• Home
  • Archive
  • Media Kit
  • Contact Us
  • May 9, 2025

The Madison Times

The Paper That's More Than Black and White

  • News
    • Local News
    • National News
    • International News
    • Sports News
    • Education News
  • Columns
    • Columnists
    • Editorials
    • Letters to the Editor
    • Life Lessons with Alex Gee
  • Events
  • Health
  • Finance
  • Lifestyle
  • Classifieds
  • Community
    • Middle Spread
  • Milwaukee
EXCEPT WHERE INDICATED, THE OPINIONS EXPRESSED ON THIS PAGE ARE NOT NECESSARILY THOSE OF THE MADISON TIMES

Share this:

  • Tweet
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Click to print (Opens in new window) Print

The Right to Bear Arms — Within Reason

August 17, 2019

By LaKeshia Myers

Representative LaKeshia Myers

Sixty-two. The number of individuals killed in mass shootings in 2019. We have a little over four months remaining in the year and according to Time magazine, we have had eight mass shootings this year. I am tired of the “stand with (insert city here)” hashtags and the standard “thoughts and prayers” that seem to be evoked after every tragedy in this country. Enough is enough, America has a serious gun problem and it needs to be addressed.

Proponents of gun rights often argue that their right to own guns is guaranteed by the second amendment. While this is true, it must be used within the proper context. If one actually takes time to read the United States Constitution, you will find that the right to bear arms is guaranteed under the auspices of a well-regulated militia. It has been argued that the Army National Guard, Air National Guard, and state-wide Naval National Guards are all well-regulated and they qualify as militia—therefore private citizens should not be permitted to own guns. Even if taking into consideration the fact that civilians can be deputized as militia in times of federal emergencies, it is my fervent belief that civilians do not need and should not have access to military-grade weapons. The founding fathers shot guns that needed gun powder and took at least one minute to load—not high powered AK-47s or AR-15s.

We have the opportunity to do exactly what the constitution calls us to do and this to regulate the militia. Sensible gun ownership falls under the auspice of “well-regulated”. I do not understand the opposition to a forty-eight hour waiting period, closing the gun show loop hole, red flag laws, closing the “boyfriend loophole”, or creating a gun owners license. These things seem to promote responsible gun ownership.

They don’t restrict the right to own a firearm or restrict hunting ability. I am certain that many of my colleagues on the right would understand these concepts and agree to enact some measures that would keep Americans safer.

But not without the backing of the National Rifle Association (NRA). The Holy Grail of gun ownership, the NRA which was founded in 1871 to improve rifle marksmanship has since expanded to become one of the largest lobbying organizations in the United States. I find it interesting that the only time they supported gun control was during the 1960s when the Black Panther Party for Self-Defense openly carried firearms (which was legal) through the streets of California. Thad Morgan, in his article The NRA Supported Gun Control When the Black Panthers Had the Weapons stated, “In 1967, thirty members of the Black Panthers protested on the steps of the California statehouse armed with .357 Magnums, 12-gauge shotguns and .45-caliber pistols and announced, ‘The time has come for black people to arm themselves.’ The display so frightened politicians—including California governor Ronald Reagan—that it helped to pass the Mulford Act, a state bill prohibiting the open carry of loaded firearms, along with an addendum prohibiting loaded firearms in the state Capitol. The 1967 bill took California down the path to having some of the strictest gun laws in America and helped jumpstart a surge of national gun control restrictions” (Morgan, 2018).

While the intersection of race and gun ownership are quite interesting, it should not be ignored that overwhelmingly mass shooters have been white males. It should also be duly noted that the majority of federal and state elected officials are also white males. This begs to question if or why this demographic is uncomfortable regulating the behavior of their peers? Yet this same demographic has no issue regulating others who do not fit the bill (women and people of color).

As a legislator, I view it as my duty to do what is best for my constituents and serve with the best intention. I do not oppose gun ownership, but I do support responsibility and gun regulation. It is time for us to not just give lip service to victims of gun violence, but actually do something proactive to ensure public safety.

Share this:

  • Tweet
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Click to print (Opens in new window) Print

Popular Interests In This Article: LaKeshia Myers

Read More - Related Articles

  • The Mis-education of Wisconsin Republicans
  • All Politics are Local: Politicizing the Education Landscape in Wisconsin
  • Time is Money: Exploring the 21st Century Poll Tax Levied by the Georgia G.O.P.
  • Are Your Edges on Life Support?: Weaving Our Way into a World of Trouble
  • In Times like These, We Need Common Sense


Connect With Us

Become Our Fan On Facebook
Find Us On Facebook


Follow Us On Twitter
Follow Us On Twitter

Editorials

Karma Chavez
Amanda Zhang
Julianne Malveaux
Benjamin Chavis
George Curry

Journalists

Jacklin Bolduan
Brianna Rae
Aarushi Agni
Rob Franklin
Claire Miller

Topics

Brown Girl Green $
Young Gifted & Black
Universally Speaking
Ask Progress
Civil Rights

Topics

Police Shooting
Police Brutality
Black Lives Matter
NAACP
Racism

Politicians

Barack Obama
Hillary Clinton
Gwen Moore
Paul Soglin
Scott Walker

Contact Us

Phone:
414-449-4860

Copyright © 2025 Courier Communications. All Rights Reserved.
We use third-party advertising companies to serve ads when you visit our website. These companies may use information (not including your name, address, email address, or telephone number) about your visits to this and other websites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services of interest to you. If you would like more information about this practice and to know your choices about not having this information used by these companies, click here.