OPINION & EDITORIAL
All or nothing for 2nd amendment
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Rob Rossmeissl:
- Trolley proposal deserves thought (May 1, 2007)
- U.S. should re-evaluate free trade agreements to improve economy (April 24, 2007)
- High quality city inspires progress (April 17, 2007)
- Comic relief important in movies (April 9, 2007)
- Shout outs harbor hatred (March 26, 2007)
Related Stories:
- Vote gives no shot for guns (November 16, 2006)
- Second Amendment out-of-date (April 20, 2007)
- A clean cut above (September 12, 2006)
- Second Amendment safeguards freedom (April 25, 2007)
- Naive regulations welcome violence (October 3, 2006)
by Rob Rossmeissl
Wednesday, February 8, 2006
In Wisconsin, it seems like the fabled "Three G's" of conservative campaign strategy have become "Guns, Guns and Guns."
For as much as I criticize them, I must admit that Wisconsin's Republican legislators — upon determining which issues are important to their constituency — commit themselves entirely to their cause. Unfortunately, these lawmakers have simply mistaken which issues are important.
While Wisconsinites are waiting for their government to address many serious problems, state legislators are under the impression that the only thing Wisconsinites care about is guns.
In the latest battle of an ongoing war at the state Capitol, Wisconsin's Republican-controlled Legislature recently tried — and failed — to override Gov. Jim Doyle's veto of a bill that would have allowed the concealed carrying of guns. And, if these lawmakers weren't wasting enough taxpayer money in their time-consuming devotion to concealed-carry, they have also been pushing legislation that would permit eight-year-olds the right to carry a rifle.
Although the Wisconsin state Legislature's obsession with guns is preventing progress on matters of importance, the predicament is only one example of a dangerous trend in American gun law.
Few people disagree that the National Rifle Association is Washington's most powerful lobbying force. In the past, however, the brute power of this organization had always been kept at least somewhat in check by opponents within government. Recently, though, the NRA has had the fortune of seeing its sympathizers fill both houses of the U.S. Congress as well as the White House. There likely isn't a scarier indication of the direction of gun laws than President Bush's failure last fall to renew the Assault Weapons Ban — a ban won at great personal expense to many legislators. To the pragmatist, it would seem legal assault weapons are the last thing government should be providing to a country plagued by gun violence.
The United States does not fare well concerning frequency of gun deaths when compared to other industrialized countries. According to The Brady Campaign to End Gun Violence, 2001 saw 11,348 American gun homicides as opposed to six gun homicides in New Zealand, 56 in Japan, 96 in Great Britain and 168 in Canada. To counter those who argue in favor of gun rights as a necessity for self-defense, a report by the United Nations Children Fund shows that guns kept in the home are 43 times more likely to kill a family member or friend than to kill in self-defense. Given these shocking statistics, why is America's party of the "moral majority" working so vigorously to push such immoral legislation? Perhaps what is most disturbing is the hypocrisy offered up in pro-gun rhetoric.
Because I don't expect to see a U.S. ban on guns in my lifetime, I am going to propose an alternative plan to lawmakers: continue to repeat your Second Amendment rhetoric, but do so only if you are prepared to allow citizens the right to own any type of weaponry currently produced, including military-grade explosives, grenades, etc.
The Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution reads: "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." I sincerely doubt the founding fathers anticipated the development of nuclear weapons when they guaranteed a broad right to own "arms." Further, much of the original validation for the Second Amendment has vanished in time. At least, not too many of my friends are worried that Queen Elizabeth is presently planning to invade Madison.
In accordance with the gun lobby's own arguments, every American should be able to drive over to Wal-Mart and purchase a grenade launcher. Hiding behind the "right to bear arms," so that assault weapons may be permitted, but simultaneously opposing a U.S. citizen's right to own a bomb is to hold contradicting opinions. Pro-gun legislators cannot be taken seriously until they admit that, by their logic, they must favor the legal sale of any weaponry.
As much as I would love to see my plan adopted, I doubt it will happen anytime soon in Wisconsin. After all, the state Legislature will likely be busy for some time, pursuing their next logical step — securing the right of eight-year-olds to concealed-carry.
