be able to call upon the citizens of the community for assistance should THEY need it It is to the benefit of all to train all citizens in the handling of firearms and in their duties as citizens. (Yes, BLM, I'm talking to you. You complain that the people in your communities are treated like thugs. Are YOU, as individuals, acting like thugs and criminals? When your neighbor commits a crime, do you report them? Do you stand as a witness? Do you do those things that are necessary to let your neighbors know that you are a law abiding citizen and you expect the same courtesy from them? Or do you just shake your heads and ignore it until the crime is against you or yours and then wonder why no one else will help you and why the police don't do "something" to make your neighborhood better? ) What scares me is that this man thinks the legislature may remove or restrict - beyond their natural limitations - any God given, self evident, unalienable right. And he is the DA. Now that's scary. It is scary because it indicates that he (along with most of those currently in government) wish to think of citizens as the children of the government, to be protected from the realities of life. When the reality of the American form of government is that We The People are to be self reliant, personally responsible adults who are also to be in charge of the government. That we are to limit the government to the absolute minimum of control over our lives that is compatible with a stable society and which provides for the greatest amount of personal liberty within that stable society boundary. And, truthfully, we have done a poor job in that regard. Today's citizenry turns to government to solve their problems with distressing ease. And that is how governments become tyrannical. It is one thing to request enforcement of the law by the government - that is one of the responsibilities of government after all. It is quite another to expect the government to see to your daily needs, to provide you with housing or food or education. (Although, I do approve of government provided education so long as the curricula and all other aspects of it are controlled on the local level. Parents, community and employers are the best judges of what a child needs to learn.) As Christ said : "If any man desire to be first, the same shall be last of all, and servant of all".When done in the correct spirit, this is a good thing. When done as a way to steal power and expertise and volition from those who are served, it is evil. And that is what government does when it limits our liberty (liberty- not license) while purporting to keep us safe. It makes of us children who cannot be trusted with responsibility for their own provision or defense. And by allowing it, we cede our liberty and lose our safety.

The world is not a safe place. We have enemies at the borders and in the halls of government. Now is not the time for the citizenry to remain complacent in the notion that the government will "take care of us". In point of fact it has NEVER been the job of government to take care of us. It is, was and always has been the job of the individual to take care of themselves and whomever they should claim as their own. It is time now to grow up, re-learn the skills of self sufficiency and .like adults, take measures to protect our own. And it is time for government to remember that they are an unruly child and not the parent.




"33 And he came to Capernaum: and being in the house he asked them, What was it that ye disputed among yourselves by the way?

34 But they held their peace: for by the way they had disputed among themselves, who should be the greatest.

35 And he sat down, and called the twelve, and saith unto them, If any man desire to be first, the same shall be last of all, and servant of all." Mark 9:33-35

Exercise: It Does a Republic Good.

A little bit ago, my family and I successfully completed the NRA's basic pistol shooting course. We did this because, well, because I insisted that, now that we have a concealed carry law in WI, it was our duty, even though all of us have had a modicum of training in the past, to become more knowledgeable about firearms. Those who choose not to carry should take such a class as well because it is a duty consistent with the right to bear arms to know how to use a firearm should you be put in a bad situation. Even though all the classes I had seen on-line in our area were full, a friend told us about some openings in his class, so off we went.


I'm so proud of my boy.

In addition to being a lot of fun, the class struck me as a picture of our larger rights and responsibilities as American citizens. We have self evident God given rights, yes, but they come with an equally self evident duty attached to them. That duty is to exercise those rights appropriately and responsibly. This is something that people tend to understand immediately when speaking about firearms, but not so much when it comes to our other self-evident rights. One of the most important duties that is required to maintain our rights is to exercise them appropriately at every opportunity.

We often don't think of exercising our freedom of speech, or our freedom of religion or our freedom from unreasonable search and seizure and all the rest as duties. We are usually all too happy to give them up at the drop of a hat when challenged. Just as it is an uneasy feeling to carry a firearm around with you, it is just as uneasy to exercise any of our other rights in the face of opposition or authority. Just look at how many people have tamely submitted to the TSA's unconstitutional searches. This is to say nothing of exercising our other self evident, but unnamed Constitutional rights, like the right of parents to direct the upbringing and education of their children.


He's a good shot, too.

Think about that. We have a whole slew of other unnamed, yet self evident rights, to which we often do not lay claim, due to the fact that they are not named. Not only that, but we often give up our named rights out of ...what? Is it a wish to be nice? Is it a wish to be perceived as cooperative? Is it sheer ignorance of how those rights are to be appropriately exercised? Or is it cowardice?
I tend to think it is a combination of all those reasons and more. Whatever it is, we need to stop it. We are at, and possibly past, a tipping point, beyond which America no longer exists as the land of the free. We need to be exercising our rights. All of them. Every time it is appropriate to do so. What's more, we need to help each other stand up for those rights as well.


As you can see, those who exercise their rights, understand their responsibilities.

At first it will be scary, but, as you become more familiar with the process and the likely results, you will come to understand what the phrase "We The People" really means in the Constitution. Far from being a hindrance to the exercise of freedom, acceptance of that responsibility is what gives us the power to remain free. I know we've come a long way from the days of our founders, but I think we can still handle the risks and responsibilities that go along with the power to direct our own lives, don't you? Try it, you never know, it may be fun.


Even though he grumbled about it at first, if you enlarge the photo, you'll see that "Dad" enjoyed the class too.

"And he said unto them, When I sent you without purse, and scrip, and shoes, lacked ye any thing? And they said, Nothing.

Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

For I say unto you, that this that is written must yet be accomplished in me, And he was reckoned among the transgressors: for the things concerning me have an end.

And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. And he said unto them, It is enough" ~ Luke 22:35-38

Is Access To Water a Right?

Some folks want to have the access to clean water legally defined as a right. Is it a right?

If so, then shouldn't access to food be a right also? Is access to food a part of the right to life? My understanding has always been that those who want food need to work for it. Earn money to pay for it or plant and care for it or gather it yourself. Many people die of starvation everyday, yet no one is saying that access to food is a right. (Many people seem to think that health care should be a "right" too. So ... you should have the right to see a doctor for free, who will tell you that you are starving, but you would have no "right" to have access to food? But I digress.)

Is this wish to legislate access to clean water as a right merely a response to the fact that people die faster without water than they do without food? Or is water so essential and access to it so limited that access to it must be legislated to keep society working? Or is this just the latest in a long line of fear-mongering, control-of-the-populace scare tactics?

"And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered. "~ Genesis 7:19