“To birders it might seem like we would be the number 1 purchaser of optics in the US but actually hunters, shooters, and other domestic terrorists far out-buy us.”“It’s much more profitable to create a nation of mass shooters, vigilantes, and people arming themselves with military grade weapons out of fear."
Is it any wonder opposing factions fail to ever find common ground ― this time will be no different. Ad hominem attacks like these are veritable non-starters. I get it, though. People are frustrated, angry, sad, and feel helpless to do anything about school and other mass-shootings. All of this grief and emotion stems from a simple but oft misunderstood bit of constitutional text, the prefatory and operative clauses of the Second Amendment:
“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."
This bit text does not give an American citizen the right to keep and bear arms; it only forbids government from removing that right ― a right that stands even if there was no Second Amendment. In the operative clause founders acknowledged that the people have a pre-existing right to keep and bear arms. The fact that any specific type of firearm is not mentioned is irrelevant. Semi-automatic pistols and rifles are the common arms and the Second Amendment prevents the government from making laws to keep the citizenry from owning them.
"Implicit in the debate between Federalists and Anti-Federalists were two shared assumptions. First, that the proposed new Constitution gave the federal government almost total legal authority over the army and militia. Second, that the federal government should not have any authority at all to disarm the citizenry. They disagreed only about whether an armed populace could adequately deter federal oppression."
The prefatory clause is also irrelevant to the operative intent ― it's full recognition that a pre-existing individual right exists to own guns, and the Supreme Court eventually came to the same conclusion in the landmark District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008). Constitutional framers merely cited one reason why the right wouldn't be infringed, but it wouldn't necessarily be the only one. Or do you think the founders were really that close to disarming the citizenry? There is absolutely zero historical evidence for that.
"A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined."― George Washington"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."― Thomas Jefferson"This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty.... The right of self defense is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction."― George Tucker"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."― Samuel Adams
It doesn't sound like they were ready to disarm the citizenry. What "right of the people" were they referring to in the operative clause and where else was it codified prior to the Bill of Rights?
As for gun violence, I cannot offer a solution because I don't know of a realistic one that would stop gun-related homicides in the US ― operative word REALISTIC. Reduce them? I think that can be done. But if there is a path to it, putting law-abiding firearms owners into the same camp as domestic terrorists, vigilantes, and mass-shooters is the surest way to keep that avenue closed.
Fast-forward two decades later. Just in the past year I've experienced two confrontations outdoors where I felt somewhat threatened. In one situation a man came out from behind some brush and started looking in my direction. I turned around but there was only prairie. I finally asked “Can I help you?” He replied “Yes. You're blocking my view.” It went downhill from there as he unleashed a barrage of expletives at me for no apparent reason. However, and fortunately, I talked my way out this and a different situation. Nothing bad happened other than getting a little freaked out. That's being lucky. Naturally, it's my sincere and profound hope that I'm never forced to use a firearm to defend myself, but I'm not foolish and I keep thinking about murders (solved and unsolved) that have occurred at a few of my favorite birding haunts. There are simply too many unhinged and scary people out there.
For my minuscule part, I'm reading mass-shooting expert Dr. Peter Langman's book Warning Signs: Identifying School Shooters Before They Strike. It's impossible to get rid of the millions of semi-automatic firearms in the US ― accept that now! At least Langman shows how in most mass-shootings there was someone who knew something about a shooter's intent but ignored warning signs, and then failed to do anything about it. As a citizenry, I think it's our moral duty to educate ourselves and learn what these warning signs are. The smallest detail, while it could be a false-positive, could keep innocent people from becoming advocacy statistics. Of course, we need able and willing law enforcement officers to act, defend, and save lives.
We are all on duty.