Rob Rossmeissl (rrossmeissl@badgerherald.com) is a junior majoring in journalism and political science.
Anonymous (February 8, 2006 @ 8:05am):
"Recently, though, the NRA has had the fortune of seeing its sympathizers fill both houses of the U.S. Congress as well as the White House."
Gee, I wonder why that would be...perhaps because the majority of American voters support lawful keeping an bearing of arms (you know...sort of like the RIGHT described in the Second Amendment)
"President Bush's failure last fall to renew the Assault Weapons Ban"
That's funny, I seem to remember President Bush saying that he would sign renewal if it made it to his desk. I also seem to remember that the renewal never made it to his desk because CONGRESS failed to renew the scary looking semi-automatic firearms ban; but it's more fun to blame Bush...even when that requires a bald-faced lie...now isn't it?
The remainder of this opinion piece relies on statistics that are either irrelevant to the argument or have been repeatedly and thoroughly debunked, as well as intentionally misinterpreting the intent and meaning of the Second Amendment.
It is very telling when a proponent of a particular agenda cannot support his argument without relying on outright lies, false and misleading information and simple propaganda.
Recommended reading:
Dave Kopel (http://www.davekopel.com/)
Gun Cite (http://www.guncite.com/)
Anonymous (February 8, 2006 @ 8:34am):
If you want a truly pragmatic platform, look at Russ Feingold's voting record. He's upset people on both sides of the aisle because he understands gun control isn't a black/white issue.
Anonymous (February 8, 2006 @ 9:14am):
'The Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution reads: "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." I sincerely doubt the founding fathers anticipated the development of nuclear weapons when they guaranteed a broad right to own "arms."'
They also never anticipated the internet. Hence, regulation of this web page must be OK.
-SayUncle
Anonymous (February 8, 2006 @ 10:26am):
I would strongly suggest that Rob Rossmeissl keep in mind that the idea behind the 2nd amendment is not only to fight off the enemy from foreign nations but to fight off the enemies within in the event of a tyranny manifesting within the U.S. If he truly believes that gun abolition is the answer to society's ill's, then perhaps he should check history books and examine what happened to Germany, Russia, and Cambodia (to name a few) during the 20th century when they banned guns from civilian ownership. Grow up! The 2nd amendment defends and guarantees everyones 1st amendment rights and our ability to engage in the arena of ideas whether we agree or disagree on a subject.
Anonymous (February 8, 2006 @ 12:05pm):
I believe this is one of Lennin's steps for communist tyranny. This was also Adolf Hitler's policy and that worked out real well didn't it? Mr. Rossmeissl would be well served to go back and re-take high school history and civics and then spend a little time contemplating the 200,000,000 victims of genocide in the 20th century, all committed by governments that had previously disarmed it's citizens.
Anonymous (February 8, 2006 @ 12:34pm):
How can you claim any credibility when you use statistics from the Brady Campaign? Thats like writing a progun op-ed using stats from the NRA. Each organization is biased and the stats it puts out should be taken with a grain of salt. Your argument would be much more persuasive if you used information from a source whose sole purpose in life is not to see guns banned from civilian use (despite what they say).
Anonymous (February 8, 2006 @ 12:57pm):
Genocide can best be carried out against an unarmed populace.
I don't own a gun but I'm happy that the government and gerneral criminal population doesn't know that.
Anonymous (February 8, 2006 @ 1:56pm):
A notice to commenters: It's easy to tell college-age columnists to "grow up." Back up your arguments (oh, and work on your grammar) instead of relying on an obvious cop out.
