M1150006

Because of Senator Ron Johnson’s abhorrent “NO” vote to a simple background check bill for those purchasing guns at a gun show or from private residents, Johnson once again proved to be one of the most radical and predictable senators in the history of Wisconsin.

The law as it stands now, requires all Americans to pass a background check through the National Instant Background Check (NICS) to prevent felons and those with severe mental illness to own a firearm.  However, currently there are loopholes for gun shows and private sales.  The last known data shows that 40 percent of the guns purchased in this country are done in these ways.

According to a Marquette poll in March, 81 percent of Wisconsinites supported “background checks for people who buy guns at gun shows or from private residents in Wisconsin.”  Also,  54 percent of Wisconsinites favor banning assault-style weapons.

Knowing this, Senator Ron Johnson heartlessly decided to ignore this data, to ignore his constituents, and worse, to ignore Wisconsin families that lost loved ones due to gun violence, like Wisconsin’s own Amardeep Kaleka, whose father, Satwant, was murdered in the mass shooting in Oak Creek on August 5, 2012, in the Sikh temple he helped found.

Amardeep and Pardeep Kaleka’s videos demanding for a plan.

 

 

 

 

Disgusted by Senator Ron Johnson’s vote, I was determined to join a protest scheduled at his Milwaukee office on Saturday.

At the event, I had a chance to talk to one of the organizers, Paul Geenen from Organizing for Action.

While discussing Obama’s press conference right after the measure was struck down, Geenan stated, “Yes, he was very upset.  We’re all upset.  That’s why we are here today, because we want to tell Senator Ron Johnson ‘shame on you’ for voting against the universal background checks that over 90 percent of Americans support”.

Geenen stated that he believes Ron Johnson voted this way because of the “incredible power of the NRA”.

“We’re here to prove that we’re not going away and that we too have power.” Geenen stated.  “We may not have the same financial reserves as the NRA, but we can make up with it in other ways.”

Now that this bill was defeated, Geenen explains that the next step is looking towards the 2014 upcoming elections for the State and the Senate.

But what can we do now?  Well, it sounds cliché, but it truly is contacting your representatives about the issue of gun violence.  If you have the time to complain and argue on Facebook, than you have the time to call your representative or email them or at the very least, post a comment on their Facebook page.

Because as Paul Geenen stated,  “We’ve got moment.  We’ve got motivation.  This issue is not dead.  We’re going to keep pounding away at it.”

That we will.

Below is Senator Ron Johnson’s contact information.

Washington, D.C. Office

386 Russell Senate Office Building

Washington, DC 20510

(202) 224-5323

 

Milwaukee Office

517 East Wisconsin Avenue

Suite 408

Milwaukee, WI 53202

(414) 276-7282

Fax: (414) 276-7284

https://www.facebook.com/senronjohnson

Listen to my full interview with Organizing for Action’s Paul Geenen.

Photos of the event.

 

 

M1150004M1150001M1150007

M1150008M1150009M1150010

M1150011M1150012M1150014

M1150013M1150015

 

Video of President Obama’s press conference, which includes an introduction by the father of a Sandy Hook victim.

 

Read the bill for yourself here: Universal Background Check Bill

25 Responses to “Shame on You Senator Ron Johnson” – Milwaukee Protest

  1. Duane12 says:

    I take exception to the statement that Johnson’s “NO” vote was due to the “incredible power of the NRA.”

    It is because Ron Johnson’s character is flawed; his judgement is conflicted, he is out of touch with the vast majority, insensitive to the victims, and he is a political coward.

    Johnson will be held responsible as an enabler of those who in the future will commit infanticide and slaughter of the innocent such as at Sandy Hook.

  2. JAY says:

    Infanticide? I am certain that Johnson does not support abortion.

    • Duane12 says:

      An infant (baby or child) is the proper term after delivery. Fetus is the accepted medical term and in use by the general public prior to delivery. Ergo, Johnson opposes abortion of a fetus, but approves of infanticide such as those at Sandy Hook by his “NO” vote on requiring background checks for felons, rapists, terrorists at gun shows.

  3. Lisa Mux says:

    Nice report, Adam. Thanks for covering this!

  4. nonquixote says:

    So if you were a citizen living in the Boston manhunt zone last week, you would have let the para-military brown shirts illegally search and occupy your home without a warrant and illegally lock down your business and restrict your travel? They were, “requesting,” citizens to comply with the order?

