Mark Smith: Felzkowski’s gun views don’t mesh with today’s world

Dear Editor: In a recent press release accompanying a proposed bill making Wisconsin a Second Amendment sanctuary, my state senator, Mary Felzkowski, stated, “It’s been said time and again — our Second Amendment right to bear arms is the only thing protecting the American people from an overreaching government. Our Constitution is set in stone. You don’t get to pick and choose which sections you adhere to and respect based off of a political agenda, and this bill makes that crystal clear.” Given such statements and her political party’s skewed values, it is safe to say Felzkowski is probably also a strict constructionist. In this context, this means that a “well-regulated militia” is allowed; indeed, this amendment’s roots come from negotiations between various states in the late 18th century, some of whom already had a militia like today’s National Guard. This also means approved weaponry would be muskets and flintlock pistols. Most legal experts think SCOTUS incorrectly decided the Heller decision through right-wing judicial activism, throwing out centuries of historical jurisprudence. I don’t see how even today’s “arms” can protect against undetectable drones who can kill from great distance. Meanwhile, our militaristic country’s violence continues unabated; last year, there were 19,000-plus gun deaths (not counting 24,000-plus gun suicides) and 39,000-plus gun wounds, indicating an ongoing public health epidemic.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.