Milwaukee Journal Sentinel scolds the NRA

[Tither]

Here is an editorial from an anti-gun newspaper who repeats many of the fallacies that the Anti-gun groups push.

Link Editorial: There is a middle ground

Yes, this Editorial Board does have differences of opinion with the NRA. Maybe your visit will allow us to learn more about your perspective. And maybe, conversely, your annual foray into an urban center will open your eyes just a bit to a view opposite yours.

Maybe this interaction will uncover a middle ground on which reasonable people can stand. Goodness gracious, we believe in your right to hunt. And your efforts to teach gun safety are laudable. We'll put that in writing. Can this be a starting point of a meeting of minds?

First of all, the Supreme Court has said twice that The Constitution does not give us our 2nd Amendment Rights. They said “The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence.” Why is that so? Our founding Fathers believed our rights were Inalienable, or given by God, and therefore the only one who can actually take them away is God himself.

The Article said we believe in your right to hunt. However neither the 2nd Amendment nor our founder’s belief in the Right to Self Defense has anything to do with hunting. “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.” Show me hunting here?

Then they say military-style, semiautomatic weapons are not essential to the right to hunt. For my answer See above.

They say “These rapid-fire weapons are a favorite of organized gangs and mass killers and a peril to law officers.” And they say therefore the NRA is helping the bad guys.

No one wants to put anyone in danger, especially our police however, even if all guns were banned, would not the drug dealers import them in with their drugs? So other than an emotional ploy this argument does not hold water. What proof? Both the CDC and the National Academy of Science studied Assault weapons bans and found: Link First Reports Evaluating the Effectiveness of Strategies for Preventing Violence: Firearms Laws

The Task Force found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws or combinations of laws reviewed on violent outcomes.

And
Link Gun control doesn't reduce crime, violence, say studies
National Academy of Sciences, Justice Dept. reports find no benefits to restricting ownership of firearms So the net gain for society is ZERO. So says the 2 studies.

Also a study by Criminologist David B. Kopel says. Link Rational Basis Analysis of "Assault Weapon" Prohibition

A. "Assault Weapons" are Used in Only About One Percent of Gun Crime …..

VI. Conclusion

"Equal protection of the laws requires that statutory classifications be based on differences that are real in fact...."[142] The classification of "assault weapons" is not based on differences that are real in fact. The banned firearms do not fire faster than many guns that are not banned. The banned firearms do not have a larger ammunition capacity than many guns that are not banned. In fact, the number of rounds a semiautomatic can fire without reloading has nothing to do with the gun. Rather, that capacity is determined solely by the magazine, a separate, detachable, and interchangeable part. All the other physical characteristics of "assault weapons" which might form a rational basis for prohibiting them are simply not valid (such as claims about ammunition lethality), are trivial (such as bayonet lugs), or make the gun more accurate (such as a muzzle brakes). Official statistics prove that so-called "assault weapons" are rarely involved in criminal activity, and hence the use of "assault weapons" in crime is insufficiently demonstrated to pass the rational basis test.

The edatorial's next argument is the Gun Show Loophole.

Imagine that! Before 1968 one could order a gun and have even a crate of them shipped to one’s home, no questions asked. We give them The Brady Bill and all of the gun control leading up to today, and they talk about all of this infringement, which the Constitution says they are not allowed to do, as some kind of a loophole.

And then they say unlicensed dealers, which proliferate at gun shows.

That means you and me. If we sell a gun at a gun show, we are the unlicensed dealers they speak of. However, see the 2 studies above, which also studied gun show laws. Net gain to society for plugging the Gun Controllers myth of a loophole, is Zero! So says the 2 studies.

They also say that Drug Dealers and Criminals and Terrorist frequent gun shows, as to suggest that this is a major source of criminal guns.

However, The USDOJ, The FBI and all of the studies say that less than 2% of crime guns come from gun shows. See Link An Army of Gun Lies and the above Kopel study that about 1%

Then the article talks about how the NRA calls for enforcing existing laws as apposed to creating new ones.