Anonymous (February 8, 2006 @ 2:15pm):
Wow! If this turd was using this story as a thesis in liberal bias I think he would get an A. No where in the country is it more dangerous to the American way of life then a reporter with an agenda. No law abiding citizen that wanted to see the assault weapons ban die could stand up to a person that mixes and matches facts for maximum yellowness. Yellow journalism is plagues 99% of are news today that means every second a reporter gets the facts wrong on purpose forgets how to count, and blames George Bush for something well, that isn't liberal enough for them. Should we ban the right to free speach too? It might be the only way to stop this blight on society. With statistics like that (that I made up, but could be very acurate) it seems that our governement should be working not to a total gun grab but instead refroming news that only report news that gets passed thru governement agencys for approval and do back groundchecks on reporter to make sure that they won't report stories that are untrue or defameing to anyone.
The right to keep and bare arms isn't a right granted by any government. It is a right enumerated by the very constitution that makes up the government that wants to eliminate the right. Just like free speech is a natural right. And it is used in countries that have banned it too. Like china and Russia. But you don't hear about them speaking out because it usually ends with the unarmed family being killed. Or sent to prison without trial. Some of the same reasons that freespeach was enumerated was to fight agaist King George II. Should we stop talking because the Queen of England now has no plans of taking us over? Why? That is because the basic idea is still there one needs to defend themselves against others that mean to do them harm. Freespeach is the souls right to breath. The right to keep and bear arms is a gauranty that you get killed in the night before you get a chance.
The right to keep and bear arms shouldn't have limitations on it. I would agree with that. But when you deny a persons right to self defense when in their homes or in a place that they have the right to be. And when you say that an 8 your old is going to carry concealed when in fact the 8 year old just wants to hunt with her parents. You make me think that reporters are so afraid of their own shadows how can they present the truth in anything but yellow journalism.
Anonymous (February 8, 2006 @ 5:14pm):
Ahhh, Rob is a Junior majoring in journalism.
Hey, Junior. Hopefully, during the next two years you will learn how to get your facts right before you publish. Check CDC, for example.
By the way, when you say "homicides", are you including people killed by police while such person is committing a crime? Should we stop those "homicides" also? Waiting for your answer.
All the best,
Dave
Anonymous (February 8, 2006 @ 6:19pm):
better to be thought a fool, than open your mouth and prove it. Without the second, how will you defend the others amendments...harsh words?
Anonymous (February 8, 2006 @ 6:38pm):
If the person defending the college kid based on grammer alone doesn't like my grammer and was talking about me. I don't care. I am not going to college to make sure grammer is correct. I am getting the facts right first. Then grammer. But this time I was in a hurry and I let the google toolbar check spelling. So sorry if I hurt your eyes eith my grammer. But if the truth hurts! Tough. Suck it up. Don't talk bad about law abiding gun owners because you don't like them. And don't make up facts to support your mistake.
Anonymous (February 8, 2006 @ 9:17pm):
Your argument makes no sense even in the terms of the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment protects the individual's right to those weapons which are common for defense. Almost no one in 1776 owned their own cannon or heavy artillery pieces. They did however own those arms suitable for personal defense: long guns, hand guns, and swords. You make your argument very weak when you go off on such an extreme tangent.
Certain semi-automatic weaopns scare you because of how they look but I can assure you there are much more deadly, accurate, and powerful "hunting" guns that are legal.
If everything but single shot .22 rifles were outlawed, guess what would be the "assault" weapon of choice? .22 single shot rifles. It wouldn't take a genius criminal to saw the stock and barrel of a "hunting" gun down to a concealable size.
Your arguments are very lacking. And don't worry, the Wisconsin legislature has plenty of time to raise our taxes and control our lives in other ways. Don't worry about a few spirited debates on a right protected by the US and Wisconsin constitutions.
Anonymous (February 8, 2006 @ 9:28pm):
Guns are evil and must be banned. Look at Great Britain, Australia, or, this country, Washinton D.C., New York City, or Chicago. San Francisco just banned handgun ownership, and the city of Oakland, California has no gun stores within it's borders. Canada is very strict on gun ownership, and it works there, right? In fact, it works well in every place I've mentioned, right? Right? It also worked well in Nazi Germany, right? Just ask 6 million Jews. Gun bans and rigid restrictions have little, if any effect, on violent crime, and can even prevent law-abiding citizens from defendinmg themselves. If you beleive the unbiased numbers provided by the Brady organization, then you're deluding yourself. Next time someone threatens your life, dial 911 and see if it's faster than a speeding bullet. Good luck.