    Barrock is going to kill you with unaffordable health insurance (NOT HEALTHCARE) poison our public waters (Gulf Of Mex, Arkansas spill, Keystone XL, fracking induced Midwest earthquakes, budget cuts to Great Lakes remediation programs) force your mothers and fathers into eating kibble in their old age by dismantling SSMM and just forget about the homeless and the 90 million unemployed no longer counted as they diasppear off the jobless figures because they’ve given up looking for work, but he is going to get tough on making sure you have your guns registered.

    Ron Johnson is the wrong target people. Geenen is a thoughtless tool. OFA is finally starting to back Democratic candidates, moderate candidates to primary some of the most progressive Democrats in the US Congress. Wake up chumps.

    • Adam Schabow says:

      To nonquixote:

      I’m not trying to be mean, but you sound like a crazy person. I’m sure you’re not, honestly, you are probably a really nice guy, but right now, you’re sounding like a crazy person.

      There was a terrorist on the loose, whether it was Bush or Obama, I would have had no problem staying in my house and complying with the FBI and government officials to help them apprehend this very dangerous fanatic terrorist that just attacked the homeland. Also, it’s not like, if you had to leave, you couldn’t leave. You’re exagerating the “para-military brown shirts”.

      Also, I work in healthcare. I absolutely know that as long as our Governor doesn’t sabatoge it, which is what it’s looking like he is trying to do, than the Affordable Care Act, will save millions of lives and save the US trillions of dollars in the long run. That’s from the CBO.

      You know full well, nonquixote, that this bill is not about registering guns, it’s about expanding a simple background check…but because of the power of the NRA, because Johnson selfishly puts his own political agenda above the will of his constituents, because of Johnson’s moral cowardice (or simply put, he’s a scaredy cat), our Senator decided to cast this despicable vote that I believe, deep down, he’s ashamed of.

      I’m on his email list. I’m not seeing him bragging about this vote.

      • nonquixote says:

        You have the right to minimize the effect of the militarization of US police forces. Billions of dollars and “surplus,” military hardware distributed nation-wide. You may have noticed that the “police,” accused (witnessed and filmed)of brutality against OWS demonstrators have not been prosecuted, though many face civil trials yet.

        http://malcontends.blogspot.com/2013/04/prosecutorial-discretion-and.html

        http://lewrockwell.com/slavo/slavo149.html

        http://antiwar.com/blog/2013/04/22/martial-law-in-boston/

        You may get Feingold’s PU newsletter (requests for donations) and have seen the one that arrived about noon today about the DCCC funding of Republicans in Democratic clothing and that was the latest point he was bringing up that urgently needs to be addressed.

        You certainly have the blinders on to miss the point that Barry being “strident,” about one or two issues is just a distraction from the rest of the BS (Barry-Sh*t) he’s pulling, from SSMM to banking to the TPP to Keystone.

        Call me whatever you like to try to discredit the points I make, but I am not in denial about the reality of our POS POTUS or his contribution to diminution of our civil rights, our health care sell out, our “glorious,” US exceptionalism in spreading democracy to by targeted killing and drone terror. This is larger than the gun control distraction, which your comment seems to imply that I am concerned about, somehow, I’m not in the least.

        Ron Johnson as Cat Kin artfully points out below is not the problem.

    • PJ says:

      Nonquixote,

      Last week the Transportation Security Administration discovered a number of prohibited items at a variety of airports around the country: 35 firearms, 26 of them loaded and 10 with rounds chambered; along with 16 stun guns, a road flare, a throwing knife hidden inside the sole of a shoe, a knife concealed inside a toothbrush holder, and one belt buckle knife. In addition to miscellaneous firearm components, they also found bb, pellet, and airsoft guns, brass knuckles, ammunition, batons, and as TSA described it, “a lot of sharp pointy things..”

      Why are we discussing the right to bear “arms” in terms of only guns? There were plenty of “arms” other than “guns” floating around in the 18th Century.

      This is an example of an invalid argument similar to the ones you’ve been making. While the content may be true (and it all is, by the way – but incomplete – TSA actually found more than what I listed), it is still non-sequitur argumentation. While the query for expanding the discussion on the 2nd Amendment may have value, the comment still exemplifies incoherent reasoning. Your comment and my comment are not logically connected. Both speak to some portion of a broader issue or issues but neither are cogently related and neither directly address the topic of the post. If I had posted this comment in earnest, there would be no logical way for you to respond.