Then they say: Besides, we don't understand why society can't take both approaches: Make it tougher for outlaws to obtain guns in the first place and crack down on them if they did manage to gain weapons illegally.

Both approaches huh? What they mean is more and more and more gun control. We gave them what our Founding Fathers would call Massive infringements and now we have 22 to 30 thousand gun laws already on the books, but they are not satisfied.

OK Screw it. We will give them half of every thing that is left. Do you think they will be satisfied? Or is true that not long after we did that the Brady bunch, Chuck Schumer, DeWine, Feinstein, and the mayors talk about the illegal gun problem and how even these massive infringements have not stopped crime, so they need more gun control.

How intellectually dishonest the gun controllers are. They continually demand that we compromise. Why? Because they know that most Americans believe that the answer to most every problem our society faces, lies in the middle of both extremes, so they want us to compromise.

However, a true compromise would be the middle of no gun control and a total ban, not the middle of what we already have and a total ban. Link I feel the 22 to 30 thousand gun laws already on the books is enough to keep society safe. Plus the 2 most exhaustive studies ever done on gun control can find no further benefit to more gun control than what we already have. I think the gun controllers should answer this paragraph before they are allowed to steal any more of our Inalienable Rights.

It is however, true that both the CDC and the National Academy of Sciences said more research should be done, but 51 of the best gun control studies the world has to offer, 253 journal articles, 99 books, 43 government publications, a survey of 80 different gun-control laws and some of its own independent study have already been done. I think you will agree that this is just gun controllers hoping beyond hope.

[haspelbein]

It's funny. Every time somebody asks you to compromise, it implicitly means that you are to compromise and not them.

[dan_sayers]

I feel the 22 to 30 thousand gun laws already on the books is enough to keep society safe.

I don't and I think that's a point often overlooked in this battle. You can NOT save everybody. For as long as the human is a free willed creature, misuse of that free will is going to be part of the specturm. For as long as there's a gun in the world, there's going to be potential for misuse. Billions of guns later, you'll never get rid of them all. And it certainly will not accomplish the alleged aim to keep people safe by starting at the top, where the legal guns are. Modern society is chocked full of measures that try and save every single life, including those that put themselves in a situation to die. We've becomed so obsessed with our own technological advances, we won't rest until we can say we've overcome every force that governs our existence. One faction of this is approaching guns as if we'll ever be able to save everybody. We can't. So leave us law abiding citizens alone already.

I think I'm also tired of hearing about hunting. That's no compromise. The point of the 2nd Amendment was to keep society armed as a check and balance of those in charge. As if to say to keep in under control or we'll rightfully take back what's ours.

[Tither]

Well said dan_sayers. Very well said.

Great point haspelbein.

[Redhorse]

We can debate these points until we are blue in the face with those gun-grabbers out there. They will never change their minds, because to them, we are just as wrong as we know them to be.

The ONLY solution to this is education. When we start bringing up generations of children who understand the BILL OF RIGHTS, and THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES, along with the ACTUAL history that brought us those documents. We might have a chance at a great nation again.

As long as our educational system is funded by the those who want to suppress our rights, and run by liberal blissninnies who put their own spin on things in the classroom...we are lost. Teachers who understand what is happening and would like to do something about it, must fear for their jobs if they dare speak out it in the classroom.

There are no firearm friendly programs/classes in our public school systems anymore. The few programs that are available are totally funded and promoted by OUTSIDE interests who fight tooth and nail to be ALLOWED into the school. Basic firearm safety should be taught to EVERY child who attends public school in this country. I don't care what the parents want or don't want. ANY child has the potential to encounter a firearm in the real world...yet we send so many of our children out there without even the most basic understanding of firearms safety. They know only what they see on TV.

The gun-grabbers want to pass more laws to "protect the children". Yet they deny them the very thing that would save their lives at that critical moment...KNOWLEDGE. If their interest was actually in saving childrens lives...they would "compromise" by allowing children to learn the basic skills they need to survive in this world. Instead of attempting to impose their world on everyone.

