A Dangerous Message

My wife and I were watching the local weather report the other morning when the commercial popped up on the screen. The product being offered was not too surprising---your very own AR-15 rifle. The message was unnerving.

The company making the offer boasts a name that sounds as though it might be an official government-based entity. According to the off-screen narrator, one purpose of making AR-15s available is to guarantee ‘‘freedom.” To guard against “tyranny” is another goal.

On the company’s website, I found the following mission statement (capitalization included):

OUR MISSION IS TO MAXIMIZE FREEDOM, NOT OUR PROFITS. WE WANT TO SELL AS MANY AR-15 AND AK-47 RIFLES AS WE CAN AND PUT THEM INTO COMMON USE IN AMERICA TODAY. OUR FOCUS ISN'T TO MAKE MASSIVE AMOUNTS OF MONEY BUT TO SPREAD FREEDOM AS FAR AND WIDE AS POSSIBLE. OUR LEGACY WILL NOT BE ABOUT MONEY; WE WANT OUR LEGACY TO BE ABOUT MAXIMIZING AMERICAN FREEDOM. AND WE WORK EVERY DAY TO DO JUST THAT. WE MAKE HIGH-QUALITY FIREARMS AT AFFORDABLE PRICES FOR EVERYONE! THEN WE BACK THEM WITH A FULL LIFETIME WARRANTY.

A more detailed explanation of the company’s objective indicates the desire to take advantage of a US Supreme Court reference to the “in common use” standard relative to firearms covered by the Second Amendment. According to that criteria, originally stated in United States v. Miller (1939), the Second Amendment right to bear arms extents to any firearm found to be “in common use.” By aggressively expanding the availability of A-15s, a semi-automatic rifle that easily can be converted to automatic operation, the company intends to cement legal access to this deadly weapon.   

This arms manufacturer is turning the First Amendment on its head. Giving to our citizens the right to freedom of speech was considered by the Founding Fathers to be a means of protecting, even promoting, democracy which requires open debate combined with fair elections. Cynically offering AR-15s to protect “freedom” begs the question: freedom from what? The annoying opinions and wishes of people who disagree with us?

Such a strategy is not only at odds with democracy, but it is especially disturbing, even dangerous, in today’s America.

In the past year, anger over the deaths of some African Americans at the hands of police has led to widespread protests in several American cities. One reliable source has identified more than 7,000 Black Lives Matter protests across the US between May and August of this year. Those protests have been met with counter protests, frequently involving armed white supremacists.

Donald J. Trump has inflamed the situation further by labelling BMU protesters “anarchists” and “terrorists” and by praising would-be vigilantes like 17-year old Kyle Rittenhouse. Last August, the teenager killed two men during unrest in Kenosha, Wisconsin. Armed with an AR-15, Rittenhouse showed up in Kenosha without authorization from local law enforcement officers. He is not even a resident of Wisconsin.

Trump also deployed federal agents during the protests in Portland, Oregon, against the wishes of Oregon authorities. He threatened to use federal forces in other cities where protests occur, but apparently ran into opposition within his own administration to such a step.

During the presidential campaign Trump made endless unsubstantiated claims of voter fraud and accused election officials and other unknown parties of rigging the voting process to his disadvantage. He is now engaged in an effort to persuade Republican state legislators to replace popularly elected presidential electors with those committed to him, an undemocratic act if not an unconstitutional one.

Only a few GOP members of the US Congress have distanced themselves from Trump’s inflammatory rhetoric and electoral machinations, abetting Trump in his refusal to cooperate with President-Elect Joe Biden. Trump’s intransigence is obviously at attempt to thwart the will of the American people and de-legitimize our election process. It also puts at risk effective implementation of the rollout of coronavirus vaccines in the midst of a pandemic that has already taken nearly 275,000 American lives.

In many parts of America, the country is a tinder box. Paramilitary groups encouraged by Trump’s endorsement have blatantly sought to intimidate critics of the president. When armed opponents of Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer's stay-at-home order invaded the Michigan legislature in May, Trump praised them and tweeted “LIBERATE MICHIGAN.” Later in October, the FBI uncovered a plot to kidnap the Michigan chief executive and revealed there was a similar plan to seize the governor of Virginia.   

Mankind has wrestled for many centuries with the almost universal problem of how to regulate the use of weapons. Whether for purposes of defense or to conquer and subdue an enemy, weapons have been viewed as necessary. Maintaining order and security, domestically or internationally, requires weapons of various types and levels of destructive capability.

Generally speaking, the destructive capability needed domestically is assumed to be considerably less than that required in the international arena. In neither setting is it viewed as wise to allow unfettered availability or use of any and all weapons. At some point, restraint is essential.

The US Supreme Court has wrestled with how to interpret the Second Amendment for many years. Thus far, it has not denied government at any level the authority to place reasonable limits on access to certain types of firearms, especially those frequently used to the detriment of public safety. Specious advertising seeking to manipulate court decisions for personal profit is not healthy for the future of our democracy.