  5. Duane12 says:

    In a debate or discussion, it is relatively easy to tell when someone has no valid argument.

    1. They attempt to change the topic to; e,g., gun rights, search and seizure, Obama, the budget, ACA, the economy,and on and on ad nauseum.

    2, 25% or less of the reply is on the legitimate topic such as in this case, Ron Johnson.

    To prove my point, I spent 75% or more time in answering the distraction of a previous poster. I should have ignored his unrelated addition to the topic on Wisconsin’s political and moral coward, Ron Johnson.

    • nonquixote says:

      I’m really sorry if expanding the discussion to related topics, larger inferences and/or an alternative opinion (to yours) is a bit too much for your precious time. To prove my point, you could have spent 100% less of your time and not commented at all. LOL

      • Duane12 says:

        Apology accepted. Then you concede you have no valid argument.

        Okay, let the related topics, et cetera(on Ron Johnson) begin! He is so easy. LOL

        • nonquixote says:

          Duration of the time spent is obviously related to your apparent inability to comprehend related topics or opinions not totally in agreement with your own. I have conceded nothing about any arguments I presented.

          The point (@3:07 pm) I was making is that you and others can seem to easily find time to attempt to disparage, (be abusive to), other commentators, and then waste more of your own time AGAIN by whining about your own first instance of deciding to spend/waste your own time spent being abusive and using that as justification to attempt to discredit/ignore wider related commentary. That is why I was LOL. Your analytical antics were the joke.

          That you apparently cannot come to terms with a wider view of a topic really becomes a sad commentary (not simply about you) about certain peoples’ willingness to expand their myopic visions of reality. That is why, if a wider commentary is too much trouble for you, you need not make any comment about it, if all you have to offer is personal abuse.

          As this form of “debate,” about ideas is frequently used at this site, I do not feel that I am wasting any time in attempting to spell it out.

          • PJ says:

            Nonquixote,

            You didn’t expand on the issues at hand. You went off topic. Duane is correct. You didn’t offer a valid argument that pertained to the post. That’s not to say the issues you raised wouldn’t be germane in another context, only that they are not meaningful in this one. That’s not even to say they wouldn’t be meaningful in this one, but you haven’t constructed your comments to function with logical coherence. That’s not even suggesting that you couldn’t, rather that you didn’t.

            • nonquixote says:

              I was partially responding to a PBS video in the original post about our, “strident,” hypocrite in chief. Duane never explained why my comment(s) were invalid, he simply implied that they were invalid because that is the “pattern,” of a certain type of, “people,” who have no valid point to make. Since when is that discussion or debate? Ignore the comment and attack the commenter is the point I have been making PJ in the last couple comments. Abuse toward another commenter is abuse, plain and simple. Deny or divert from that fact all you want. It does not change the fact that it happened three times in this thread. Where are the rules that say that a commenter cannot bring in a larger scope to a discussion?

              Guess what, I am not against stricter requirements and enforcement of expanding background checks.

              • PJ says:

                Nonquixote,

                No one more than I would like to see expanded discourse in this country. Believe me. At the same time, the contours of meaningful discourse are bound by rhetorical, dialectical, and logical structures. Absence of critical disputation is, for example, one distinctive feature of current Conservative discourse. Correct me if I’m wrong, but you seem to be conflating “validity” with “truth.” These aren’t necessarily interchangeable within argumentative form, though they are closely related. One can construct a valid argument with a conclusion that isn’t true. Likewise, an untrue premise can invalidate an argument. But those two apparently reflexive distinctions don’t make “valid” and “true” synonymous concepts with respect to debate.

                Duane wasn’t at all incorrect by suggesting that patterned discourse of a certain type by a certain type of “people” regularly occurs. Propagandist method stands in diametrical opposition to critical method. Propagandism doesn’t rely on validity. Similarly, belief requires no empirical justification nor anything demonstrable. Neither propaganda nor belief require coherence. Duane did accurately identify belief-structured and propagandist discourse. Not all people operate within the parameters of reason. Not all people value reason. Within the context of discourse, there are no ways to calibrate reasoned disputation with discussion that doesn’t rely upon coherence.