[TunnelRat]

Okay, I hate long posts, but I thought I would Fisk this editorial. feel very free to skip this if you don't like long articles. I shall reply to some of its fallacies.

http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=424937


Editorial: There is a middle ground

From the Journal Sentinel

Posted: May 18, 2006

Welcome to Milwaukee, members of the National Rifle Association.

Yes, this Editorial Board does have differences of opinion with the NRA. Maybe your visit will allow us to learn more about your perspective. And maybe, conversely, your annual foray into an urban center will open your eyes just a bit to a view opposite yours.
Maybe this interaction will uncover a middle ground on which reasonable people can stand. Goodness gracious, we believe in your right to hunt.

What do I care about a right to hunt? I am not a hunter. I am concerned with defending myself and my family from armed criminals. The U.S. constitution does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to hunting implements only. Nor does it refer to hunting at all as a reason for keeping and bearing arms.

Other gun owners like to shoot for recreation, some like to collect antique (or modern) firearms. There are many reasons for owning firearms. Hunting is only one of those many reasons.

And your efforts to teach gun safety are laudable. We'll put that in writing. Can this be a starting point of a meeting of minds?

That’s possible, but I doubt it. This very editorial is full of the very reasons our minds are not likely to meet. You seem to have a whole series of pre-conceived opinions that you, unfortunately, cannot back up with facts.

What we do have a hard time buying is that military-style, semiautomatic weapons are essential to the right to hunt.

Okay, a couple of points here. Once again, we aren’t necessarily talking about hunting. Yet your repeated references seem to make clear that in your view the only valid reason for firearms ownership is for hunting. Perhaps you should reread the U.S. constitution, or for that matter, the Wisconsin state constitution:

"Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Section 25. The people have the right to keep and bear arms for security, defense, hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose."

Firearms ownership may be for security, defense, hunting, recreation, or any other lawful purpose. Your repeated reference to hunting seem to indicate a derogation of other legitimate reason to keep and bear arms.

Not only so, but when you say “military-style, semiautomatic weapons” aren’t necessary for hunting, you seem not to understand that most hunting rifles use exactly the same technology as most modern “military-style, semiautomatic weapons”. Most hunting rifles are semi-automatic weapons, too. Are you simply objecting to the “military-style”? Do you really believe it makes a difference whether a rifle has a nice-looking wooden stock or an evil-looking black polymer stock?

You ask: “Can this be a starting point of a meeting of minds?”

I can only reply: “I doubt it. You don’t seem to be making any sort of effort at all to understand even the simplest points of firearms ownership”.

Yet in backing a federal ban on such weapons, we find ourselves accused of trying to outlaw all guns.

That is because the suggestion to outlaw all guns has been made repeatedly and continues to be made. Don’t you remember Senator Diane Feinstein and Rosie O’Donnell claiming that only the police and the military should be allowed to have firearms? When the Brady Bill was passed, Senator Charles Schumer of New York said that this was just the nose of the camel under the tent. We don’t want to wait to see the rest of the camel…

These rapid-fire weapons

What rapid-fire weapons? You were referring to semi-automatic rifles. Does semi-automatic mean “rapid-fire”? Or do you simply use “rapid-fire” to make your readers think that we are somehow discussing fully automatic weapons? Machine guns have been strictly limited in this country since 1934. Are you somehow trying to imply that the NRA wants to overturn the law as it is written?

These rapid-fire weapons are a favorite of organized gangs and mass killers and a peril to law officers. So as we see it, the NRA's successful lobbying to lift that ban aids the bad guys.

Okay, you’re a newspaper. You are responsible to report the news. How about some facts to back up that statement? What gangs use “rapid-fire” weapons?

Unless, of course, you are referring to the standard, over-the-counter, semi-automatic pistols that are used regularly and daily by police and citizens alike. What “rapid-fire” weapons do these organized gangs and mass killers possess that are not the common firearms available to us all? If you are trying to ban these common, ordinary, “rapid-fire” weapons, are you not “trying to outlaw all guns”?

So as we see it, the NRA's successful lobbying to lift that ban aids the bad guys.