Anonymous (February 8, 2006 @ 10:39pm):
I find it interesting that a liberal is using a strict interpretation of the 2nd Amendment to say that people should only own guns to support a militia, and if they're not possessing them for that purpose, those firearms are unnecessary. Would this same person also strictly interpret the 4th Amendment where nowhere is the right to a person's privacy mentioned??? I highly doubt it. But abortion proponents will cite that right to privacy until the cows come home.
Anonymous (February 9, 2006 @ 5:52am):
Jounalism and political science would seem to require some firm foundation in history but that is sadly lacking in this opinion piece. It is time for this young Badger to be appointed CEO or Editor in Chief of something since his learning is 'done'.
Anonymous (February 9, 2006 @ 9:10am):
Rob Rossmeissl, although majoring in journalism and political science, has failed to grasp the basic tenets associated with those "professions;" that of obtaining ALL of the facts and understanding basic history.
1. The Founding Fathers did not foresee nuclear weapons - nor did they foresse the internet and telephone; shall we therefore repeal the First Amendment?
2. The unregulated militia (as defined in the USC) consists of all able-bodied males between the ages of (I believe) 18 and 45. Where does Rob get his idea that 8-year-olds are wanting to carry concealed weapons?
3. The Second Amendment was written to guarantee the right to carry personal arms, not "large" weapons. Read the Federalist Papers.
4. I suggest reading the FBI's Uniform Crime reports for a relatively unbiased discussion of injuries related to firearms - anything produced by the Brady Campaign is certainly suspect, as their agenda is well known. On reading objective summaries of injuries and deaths, one will see that accidental deaths (as of 2001) were caused by motor vehicles, poisoning, suffocation, drownings, natural causes and others - firearms caused approximately 0.8% of accidental deaths according to the CDC 2001 WISQARS report. Shall we ban cars, pools, pesticides, and plastic bags?
5. Finally, the quote that guns kept in the home "are 43 times more likely to kill a family member or friend than to kill in self-defense" is a statistically flawed study. This study by Arthur Kellerman in 1986 involved a non-random sampling of people from two cities - this is a classic case of a "study" designed to achieve a particular outcome.
It's easy to see how one can be caught up in the emotionalism of gun control - however, the fact is that those states/areas with the highest crime rates also have the strictest gun control laws. Furthermore, comparing other countries to the US with providing total injuries/deaths per capita due to all causes is, to me, indicative of just another shill for the Brady Campaign - spouting the same "information" without checking the facts.
That's what's wrong with journalism (and politics) today.
My background? I'm a professional electrical engineer (30 years) and a reserve deputy (17 years) and have been full employed in both fields continuously; I have a master's degree in management. I am not a "Bubba" or "knuckledragger" as you might suppose. Until you understand what you're trying to accomplish and are capable of independent thinking and analysis, I would suggest that you reconsider your major. We have too many "journalists" who prefer the easy way out.
Joe McNally (February 9, 2006 @ 10:09am):
Your article shows how just how out of touch with reality and the true facts that you are. A word of advise.. A wise man makes sure that his brain is engaged before he puts his mouth into gear. Something you should think long and hard about. As a (would be) journalist you have a responsibility to your readers to present them with the true facts. Too bad you couldn't do that. You obviously have some maturing to do before you are ready for the responsibility of your chosen profession.
Mark Townsend (February 9, 2006 @ 10:23am):
I found Mr. Rossmeissl's comments regarding the second amendment to be very naive. He claimed the founders couldn't invision the types of weapons we have now. Could they have invisioned TV, talk radio, or the internet? Should we use that as an excuse to ban free speech?
He seems to comprehend the purpose of the second amendment, but wishes to ignore or destroy it. I sure hope is attention to the Bill of Rights is limited TO only the second amendment; woe unto us should he discover the other nine.
According to experts, there are between 1 and 2 million incidents each year where honest law abiding gun owners use firearms to defend themselves. Should Rob Rossmeissl get his way these are the people who would be added on to this nation's crime statistics.
