Responding to Anti-Abortion Activists After Our Reproductive Rights are Gone

 First off, thank you.

We’re entering an America where women and girls are forced to carry out their pregnancies. Rape victims will be forced to bear and deliver the children of their abusers. Children will be forced, by the state's power and the threat of criminal prosecution, to relinquish control over their lives.

There are a great number of people who have voted for and helped bring us to this horrific new reality. Most of them lack the basic conviction to own it and admit this is what they wanted, or at least conceded their role in bringing it about. It’s refreshing to see someone who will state that this new situation, however oppressive, is something they have deliberately sought and find desirable.

I don’t agree that it is desirable, of course.

First off, we are not generally required, by law, to give of our bodies to sustain the lives of others. Even if a real, living, breathing human needs a new kidney, a blood transfusion, or a bone marrow transplant - you are not a murderer for failing to provide it.

Every day, in every community, people die. Many of them could have survived, a least a little longer, with interventions that are much less strenuous than a 9-month, dangerous, life-transforming ordeal. Living in a free society means we get to choose when, and how much, we will give of ourselves to sustain the lives of others. As a legal matter, nobody should be forced by the state to use their body to sustain the life of another.

We should (but no longer do) have a right to bodily autonomy. But I agree there are critical moral distinctions around what is and is not a “person” - which is, of course, the crux of this issue.

The progress of sperm and egg combining and growing and gestating and ultimately, potentially, resulting in a live birth of a human baby is relatively well understood. It is also a fuzzy continuum, with an uncertain outcome, that begins in a very un-person-like state. The question of where you draw the “person” line has no fixed, correct answer. 

Nonetheless, I understand that you are prepared to draw that line, that you feel strongly that the line must be drawn at or near conception (please correct me if I’m wrong), and that you feel that this preference of yours must be strictly and precisely enforced by state law and that anyone who fails to abide by it rightly deserves criminal prosecution and imprisonment. 

So, given the inevitable, horrible outcomes of this state imposition - I have to ask: Why are you doing this? What makes you so sure you’re right that you would impose it on everyone and strip away our right to control our own partners, children, and lives? 

Does your certainly come from faith? I’m not religious. I don’t feel that any particular religious text should define American law. But even within the bible, I’m not aware of any passage stating that someone is fully human at the moment of conception. It wouldn’t matter to me, but aren’t such things relevant to you?

Even with contradictory text, you might still claim your conviction comes from a divine source of revealed truth. Even if that’s a firm tenet of your faith, surely you are aware that not everyone shares that faith. Do you believe in religious freedom? If religious freedom means anything, it means that nobody should be compelled by law to surrender control of their lives based on religious beliefs they do not share. The freedom to abide by your own faith is among the rights that are being thrown away.

Perhaps you are so firm in your faith that you would see it imposed absolutely on everyone. You need to recognize everyone who does not share your conviction will be rightfully angry at having their fundamental rights stripped away in the name of your faith. You would object if you risked imprisonment by failing to abide by the arbitrary tenets of some other faith. You should expect similar resistance to the imposition of yours. 

But perhaps your conviction isn’t purely based on faith. Maybe you feel compelled by science or morality. I’ve heard mention of tiny toes and heartbeat-like electrical impulses. The plain fact is that even under natural processes (or divine choice, if you prefer) less than a third of fertilized eggs end up as live births. Many fertilized eggs are simply washed away, unnoticed and unmourned. Often pregnancies result in stillbirth and miscarriages. Both biological and theological evidence suggests that embryos are not particularly sacred. But under our new pregnancy police-state we can be confident that many miscarriages will become murder investigations as zealous prosectors ensure that nobody is feloniously trying to determine the course of their own life. 

If you truly care about “unborn lives”, targeting miscarriages and infant mortality would be much more welcome, and less freedom-destroying projects than criminalizing pregnancy. There’s plenty of work to be done in neonatal care, maternity services, sex education, access to contraception, health care, racial disparities, and anti-poverty. Historically, anti-abortion advocates don’t have a strong track record in supporting these initiatives. They do have a history of opposing women’s rights, opposing women’s equality, and attempting to control the sexual lives of young and unmarried women. These perceptions raise questions about your actual motivations. 

I (mostly) try to be dispassionate in these discussions, but it’s not at all an abstract philosophical issue for me. I’ve been in the room when the doctor informed us that they thought my wife had an ectopic pregnancy. And that it would kill her. We instructed the doctor to terminate that pregnancy. Do I deserve to go to prison? How about the 19-year-old, with a shitty, abusive boyfriend, who makes the same decision? What does she deserve?

Before our sons were born, my wife conceived twins. One of them was stillborn, and the other, our daughter, was born prematurely and died in infancy. In the lived experience of my own life, there’s a profound difference between the two. The little girl who lived, however briefly, will always be loved and remembered by us. The one that didn’t survive the womb, is not. 

