Statement released by President Biden’s office on Sunday, February 14:

“Today, I am calling on Congress to enact commonsense gun law reforms, including requiring background checks on all gun sales, banning assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, and eliminating immunity for gun manufacturers who knowingly put weapons of war on our streets. We owe it to all those we’ve lost and to all those left behind to grieve to make a change. The time to act is now.”

February 14 was the anniversary of the of the massacre at the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida. Although none of the proposals mentioned on Sunday would have affected the tragedy in Florida the timing adds some emotional spin to the announcement. Dead kids are guaranteed to catch the public’s attention. Emotional spin doesn’t usually improve the quality of policy proposals so let’s pass on to some of the practical considerations.

“Commonsense” has a reassuring sound for many voters. That’s why politicians use it every time they can make it fit. All the more reason to examine the meaning obscured by the political music. The adjective assumes that the sense being sold is held in common by Americans.

Most of us are aware that the Gun Nut and Control Nuts do not share the same “sense.” There are millions among us who like guns and don’t feel they have an obligation to explain themselves. There are millions of others who don’t own guns, don’t like guns, and don’t think other people should like guns. So the government should stop them. This is kind of a cultural clash.

It may be that the pollsters can compile persuasive data showing that there are twice as many Control Nuts as Gun Nuts, An argument that majority rule principle decides the debate is useless since the Gun Nuts argue from principle. In this context counting votes has no more relevance than counting noses.

A serious campaign to reduce and restrict gun ownership would require an estimate of the loss of life and liberty this would require. We know that New York and Connecticut recently demanded registration of AR-15 rifles. Those states threaten fines and imprisonment for failure to comply. Only a fraction of those rifles have been registered and the dimensions of the disobedience confronted those state governments with the need for mass arrests. So they just left the law on the books and found other ways to bungle government work.

This point requires emphasis. If the Control Nuts aren’t willing to consider the cost of enforcement, the don’t deserve to be taken seriously.

Control Nuts argue that registering guns is no more onerous than registering automobiles. This sounds reasonable, but Gun Nuts can reply that freedom to drive without a license is not sanctioned by the Bill of Rights. The Second Amendment reads as follows “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.” Hordes of college graduates remember reading or hearing that this wording shows that the amendment was designed to protect the state militia, not the individual citizen.

Prof. Sanford Levinson, University of Texas Law School, has written extensively on constitutional issues. His bedrock beliefs are recognizably liberal, but his “The Embarrassing Second Amendment” column criticizes the militia argument. He argues that the Second does not support either the Gun Nuts or Control Nuts. He has criticized liberal lawyers as treating “the Second Amendment as the equivalent of an embarrassing relative whose mention brings a quick change of subject.”

He believes that “courts are likely to rule that Congress can do almost anything short of an outright prohibition of owning guns.” Gun Nuts won’t like that, but the Control Nuts should be aware that the old militia argument is not conclusive. Levinson has confessed that his earlier rejection of a personal right to keep and bear arms was a product of his personal prejudices not legal reasoning. The lesson here is simply that exclusive reliance on opinions ought not foreclose paying attention to disputed positions.

What is a weapon of war? A rifle, a Lugar, a crossbow, a battering ram, any kind of explosive, a combat knife, a flamethrower? I’m remembering here a call from a former student who called me with some exciting news; that New Jersey had no law against private ownership of flamethrowers. I don’t think he acted on this discovery, but I did point out that using flamethrowers for home defense would almost certainly guarantee collateral damage.

The term “assault weapon” would seem to include every kind of weapon except “conciliatory weapons.” The term “assault rifle” originates with a German prototype that Hitler has initially opposed. He changed his mind after getting the opinion of combat veterans. He decided to name it the SturmGewehr, Assault Rifle.

The Russians developed the same type, which is commonly called the AK47, the Kalashnikov Assault rifle. That is now the world’s most popular infantry weapon, but it is not legal in the United States. Biden wasn’t thinking about the origination of the term. All he needs to know is that “assault weapon” sounds mean.

John Frary of Farmington, the GOP candidate for U.S. Congress in 2008, is a retired history professor, an emeritus Board Member of Maine Taxpayers United, a Maine Citizen’s Coalition Board member, and publisher of FraryHomeCompanion.com. He can be reached at jfrary8070@aol.com.

Comments are not available on this story.