I wonder if Mr. Rossmeissl would review his antiConstitutional opinions then........
Mark Townsend
Alabam
Anonymous (February 9, 2006 @ 10:44am):
Rob Rossmeissl writes:
"As much as I would love to see my plan adopted, I doubt it will happen anytime soon in Wisconsin. After all, the state Legislature will likely be busy for some time, pursuing their next logical step -- securing the right of eight-year-olds to concealed-carry."
Has someone in Wisconsin really proposed that 8-year-olds be allowed to carry concealed weapons, or is this simply more of the liberal extremist rhetoric that is supposed to convince intelligent voters that they should change their voting habits?
http://perilloux.org
Anonymous (February 9, 2006 @ 11:53am):
On 12/5/05, Rob Rossmeissl wrote, on the topic of the abridgement of freedom:
<i><b>Freedom means being able to do what you please, so long as you are not causing harm to others.</b> These are all important aspects of freedom that are violated in the United States.
It's peculiar how a society that is so good at preaching about its freedom can be so bad at providing it.</i>
How does Mr. Rossmeisll reconcile his demand for freedom from government interference with his rights with his demand that government interfere with his right to keep and bear a firearm?
Be very, very careful what you wish for, Rob Rossmeissl. If you're really unlucky, you might get it.
Frank Clarke (February 9, 2006 @ 11:55am):
Rob, I'm with you! Ever since the Assault Weapons Ban expired there's been blood running in the streets. Why, almost every day you hear of another mass-shooting by someone with a machine gun.
Don't you ?...............
Brandon DiPietro (February 9, 2006 @ 6:27pm):
Rob,
This is the same tired asinine argument that the anti-gun crowd has been spouting for years. If you wanted to be objective you may have used statistics from groups that weren't totally far left. The second ammendmant exists for instances like New Orleans, where the police were brutilizing citizens and looting stores. You can chose to live in a made up world that if no guns existed there would be no crime. Foolish! Look at England and Austriala,they banded almost all guns and their gun crimes have sky rocketed! You have the ability to hide from the fact that you want a untopian society, but you need to face the facts there are bad people in the world and goverments turn on their own citizens! That is what the second amendmant is all about.
Anonymous (February 9, 2006 @ 8:49pm):
Think of it as " Two wolves and a sheep, voting on what to have for dinner." Now, Give the sheep a gun and I will bet they will be eating grass!
Anonymous (February 10, 2006 @ 2:08am):
whatever everyone. rob's good looking. that should be enough.
Gerald Holmsby (February 10, 2006 @ 9:20am):
I find it laughable that most of the pro-gun loud mouths who have contributed to this column think that they will need to defend themselves against Hitler or some genocidal maniac in the United States. Ironically, the Bush administration, which most of them probably advocate, is limiting citizen rights as we speak (i.e. the rights to privacy and due process, read: The Patriot Act)
It's funny how important pistols are to people in this country while the big issues go ignored. It seems to me that the pro-gun crowd will be appeased as long as they have their weapons even if meanwhile Alberto Gonzalez claims he can open and read their mail, (a privilege that he thinks he has under the current laws).
Do the pro-gun folks think they are responsible enough to be trusted with guns, but not their own communications???
Anonymous (February 10, 2006 @ 1:43pm):
Brandon,
What did England and Australia band their guns with? Rope?
Anonymous (February 11, 2006 @ 12:07pm):
There is a very simple saying that was taught to me more then 40 years ago that applies to your way of thinking and the ones that support you.
people are most afraid of something they no nothing about or do not understand because they refuse to open there minds and learn all there is to learn and to most importantly, learn from all history not just what they want to see.
there have been weapons for many a millennium for self defense and all thing that weapons are needed for. evil will never completely go away. we either stand up to it and defend our selfs or fall to the first nut case that would do us harm. the choice is yours, stand up and take care of your self or die for a senseless death for a cause. the gun is the weapon of choice for this time and place, in 50 or 100 years it will be something more advanced, only time will tell. but the need for them will never go away.
Anonymous (February 11, 2006 @ 1:23pm):
Rob,
If you want to appeal to the conservative right, you must present "facts" that they see as facts, not some already debunked study. 43 to 1 study you cite is already known as trash. Go down to Wal-Mart and buy a rocket launcer? Not hardly, but in the purest sense of the 2nd Amendment, you are totally correct. What should be the controlling factor is the economic one. If my neighbor wants an M60 Main Battle Tank, fine! If he aims the armament at me, then I may want that rocket launcher to defend myself. The cost of all these toys is cost prohibitive. In trying to force a ban (which still exists in certain states) the cost of an AR15 "assuat rifle" went from $150 to over $2000. The last time I checked, the cost of a (still legal) M-16 Service Rifle (full automatic) is about $2500 - $3000. So, if you want to convice the "right" you are going to have to separate yourself from the "left" long enough to get real facts unless you want to be known as one of those leftist news types who will spout anything real or unreal to support their position. The Goleta California Post Office was one of those "safe havens" created by the left because one doesn't "need" a gun at the Post office. Oh - and the 43 - 1 rule. Can you now explain why all the gun owners you know are not showing up in your paper's obituaries?
Anonymous (February 13, 2006 @ 12:57am):
A person who feels the need will carry a weapon, with or without a permit. A statute prohibiting some action, by itself, provides no real enforcement mechanism.
Those with criminal intent are likely to be subject to more punitive charges than a carry violation, if caught. Their "cost" of carrying a weapon appears modest at best.
Meanwhile, the otherwise law-abiding person risks becoming a criminal if he or she chooses to acquire and maintain the ability to protect oneself. Thus, they are forced to make a choice of whether to be judged by twelve or to be carried by six. Having a third choice sure would be nice.
The unrest in New Orleans is just one of the most recent examples demonstrating that effective personal protection cannot be relegated to government agencies. Law enforcement is reactive. Since it cannot be everywhere simulataneously it cannot be fully preventative. Sending the law after the criminal may help the rest of society, but what about the victim of the crime?
If I can't protect My Life or Liberty, how can I hope to Pursue Happiness?
Chuck Daley
Anonymous (February 13, 2006 @ 3:16pm):
Mr. Holmsby, we all know that there will never be a government in this nation that would try and deprive honest, law abiding citizens of their right to keep arms... wait, no, that was New Orleans. Its the first step that scares us. Most of us loud mouths are loud and demanding on all of our rights, but we pick and choose how and when we fight.
And to our dear Mr. Rossmeissl, while you may think that having full out weapons of war is lunacy, it wasn't that was so long ago. Even today, the permits to own such weapons are available, thought in a time not so long ago, permits weren't required. The pro-gun "nuts" fell asleep on one fight, don't expect to see us do it again.
Gerald Holmsby (February 13, 2006 @ 6:52pm):
The esteemed Vice President has demonstrated how safe guns are. A couple of inches and he'd be sitting in a courtroom, being tried for manslaughter.
Anonymous (February 13, 2006 @ 8:07pm):
I was directed here from another site, and I must agree with the majority of the comments on this article. It's obvious you are blatantly ignorant to anything having to do with firearms. In all likelihood you've never even held a gun. I may be mistaken about that last statement, but not about your ignorance. Your statement about the expiration of the "assault weapons" ban is most telling. That ban affected only semi-automatic weapons which had certain aesthetic characteristics that anti-gun folks deemed to be "scary looking" and therefore must be more deadly. The ban's expiration has in no way contributed to crime in this country at all.
I live in Wisconsin so I know what this state's legislators have been going through, and I can't wait for the governor election this fall so we can get someone in office who understands the needs of this state's citizens, needs relating to firearms as well as many other issues.
Jeremy Hatfield (March 12, 2006 @ 3:13pm):
Interesting perspective, Gerald. You have no problems with infringements placed on the Second, but when the First Amendment starts being treated like the Second, your hackles get raised.
This is part of pro-2A concerns--if you can fudge one Amendment, you set precedent for the others to receive the same treatment.