                As to attacking the commenter and ignoring the comment/abuse in the thread – I don’t see it. I didn’t see that in Duane’s reply. He didn’t ignore your comment. He critiqued it by identifying its diversionary nature. That was a valid critique. You did go off topic without any connecting argumentation. By not drawing those threads of relevance, the substance of your comment was not germane. Now, I may have missed the point you were trying to make with the PBS video. I’ll grant you that. Public safety is complex with a great many component parts. But, in the main, your content diverges from even the broader topic enveloping Adam’s post. Next, Adam profusely qualified his comment suggesting that you sound like a crazy person. I think any reasoning person would interpret that he was trying to give you a clue, not abuse.

                Where are the rules that say a commenter cannot bring in a larger scope to a discussion? There aren’t any rules that say a commenter can’t bring in a larger scope to a discussion. The larger scope is what we all seek. But if you intend to suggest larger scope means anything you want it to mean, at any time, on any post, in any thread, then you’d be off the mark and you’ll continue to find disappointment. “Larger scope “outside of reasoned dialectic isn’t debate and it isn’t meaningful discussion anymore.

  6. independent guy says:

    Ron Johnson did not create the problems of a sick society, nor, does he support them. The NRA did not create the problems of a sick society, nor, do they support them.

    The displaced agression from the left will continue to be defended against.

    • Adam Schabow says:

      To Independent Guy: I’m interested, are you against this bill? If so, why? Also, since you believe we have a “sick society”, how would you suggest we fix that problem?

      • independent guy says:

        Do you and PJ share the same key board?

        I was interested in a conversation for the last few months, but I have discoverd that certain folks from the left gave lip service to conversation, however, were only interested in ban, ban, ban, rather than actually address and solve a problem.
        So rather than potentially having a conversation, attempting to understand and be understood, I will simply say 2nd ammendment,..nah nah nah boo boo. This is what you deserve.

        • Adam Schabow says:

          As a person that has a username of “Independent Guy”, you should understand to not lump me or anyone else into a group.

          I find it interesting that you come to page, read the article and then post about how the article is misplaced, but then you refuse to add your own insight to the conversation.

          I am my own person. I am a gun owner. I was firearm certified and enjoy shooting guns. I think it’s easy for some to lump liberals together because it makes for an easy narrative.

          So I’m going to ask you again and I hope you decide to respond. What do you feel is the correct way to respond to gun violence in this country? I truly want to know…and I truly say that with all sincerity. I am truly trying to understand.

          • PJ says:

            Adam,

            You’ll note that “Independent” Guy projects onto you the displaced aggression “Independent” Guy actually exhibits. You’ve been punished for responding reasonably. “nah nah boo boo is what you deserve,” it’s “what you get” for engaging in reason. It’s the circular win-win. You don’t advance your ideas and “Independent” Guy doesn’t have to defend any with reason or logic. If a debate does ensue, it will consist of diversionary spin where “Independent” guy won’t be required to negative an oppositional argument on the topic at hand. While the “sick society” meme may indeed have merit, “Independent” Guy won’t be able to put forth anything with cogency nor adequately defend the position against rational critique; so 9 will get you 10 the “conversation” stops right where it is. That is my belief, but I’ll wait and see.

          • independent guy says:

            Adam, Sorry to lump you into a group. It is just that the “shame on RJ” article seemed to have already lumped you in.
            I didn’t say the article was displaced. I said the agression within the article was displaced. That is, blaming RJ for things that have happened or will happen in the future is over the top.
            Your issue is “gun” violence. Excuse me but that focus is too narrow in my opinion. The real issue is human on human violence. And there are potential steps to positively impact it.
            Regarding your desire to truly understand,… I would suggest that most everything has been said since Newtown. And while I can explain it for you I cannot comprehend it for you.

  7. Cat Kin says:

    Adam, Johnson is a fence post. You could staple your protest signs to his ass and it would not matter one wit. It is the Jakes like Independent guy and nonquixote that you need to get to somehow. Don’t know how, though, unless you could send their jobs to China and put them out on the street for a few months.

  8. Mike schmidt says:

    Mr Johnson already has employees on medicade and food stamps. Johnson is a welfare queen. He’s a taker in utmost form. Have a good time debating a truly useless individual as Ron Johnson.

Leave a Reply

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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.