This is an argument in search of a controvsersy--have there been indications that gun control advocates have used these tragedies to advance their cause? If so, some inclusion of that fact might make the column relevant.

These types of incidents always raise howls from gun control folks. I don't think it is wrong that a Herald columnist is ahead of the curve on something. Opinion folks don't just have be reactionary all the time.

"These two atrocities, while horrible, should be looked at as isolated incidents, not as poster cases to prop up legislative agendas."

Yeah, I'm sure glad that you aren't using these incidents to prop up an anti-gun control agenda. You hypercritical asshole.

Comment deleted: inappropriate content

WHAT THE LIVING CHRIST ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT! Goddamn, there is no one more annoying on these pages that Adam "I'm the father of the Invisible Hand" Smith. Vapid, annoying, a hack, simply worthless. Jesus.

Adam, except for the mayor of the town where the EXECUTION of a federal judge's family occurred, no one has "exploited" these killings for political advancement. And frankly, its sickenening that more have not. Why? Because hand guns are murder weapons that are idolized by the right for no apparent reason other than to remind themselves that their undersized genitalia can be compensated for some how (if the SUV doesn't do the trick).

This was a sickening crime performed by a deranged lunatic. But I noticed, perhaps because it just happened, that you neglected the guy in Milwaukee that killed 7 members of fringe, wacko Christian church. What up with that? How about the fact that he was able to kill nine people in about a minute because of his gun? Any issues there?

The fact is, hand guns are murder weapons. They are NOT protected by the constitution. No one has the right to bear arms in private, only in an organized militia (i.e. the National Guard, which at last glance, you're too chicken to join, nor were any of those criminals members of).

Adam. Worst. Hack. Ever.

Personally, I have an exceptionally large penis AND I support gun rights.

The National Guard was not in existence at the time of the Bill of Rights. A "militia" at the time was locally-raised, comprising local men and boys, and relied on people having their own weapons. Where you want to draw the line for personal ownership of rifles to handguns to assault rifles to bazookas to atomic weapons is another debate. But I don't think it's even a question that the Framers intended the common man to be guaranteed personal ownership of some sort of defensive weaponry that could be used against people (that is, to "murder" hostile soldiers).

That was over 200 years ago! Quite a lot has changed geopolitically. Quite a lot has changed with firearms. Do we set other parts of domestic policy based on history?

Yes, gun control advocates have frequently used tragedies to advance arguments -- look at all the testimonials for the Brady Bill, testimonies for the suit against gunmakers in the City of Chicago.

People -- especially frustrated people who are losing their jobs to nations with crappy human rights records -- kill with guns, not the gun itself.

I think collapsing state theory applies to the U.S. as well.

The 2nd ammendment is to check the power of the state, not to protect deer hunting you sheltered stupid, ideallistic dumbass.

Here's a piece of food for thought. Let's just arm everybody. That way, we can all take care the assholes we disagree with. Too much for cab fare? Blammo. Didn't like the dim sum? Blammo! Thought the weather forecast was shitty, walk into Channel 15 and liquidate the place.

The only thing Republicans who support gun rights are supporting, is the right of Americans to kill each other. Something I suppose they're fully in support of since just about everything else they stand for kills people (big tobacco, big energy, the war in Iraq, capitol punishment). Oh wait, they support those little fetii! The children! Save the children! Just don't give them welfare, food stamps, tax cuts or a decent education. Arm their parents (or themselves) and send them off with a big kiss off.

Jesus.....................................would never be a Republican

Where the hell are the comments for other stories. Badger Herald, give me back my freedom to bitch.

Good article. In all fairness, I haven't heard that many of the anti-gunners use this argument though. It would take a real Deters to do something like that.

To all the anti-gunners on this forum, it is an open question as to just what is guaranteed by the 2nd amendment. Notice the constitution makes no mention of privacy or abortion and yet you all swear up and down that it is a constitutional right. The fact is that a right to bear arms was important enough to at least be mentioned in the constitution, which is more than I can say for the "right" to privacy.

It is not in question, however, that the wisconsin constitution does grant a constitutional right to bear arms for hunting along with other purposes.

The person who said the second amendment is not for protecting deer hunting needs to check some of his sheltered arrogance at the door and do some thinking every once in a while.