June 10, 2015 9:30 am -


The Wisconsin assembly voted to repeal the state’s 48-hour waiting period for purchasing handguns, to allow people to acquire a handgun immediately after authorizing the purchase. The legislature also passed a bill that would allow off-duty and retired law enforcement officers to carry concealed weapons on school campuses. Both bills are now set to go to…


D.B. Hirsch
D.B. Hirsch is a political activist, news junkie, and retired ad copy writer and spin doctor. He lives in Brooklyn, New York.

57 responses to Wisconsin Moves To End Waiting Period For Handgun Buyers

  1. whatthe46 June 10th, 2015 at 9:39 am

    this is bad. very very bad.

    • granpa.usthai June 11th, 2015 at 1:13 am

      not if it’s used to promote your Constitutional Right to go NUCLEAR ARMED without having un Americans trying to INFRINGE on the 2nd Amendment.

  2. Carla Akins June 10th, 2015 at 10:02 am

    But harder to get food….sure, sounds smart.

    • Anomaly 100 June 10th, 2015 at 11:49 am

      And Conservatives want a waiting period to have a ‘bortion, but not to buy a gun. WTF

      • tracey marie June 10th, 2015 at 2:18 pm


      • Larry Schmitt June 10th, 2015 at 2:25 pm

        Because abortions kill fetuses, which they care about, and guns kill actual living human beings, which they don’t.

        • Anomaly 100 June 10th, 2015 at 2:45 pm

          That makes total sense.

  3. Warman1138 June 10th, 2015 at 11:16 am

    What’s next, vending machines?

  4. oldfart June 10th, 2015 at 12:22 pm

    Why make people wait to have a tragic gun accident, when others are having them now ?

    • illinoisboy1977 June 10th, 2015 at 1:06 pm

      You assume that every gun owner is guaranteed to have a “tragic gun accident”. Such occurrences are infinitesimally small, for the number of legally owned firearms. Responsible gun owners don’t have “tragic gun accidents”. Sloppy ones, do.

      • tracey marie June 10th, 2015 at 2:17 pm

        You are wrong, more “accidental” shootings happen then intentional…ask cheney and his friend who was shot in the face.

        • illinoisboy1977 June 10th, 2015 at 2:22 pm

          That’s anecdotal, not statistical. Statistics show that accidental shootings are a mere fraction of all shootings, year after year.

          • tracey marie June 10th, 2015 at 2:34 pm

            You are wrong.

          • illinoisboy1977 June 10th, 2015 at 3:01 pm

            In 2011, there were 32,351 gun deaths. Of those, 591 were accidental. Those numbers are from the CDC. Tragic, yes. But much smaller than tragic auto accident deaths (32,719) or tragic accidental drowning deaths (3,533). (copied from my reply to oldfart. I’m getting tired of typing) 🙂

          • Bunya June 10th, 2015 at 3:16 pm

            Those statistics are staggering! Why, I suggest you sell your car and give up water and buy more guns. Because you’re more likely to die in a vehicle that’s designed to get you from one place to another, and you’re more likely to die from drowning in a substance that’s designed to sustain life, than from a device that’s made specifically to kill.

          • illinoisboy1977 June 10th, 2015 at 3:29 pm

            My point is, accidental shootings are FAR less prevalant than accidents of other kinds. Add to that, the fact that there are over 300 Million legally-owned firearms in this nation and the statistics support the claim that the majority of legal gun owners are safe and have VERY low rates of accidental shootings.

          • tracey marie June 10th, 2015 at 3:21 pm

            this is 2015

          • illinoisboy1977 June 10th, 2015 at 3:25 pm

            The numbers aren’t available for 2015, yet. But I’m sure they’ll be similar. Accidental shootings just don’t happen in the ratios that many would like us to believe.

          • tracey marie June 10th, 2015 at 3:55 pm

            sure is not factual, I just cked and the numbers for 2013 were quite diffrent. some states even have twice the number of accidental shootings/deaths, accisdental shootings/death are rising especial among children.

          • bpollen June 10th, 2015 at 3:50 pm

            You are cutting and pasting your OWN posts?

          • illinoisboy1977 June 10th, 2015 at 3:53 pm

            Yep. Call me lazy! 😉

          • granpa.usthai June 11th, 2015 at 1:10 am

            how’s about researching to see how many people were ‘accidentally’ killed by Nuclear Arms in 2011?

      • oldfart June 10th, 2015 at 2:43 pm

        no, You assume I assume. these “accidents” happen on a daily basis, all over this country. That’s not what I call infinitesimally small.

        • illinoisboy1977 June 10th, 2015 at 2:58 pm

          Statistically, it IS very small. Example: In 2011, there were 32,351 gun deaths. Of those, 591 were accidental. Those numbers are from the CDC. Tragic, yes. But much smaller than tragic auto accident deaths (32,719) or tragic accidental drowning deaths (3,533). Firearm accidents are much rarer than anti-gun organizations would have us believe.

      • Bunya June 10th, 2015 at 2:47 pm

        Let’s put it another way. Gun owners are more likely to have “tragic gun accidents” than non-owners. All folks consider themselves responsible, until something tragic happens. Then it doesn’t matter because it’s too late to do anything about it.

        • illinoisboy1977 June 10th, 2015 at 3:08 pm

          But, prevention is no excuse for stripping someone of their right to own a firearm. If I want to take the chance of something bad happening, it’s my right to do so. It’s NOT the right of others to make that decision for me.

          • Bunya June 10th, 2015 at 3:21 pm

            Sure, and if you want to accidentally kill your neighbor who’s been giving you a hard time, it’s your right – especially if you live in Florida.

          • illinoisboy1977 June 10th, 2015 at 3:26 pm

            So, the answer is to take guns away from everyone, because of a TINY number of irresponsible gun owners? I think not.

          • Bunya June 10th, 2015 at 3:39 pm

            Answer this question; why are some firearms illegal? Why can’t people own military grade weapons? After all, if they’re responsible people, it shouldn’t matter if they want to keep an arsenal of grenades, should it?

          • illinoisboy1977 June 10th, 2015 at 3:48 pm

            Because grenades are considered explosive devices, not “arms” in the traditional sense. “arms” can be trained on a specific target and its destructive energy can be directed. An explosive device cannot. That would be the 2nd Amendment equivalent of yelling “fire”, in a crowded theater.

          • Bunya June 10th, 2015 at 5:20 pm

            Yes, but if people are responsible, why not trust them with grenades? The only logical excuse, I think, is that grenades cause property damage. Houses must be kept safe at all costs.
            Why not trust folks with automatic weapons? The result would still be the same in the case of an accident.

          • Mike June 10th, 2015 at 6:26 pm

            Bunya, you can get a license for just about any weapon you want, it’s a matter of money and filling out the proper paperwork. Thousands of people have fully automatic weapons, grenade launchers, mortars, and various rockets.
            A federal firearms dealer for instance, can buy and sell any number of military surplus weapons he can get his hands on, fully auto or not. If you remember the show “Sons of Guns” where the star was arrested for pedophilia….they were shooting automatic weapons every week., I think they even had a homemade cannon or two they showcased.

          • Bunya June 10th, 2015 at 9:43 pm

            What kind of country do we live in when someone can keep live grenades, but God forbid you get caught cutting hair without a license?

          • Mike June 10th, 2015 at 9:56 pm

            Ain’t that the truth…

          • illinoisboy1977 June 11th, 2015 at 3:36 pm

            Actually, you can have fully automatic weapons, if you’re willing to pay for the license. Too expensive for me, but I do take the opportunity to play with others’ full autos, when I can. They’re a LOT of fun!

          • Dwendt44 June 10th, 2015 at 6:56 pm

            Yes but clearly, full auto M-16s are ‘arms’ as is an M-60 machine gun. Or for that matter a Dillon minigun. Not sure why you’d want to hunt with one of those, but it’s certainly ‘arms’.

          • illinoisboy1977 June 11th, 2015 at 3:26 pm

            I wouldn’t want to hunt with one, but I’d love to add them to the collection! 😉

          • granpa.usthai June 11th, 2015 at 12:50 am

            NRA propaganda BS!
            Arms is arms.
            the only difference between a single shot ‘firearm’ and a Nuclear Arm is the devastation factor.
            the physics are identical.
            primer ignites explosive and weapon discharges.
            Fortunately, in the USA,as demonstrated in Nevada, if you feel like your rights are being violated, you have the right to use force and/or threat of force to get what you want.
            To those who choose Nuclear Arms as your choice, feel free to continue in your pursuit.
            NO group of anti American BS cons has the right or legal authority to dictate to you what they consider to be acceptable ‘arms’ for profit.
            2nd Amendment states “ARMS” – period.
            do not be an idiot and let the NRA terrorist Organization dictate your 2nd Amendment Rights.
            Nukes trumps guns of ANY Caliber and/or capacity of ammo of any gunnut and damn near half the state they’re in.
            With a Nuclear Arm briefcase triggered by a pressure release thumb button, you can go any damn where you want and not have to fear man or beast.
            BE FREE
            FEEL SAFE
            GO NUCLEAR
            it’s the 2nd part of the 2nd Amendment of YOUR US CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT. (note the emphatic dot!).

          • granpa.usthai June 11th, 2015 at 1:06 am

            also, by your attempt to further NRA propaganda BS, Claymore Mines, any mine, or homemade IED would be classified as a ‘firearm’, with an explosive discharge directing article(s) at a specific point or target. Ammo is miniature explosives with the firearm being the launch device is all.

          • bpollen June 10th, 2015 at 3:49 pm

            I agree with your last sentence.

  5. illinoisboy1977 June 10th, 2015 at 1:03 pm

    If you pass the background check, having to wait is pretty pointless and unnecessarily inconvenient. I wish Illinois would do away with their waiting period. It serves no purpose.