Sorry, rather than trying to make a case, you are just throwing dust in the air. What ban did the NRA successfully lobby to lift? Are you referring to the phoney “Assault Weapons Ban”? That law was only good for ten years. It’s passage in 1993 resulted in turning the control of the congress over to the Republicans in 1994. Don’t just say the NRA didn’t care for that law, say that the majority of registered voters didn’t care for it either.

By the way, how many arrests were made under that ban? And what effect did it have on reducing crime? Again, you’re a newspaper. Report the news. Recent studies have shown that the so-called “Assault Weapons Ban” had no effect whatsoever on reducing crime. That law was allowed to expire because it was completely ineffective and utterly abhorrent to a majority of voters.

Ditto for NRA's opposition to closing the gun-show loophole in the Brady Law, which requires licensed gun dealers to check with the FBI the background of buyers to ensure that they aren't felons or otherwise ineligible to own firearms.

Let us be very clear about this (since the media has been characteristically unclear), all federally licensed firearms dealers must run a background check on all of their purchasers. It doesn’t matter whether the purchase takes place at a gun show or at their stores. All dealers must run the background check for every sale. If more than one gun is purchase, that must be reported, too. There is no loophole there.

The rule does not apply to unlicensed dealers,

That’s right! If someone, anyone, wants to sell his firearm to his neighbor; he can do it without running a background check. There is no federal restriction on such a transfer. If a father or a grandfather wants to pass along a treasured firearm to a son or a grandson, he may do so without having to run a federal background check. That is the “gun show loophole” to which you refer.

If the same person were to go to a gun show and offer to sell one or two of his firearms, you think he should be federally regulated. We aren’t talking about a firearms dealer now, only someone who wants to sell one or two guns. Any more than that and the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives would be all over him. Whoever regularly sells firearms for a profit must be licensed. Such licensed dealers would be required to run a background check.

Your “loophole” isn’t about disreputable, unlicensed dealers, but only about those who sell so few firearms that the BATF doesn’t feel they need to be licensed. The BATF doesn’t think they need to be licensed, but you think they should be.

The rule does not apply to unlicensed dealers, who proliferate at gun shows,

Well, then that is a good thing, isn’t it? We have a safe area where firearms hobbists can gather to discuss their hobby and look at the various displays. A safe place where both licensed dealers, who sell for a profit, and ordinary, private citizens with only one or two guns to sell may meet, and enjoy one another’s company.

which, according to the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, thugs and gangsters do frequent. So do suspected suppliers of foreign terrorists, court documents suggest.

There are those who might be willing to say that the BATF themselves make up the bulk of thugs and gangsters frequenting gun shows. Even so, if such is the case one would think that studies would be able to confirm your suspicions. You are a newspaper. Tell us: What studies show that a significant portion of criminals obtain their firearms at gun shows? Is it not the fact that studies show us just the opposite? Is it not rather that when criminals are interviewed less than seven percent report they got their guns at such a gun show? Some studies show as little as two percent.

As for foreign terrorists, are we really concerned that a terrorist might buy a used .38 special, or a hunting rifle at a gun show? Foreign terrorists, almost by definition, can be armed by a sovereign state with military equipment far beyond what can be found at any gun show.

Rather than closing that loophole, the NRA calls for tougher enforcement of existing gun laws, such as the prohibition of gun ownership by felons. That issue is worth exploring. Still, authorities already conduct periodic crackdowns on illegal gun possession in Milwaukee, and judges tend to heighten penalties if a gun is involved in a crime.

Criminals, then, are only bothered during “periodic crackdowns”, but law abiding citizens are affected by the law all the time. Restrictive gun laws only affect criminals when they get caught, but such laws affect the law abiding every day.

When you say that “judges tend to heighten penalties if a gun is involved in a crime”, what you really mean is that prosecutors can use restrictive gun laws to get criminals to “plead down”, that is, prosecutors will drop the gun charges, if the perpetrator pleads guilty to a lesser offense.

Unfortunately, when an otherwise law abiding citizen gets caught in that net, there usually isn’t any “lesser included offense” for him to plead down to. Therefore it is not the criminals that these gun laws affect, but the private citizen who might have an old gun in his closet that doesn’t meet the Byzantine requirements of one of the 20,000 current firearms laws.

