New Council, Same Issue

The conversation goes something like this:

“We’ve got to do something!

What are we going to do!

I don’t know, but we’ve got to do something!

I know what we’ll do! Let’s ban the scary looking guns!

What about the 2nd Amendment?

Who cares, let’s do it! To hell with the Constitution!”

The current assault on the Constitution reminds me of  the mob with lit torches marching through the countryside and woods, down to the lake,  to hunt down Frankenstein. Emotion takes over, common sense is thrown out the window.

Isn’t there anyone, the mayor, the city manager, the city council, to slow down the run-away train and bring it to a stop? Who should do it? There is someone! His name rhymes with DiSanto, as in City Attorney Mike DiSanto. Attorneys love litigation, and DiSanto needs litigation like a fish needs water. Why would he recommend to drop litigation, it’s not his money that’s going to be wasted in a lost cause. It’s the tax payers money. DiSanto has no skin in the game. Moves like this insure job security for DiSanto. He’s the guy with the biggest torch leading the mob to certain defeat in the Supreme Court.

The Second Amendment reads as follows:

“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.”

It can’t be more clear than that.

Show 4 Comments


  1. Reid J

    I thought McBroom, Wilson, Wehrli and all the other Safe suburbs puppets were going to keep us safe…

  2. Jim Haselhorst

    Sorry, but you’ve got it wrong this time. The City Attorney is obligated (its their job) to do whatever the City Council instructs them to do. And defending the Ban, as the City Council clearly indicated they expected him to do, is what he is doing.

    Yes, the Ban is a bad solution to a serious problem. Bans simply never work. They failed with alcohol, they failed with abortion, they failed with marijuana, … the list goes on and on. History tells us the only things bans do accomplish is provided criminals with a new revenue stream.

    Yes, it is possible DiSanto could have answered the questions put to him by Council members in a way the would have made them less likely to approve this ordinance, but he stuck to short factual statements that directly answered the questions put to him. And that is what all good attorneys do.

    But it is unlikely anything DiSanto said would have made a difference, since nothing any speakers said made a difference. It was clear members had made their decisions long before the hearing even started.

    • Jim Haselhorst

      This article only discusses the question of how climate change effects category 4-5 Tropical Storms and not weather patterns in general.

      First note the article does not question that climate change exists, it only questions a UN panels conclusion that the change in category 4-5 Tropical Storms has a proven link to human influence on climate change. The report does not claim such a link absolute does not exist only that the information this group’s conclusion is based was in error.

      The fact is the scientific community does not question the existence of climate change, it is a real and well document growing problem. The only thing that has not been clearly determined is how much of this climate change can be linked to human actions.

      Again there is no question that human actions produce the very atmospheric elements that are driving climate change. The only question is how much of a role these actions play in the global climate change issue. But there is no question that these actions do contribute to the climate change problem.

      Will changes to human behavior prevent climate change? No on knows for sure. There is some data to support this claim. But the fact remains that changes in human behavior will reduce the production of the very products that are causing climate change. Will these changes have an impact? Yes, clearly but how much is not really know for certain. But that is the nature of science, few things are know with certainty.

      Does the fact that we do not know how much of a change will happen mean we shouldn’t try? No, it does not. Not knowing how much regulating alcohol will reduce teen alcoholism does not mean we should not try. Not knowing how much regulating tobacco will reduce cancer cases does not mean we should not try. Not knowing how much regulating contact sports will reduce concussions and brain damage in teens does not mean we should not try. The list goes on.

      If we know that changing our behavior can help address a problem that directly impacts the lives of millions, do we really need to know how much of an impact it will have before it becomes the right thing to do?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *