Folks, the day is coming if it isn’t already here when we’re all going to have to start thinking about how we’ll deal with two impending cultural disasters capable of ripping the fabric of our society asunder.  Civilian weapon control (the second Amendment) and women’s reproduction rights under Roe v. Wade.

I can give you an opinion on these subjects because I’m old enough to have seen all of it in real action. I’ve been involved close up in firefights in which “assault rifles” resulted in the death of young men.  So you can take my opinions for what you think they might be worth, or not. We’ll start with the impending battle for gun control.

Those citizens who cling to the second Amendment as a guarantee they can possess and operate any kind of military weapon ad lib are spoiling for a fight and it’s been coming for a long time. Opponents of gun control believe the meat & potatoes of the Amendment to be taken literally: “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”.  Gun control advocates interpret the Amendment more figuratively.  The Amendment’s primary justification is to prevent the United States from needing a standing army. Preventing the United States from starting a professional army attacking the standing government in a coup, in fact, was the single most important goal of the Second Amendment. 

The authors of the Bill of Rights were not concerned with an “individual” or “personal” right to bear arms. The founders had no more conception of an AR-15 rapid-fire military weapon than they did a Boeing 747. However, the landmark 2008 Supreme Court case District of Columbia v. Heller, held that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to possess firearms independent of service in a state militia and to use firearms for traditionally lawful purposes, including self-defense within the home. This set the stage for a political defense of the 2^nd rather than a practical one.

But there is a very practical reason why possession and operation of firearms should be controlled, especially rapid-fire military weapons specifically constructed to kill humans, individually and in groups. It’s reasonable for individuals to give up some “rights” constructed in antiquity in order to promote a much greater good. Much like forgoing the right of some free speech to avoid the catastrophe of yelling fire in a crowded theater. The founders with sluggish muskets propped against their door had no conception of the possible damage to the citizenry from modern rapid-fire weapons turned on them. Defense of the 2^nd Amendment has now become a politically “conservative” ideal which means defenders are “all in” against any form of regulation no matter how commonsensical, a stand-alone paragon no matter what risk/benefit might exist.

The year 2020 was the deadliest gun violence year in two decades, nearly 20,000 souls massacred by various iterations of firearms, two thirds of who were suicides. There were 611 mass shootings in 2020. Compared to 22 other high-income nations, the U.S. gun-related homicide rate is 25 times higher. The standard refrain of gun control opponents is “the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun”, but statistics modify this cliché greatly. According to figures from the National Crime Victimization Survey, people defended themselves with a gun in only 0.9% of crimes from 2007 to 2011. This data show that people use guns for self-defense very rarely and argues that the risks of owning a gun outweigh the benefits of having one in the extremely rare case where you might need to defend yourself. 

A Washington Post article stated that the percentage of people who told The NRA they used a gun in self-defense is similar to the percentage of Americans who said they were abducted by aliens. Even if someone wanted to use a gun in self-defense, they probably wouldn’t be very successful. Many people who carry a gun aren’t properly trained to use it, especially in panic situations. The argument that as many gun deaths occur in States having the strictest gun regulation laws smoothly fails to mention that weapons are imported into these areas in car trunks from States with much more lax gun laws. Gun regulation laws are only effective when spread out uniformly over the entire country.

Gun related massacres would seem to prompt effective action from reasonable people to stop them. Conservative Republicans and the NRA have shown themselves not to be entirely reasonable. On October 27, 2018, Robert D. Bowers, armed with an AR-15-style assault rifle and multiple handguns, killed 11 worshippers in the Tree of Life Congregation in the Pittsburgh neighborhood of Squirrel Hill. He also wounded four police officers, one seriously and two other individuals. Following this atrocious act of hatred, the citizens of Pittsburgh came together to demand political action, prompting the City Council to propose three gun control ordinances in December 2018. One prohibits the use of specified “assault weapons” within the city area, the second prohibits large capacity magazines (holding more than ten rounds) and most importantly, a “Red Flag law. On October 29, 2019, Judge Joseph M. James of Allegheny County, buoyed by the NRA and conservative Republicans struck down all three ordinances for violating state constitution. Members of the City Council hope to take this case to the Supreme Court to expand Pittsburgh’s and other municipalities’ ability to pass gun regulation specific to their needs. 

One can only hope that the SCOTUS will invoke the rule of common sense, ruling if not to completely protect the citizenry from firearm massacre, at least make it harder for killers to ply their deadly vocation. The “red Flag” law (Extreme Risk Protection Order (ERPO) is a reasonable start to protect innocents from gun violence.  The ERPO is a legal tool to remove firearms from people who are deemed to be at high risk of committing violence. Law enforcement or family members may petition a court to temporarily suspend an individual’s right to possess or purchase a firearm after submission of evidence that the person is a danger to themselves or others. In extreme cases in which an individual presents a clear and immediate danger, courts may grant ex parte orders to confiscate weapons, administered immediately without notice to the recipient. Ex parte orders are designed as an emergency measure to stop the threat of imminent violence. They require legally acceptable evidence and signing off by a judge, not much if any different than many other emergency measures affecting the citizenry. But the “conservative” political advocates consider “any” regulation to be a violation of the 2^nd. Sorry if 20 children are wiped out at Sandy Hook by a rapid fire Bushmaster. Acceptable collateral damage. 

Critics of ERPOs question due process: Do ERPOs provide police and petitioners a means to conduct illegal searches or intimidate enemies? Again, this brings up the much larger issue of risk/benefit. The potential for all kinds of abuse greatly exceeds the exceptionally minuscule benefit and regulation does not mean wrenching firearms out of the hands of authentic sportsmen. The potential for such weapons to spread catastrophe quickly and efficiently so greatly exceeds the common bolt-action hunting rifle that they simply should not be allowed except under critical regulation for those with some convincing reason to have one. There is no practical use of rapid-fire military weapons with large capacity magazines (easily converted to automatic fire) other than for trophies on ones wall, and those are easily converted to non-functionality. 

So effective regulation of firearms in civilian hands seems to be a reasonable thing for society to adopt. It’s not a legal issue; it’s simply a public health issue and should be treated as such. Whether we will see any of this come to fruit depends greatly on how much saturation of “conservative” politicians there will be in the halls of congress for the 2022 mid-term and 2024 Presidential elections. The National Rifle Association, long time opponent of any form of effective gun regulation, may not be a player as they are currently embroiled in massive fraud lawsuits. We’ll see in time.

Coming soon:  Will the SCOTUS, packed with “conservatives” be all-in to repeal Roe v. Wade.