Besides, we don't understand why society can't take both approaches: Make it tougher for outlaws to obtain guns in the first place and crack down on them if they did manage to gain weapons illegally.

That would be a good idea if laws could be crafted that criminals would obey. Unfortunately, the problem is that criminals, by definition, do not obey the law. Therefore your more restrictive gun laws only affect those who are willing to keep them. The city of Washington D. C. has forbidden firearms to all of its residents for many years. Yet it consistently has one of the highest murder rates in the country. This is the result of the unilateral disarmament of the law abiding. Those who keep the law there don’t have any guns. Only the criminals are armed.

The NRA has campaigned - successfully, overall - to have each state enact a law permitting the carrying of concealed weapons. Wisconsin has been a holdout, however.

Gov. Jim Doyle vetoed concealed-carry bills. He was right to do so. We actually agree with the NRA that the law might do some good, by allowing license-holders to defend themselves. But we also note that such laws have done some ill elsewhere, leading to unjustified shootings or to harm to license-holders trying to thwart crime. In our judgment, the threat of the bad is greater than the promise of the good.

You write:” But we also note that such laws have done some ill elsewhere, leading to unjustified shootings or to harm to license-holders trying to thwart crime”. Fine, you’re a newspaper, tell us: who, and when, and where. How many such unjustified shootings have there been? Hundreds? Thousands? Why haven’t we heard about it? How many license-holders have come to harm while trying to defend themselves? Hundreds? Thousands? Again, why haven’t we heard about this? You are a newspaper: don’t just make a blanket statement like that – back it up with facts, if you have them.

Private citizens defend themselves with firearms everyday in this country. Oh, the numbers may vary depending on which study you look at. One study estimates several million defensive firearms usages each year. Other studies have estimates as low as only several hundred thousand such defensive firearms usages. Whichever study you choose to examine, one fact stands out clearly: there are hundreds of private citizens using firearms to defend themselves against criminals everyday – but not in Wisconsin.

So there you have some of our differences. Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett has invited NRA leaders to meet with him to discuss illegal guns. They should take him up on that offer. Homicides, most of which involve guns, are tormenting Milwaukee.

Homicides torment D.C., too. Perhaps your restrictive firearms laws are the cause rather than the solution. Disarming your citizens in the face of armed criminals doesn’t seem like the course of action that will most likely deter crime.

Surely, there is a way to safeguard the right to hunt and the right to self-defense and, at the same time, to tighten regulations to better keep guns out of the hands of outlaws and to trace firearms used in crimes. Barrett and the NRA leaders should try to reach that middle ground.

That would be nice, but it would also be very unlikely. Wisconsin is cursed with liberal newspapers that rail against gun crime, but not against gun criminals. A media that think it is a good thing for citizens to venture out of their houses unarmed, knowing that 85% of crimes take place outside of the home. It takes politicians with guts to face the facts and to face down a media that refuses to report honestly about gun rights, gun usage, and gun crime.

Meanwhile, help yourselves to tours of two of the city's signature companies: the Miller Brewing Co. and Harley-Davidson Motor Co. Browse works at the Milwaukee Art Museum. Consider moseying over to the Potawatomi Bingo Casino or to Miller Park, where the Milwaukee Brewers are hosting the Minnesota Twins.
Again, welcome. Enjoy.

No, thanks, you’ve made it rather clear that we aren’t wanted. You’ve also made it very clear that Milwaukee is hardly a city in which an unarmed citizen can feel safe. So we’ll spend our time enjoying the acres of firearms displays, and we’ll look forward to our return to states that value the rights of free men more than the spin of the media.

[Tither]

Ya know, the longer I come here and read the posts of my fellow gun owners, the more I am impressed with the collective wisdom generated here.

I know this can sound funny but I do believe that the American people can be trusted with the keys of liberty if they have all of the information. However, we gun owners have the deck stacked against us, because even Fox News the most right wing of our national media is at least somewhat anti-gun, and some of the reporters ate rabidly anti-gun. That is why I am very glad that each of you took the time to post these excellent posts for others to read.

Thanks!
George