What is the justification for certain weapons?

4:34 PM, Jan. 31, 2013  |  Comments
  • Filed Under

As Congress begins hearings on President Obama's proposals on gun control, and sales of guns go up, the country is poised for a showdown over the Second Amendment to the Constitution.

We live in an area where guns are part of our lifestyle. Deer hunters and sportsmen call central Wisconsin home. From shotguns to handguns - and everything in between - we own it and use it. We understand guns are part of our culture and heritage.

And yet we have to pause after mass shootings where gunmen used assault rifles with high-capacity clips to kill people.

We struggle with finding a justification for why any citizen would need an assault rifle and a magazine that contains dozens of rounds of ammunition.

If you're hunting, and you don't hit your target with the first or second bullet, it's gone - you're not going to get it. Having a clip with more than 10 bullets in it isn't going to help you.

If you're target practicing, is it that much more trouble to change out a clip after 10 rounds?

We challenge readers to justify why assault weapons and high-capacity clips are needed. Even most police don't have more than a dozen bullets in a single clip at their disposal. And their job - in theory - is to protect us from those who would cause us harm.

If we go back to the original wording of the Second Amendment - included with this editorial - it's not about protecting hunters' rights or ensuring people can carry a concealed weapon. Our nation's founders only recently had won their freedom from British oppression. They worried the country's leaders might not hold the Constitution's ideals close. The Second Amendment was designed to protect people from the government by ensuring the government couldn't take away their guns.

It was written at a time before assault rifles and high-capacity magazines existed. But firearms were seen then as providing a greater protection for citizens.

There are some people today who worry our government does not have our best interests at heart and that taking away certain guns will lead to an erosion of all gun rights. And then how will we protect ourselves from a corrupt government? What happens if the Second Amendment - the whole Constitution - goes away?

And yet, the amendment doesn't specify the type of guns, or the amount or kind of ammo. It wasn't meant to protect against mass murderers opening fire in shopping malls, schools or houses of worship.

We need a logical explanation - a practical application - for assault weapons and clips that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition. Eliminating these weapons won't remove the threat. If someone really wants to do harm, he (or she) will find a way - be it with a bomb, a gun, a knife or some other weapon. But why should we make it easy?

Share your ideas by writing to the editor at 101 W. Riverview Expressway, Suite 131, Wisconsin Rapids WI 544985 or editor@


Join Our Team!


Gannett Careers

Things To Do

See all Events