    • tracey marie June 10th, 2015 at 2:17 pm

      why do these same types and states put up barriers and implement new restrictive laws for voters, womens rights and equality in general?

      • illinoisboy1977 June 10th, 2015 at 2:43 pm

        I guess, because they think they’re doing more good than harm. The person you disagree with, always thinks his way is better than yours and that his reasons are more rightous. It doesn’t make him better or worse than you, just different.
        That’s the same thing with people who are anti-gun. I don’t think they’re “evil”, because they want to take away my guns. I just happen to disagree with them and I’ll continue to oppose their efforts by donating and campaigning, in favor of my 2nd Amendment rights.
        As to your other points: I actually agree with voter ID laws, as long as the state provides them free of charge, for those who can’t afford them. In Illinois, people actually HAVE been caught defrauding the system, so more security can’t hurt. Abortion is a non-issue to me, as I don’t have a uterus and don’t plan on growing one. I would beg any woman to reconsider, if she’s thinking about getting an abortion, but I wouldn’t condemn her or hinder her once she’s made her decision. Equality, in general, is a broad area. Homosexuality used to be punishable by prison time. I’m sure there are those who would like to go back to that, because they’re personally repulsed by the thought of two men, or two women, making out/making whoopie. Personally, I wouldn’t engage in it, because other men don’t trip my trigger. But, I don’t begrudge anyone else their happiness. If a man is happy loving another man, it’s no skin off my nose for him to be happy. In my opinion, people shouldn’t worry so much about what other people are allowed to do. Instead, they should concentrate on pursuing their OWN happiness and leave others to do the same.

        • Dwendt44 June 10th, 2015 at 6:53 pm

          Some may question the need for dozens of guns in a personal arsenal, but, assuming you are sane and otherwise legally able to own a gun, I know of no one that wants to take away your guns.

    • Bunya June 10th, 2015 at 2:40 pm

      I don’t think we need a waiting period either. After all, if they outlaw firearm ownership altogether, we wouldn’t have to deal with the pointless inconvenience of background checks.

      • illinoisboy1977 June 10th, 2015 at 2:59 pm

        Yes, but that’ll never happen. I and my friends will continue to organize and spend money against anything that infringes on our right to keep and bear arms.

        • Bunya June 10th, 2015 at 3:11 pm

          You do that, because everyone knows that “happiness is a warm semi-automatic”. Besides, it’s comforting to know you’ll have your fully loaded killing device handy when you’re driving in traffic and someone cuts you off.

          • illinoisboy1977 June 10th, 2015 at 3:16 pm

            There you go, assuming that just because I own a firearm, I’ll use it irresponsibly. Can you tell me what data you used, to come to that conclusion? Do you know me and have knowledge of any tendancies I may have, of shooting at people who make me angry? Any reports of such behavior, in the past? That IS what your post is inferring, after all.

          • Bunya June 10th, 2015 at 3:29 pm

            I don’t know anything about you, but then again, I knew nothing about Adam Lanza either, and apparently neither did his mother.
            I’m not assuming you’re irresponsible, but accidents happen with fatal consequences. And then it’s too late. Dead is dead.
            Did you know a man was shot by his dog? That’s how easily firearms discharge. I know how awful I would feel if my gun was used to kill somebody, that’s why I don’t own one.

          • illinoisboy1977 June 10th, 2015 at 3:38 pm

            It’s your absolute right, to not own a firearm. I, however, have an absolute right TO own one, or two, or twenty… Even if I never use them for anything more than shooting cans off my back fence or destroying expired produce.

          • Bunya June 10th, 2015 at 5:23 pm

            Well then, let’s hope you don’t ever mistake the guy from the electric company for an intruder.

          • illinoisboy1977 June 11th, 2015 at 3:29 pm

            Even intruders are given an opportunity to identify themselves and get on the floor. I don’t fire unless I HAVE to .

          • granpa.usthai June 11th, 2015 at 12:25 am

            and it’s the absolute right of anyone to own as many Nuclear Arms as they want!
            Otherwise, those who are preventing/prohibiting it would not be living up to the Rights of the US Constitution.

          • granpa.usthai June 11th, 2015 at 12:21 am

            same goes for people who feel more comfortable with Nuclear Arms.
            When’s the last time you heard of anyone being hurt in an accidental Nuclear Arms discharge?
            NUCLEAR ARMS are what makes America safe!
            just think what they could do for you in an emergency!

  6. Larry Schmitt June 10th, 2015 at 2:22 pm,d.cWc

  7. Jeffrey Samuels June 10th, 2015 at 2:46 pm

    lets increase the waiting period for abortions, and decrease the waiting period for buying killing machines. I guess they just want to have more babies born so they can have more potential targets.

  8. granpa.usthai June 11th, 2015 at 12:17 am

    that’s ok; anything that hinders or delays anyone from keeping and bearing Nuclear Arms is un Constitutional.

    modern men go NUKES!

    it’s their constitutional rights and the second article of their bill of rights!