This is not at all unusual. Churches, families, parents, and institutions all recognize that actual babies that arrive, alive are people we are excited to welcome into this world. But we also recognize that this is not the outcome for many, the majority even, of pregnancies. These losses can be mourned, but they should not be crimes. 

As another example, let us consider the nice, young, married couple that would like to have a child and have trouble conceiving one. They undergo IVF fertilization, and in the process of creating the child they will raise and cherish, they create and destroy dozens of embryos. Do we celebrate them? Or are they monstrous destroyers of state-protected “unborn lives”?

Not so long ago, when we had protected rights in the matter, these were interesting moral questions that we could debate. That’s no longer the case. Those rights are gone. At the very least, it would be nice to know under what circumstances we can be regarded as murderers, and what the basis, if any, for these distinctions are. It would also be good to have an understanding of under what circumstances we are to be granted by the state a measure of control over the most consequential, profound, and transformative aspects of our own lives.

I notice that you’ve asked me to “Choose life”. I assume this was written in some prior era when we had rights in the matter and there were choices to be made. Pasted into the current situation, where those choices are no longer available and have been replaced with threats of criminal prosecution, your request seems in rather poor taste.

The Choice to Have Children is the Fundamenatal Choice of Our Lives: We'll Miss it Now that it's Gone

 Family is everything. Who do you love? Will you have children together? At what stage in your life will you have children? How many? How will you manage those burdens, those challenges, those joys together? 

More than where you live, more than where you work, these questions about family and children -  whether, when, how, and with whom - are absolutely central to who you are. They are the choices that define your life. 

I find it astonishing, and tragic, that anyone would want to take those choices away. From everyone. It seems impossible that anyone would be so insistent that the right to control your own body does not belong to Americans. I’m saddened that the fundamental choice of with whom you will have and raise children is not contained within their definition of what it means to live in freedom. People who throw around phrases like “liberty” and “limited government” are insistent that the defining choices of our lives do not belong to us. These are not rights that we have. The government gets to make those decisions. 

Everyone who has had multiple (opposite sex) partners, everyone who had sex as a teenager, everyone who had sex, at any time, with someone with whom they were not fully prepared to raise the child that could have been conceived right then and there - and that is a group that includes almost everyone - all of those people benefitted enormously from the rights that they enjoyed. Until now. 

Those fundamental rights have been taken from all of us.

And for what?

You Are Empowered: Mastering Dungeons & Dragons Adventurers League

A little over a year ago I decided to get back into RPGs. I quickly gravitated to the role of Dungeon Master for D&D's Adventurer's League (AL) and I've kept that up running games once or twice a week in local stores.

In that time, I've refined my system for running games. I thought I would share my advice for getting the most out of your games in D&D's Adventures League.

You are Empowered

Adventurer's League is Dungeons & Dragons. The role of the Dungeon Master is not fundamentally changed in AL. There are restrictions on what character players can bring to the table. The rewards the players can walk away with are limited by the adventure and AL rules. Within the adventure, you are the DM. You have all the powers and responsibilities that come with the role.

Your first responsibility is to the story. Everyone is there to have fun. Everyone should be there for an adventure. You have the power, but also the obligation, to challenge the players. You have a sacred mandate to make them sweat. Work with the players to shape the best story that you can. In pursuit of that goal you can (you should!) improvise, surprise them, and reward creativity. You have the power to interpret any situation and adjudicate the rules however you see fit. Use this power wisely. Use it to enhance the story.

 There is plenty of on-line advice on dos and don't. Like all advice (including this post) it's up to you to decide what guidance to follow and which you will not. Find a style that works for you. Your guiding principals are the pursuit of adventure and fun.  

The Adventure is the Script. You are the Director.

I enjoy the creative aspect of DMing. Initially, I was worried about being restricted to stories written by other people instead of coming up with my own. Now I really embrace it. There are a ton of wonderful, creative, adventures available. Running them doesn't limit my creativity. It unleashes it.

I think of each session I'll be running as a movie I'll be directing. I treat the adventure as a (rather rough) script. I want to respect and take advantage of the creativity, talent, and inspiration of the author. But, like any good director, I also want to make my mark on it. I want to use these ingredients to tell the best story that I can.

Generally, I know what adventures I'll be running several weeks in advance. I download, print them out, and read them long before I intend to run them. I'm running an adventure or two each week. So, I usually have several adventures lying around, in my queue, at any given time.

I read over the adventure. Then I let it marinate for a while. I think about them at work, when I'm in the car, washing dishes, going about my day. What's special and unique about this adventure? What genre is it? What's the story? Who are the antagonists and what do they want? Who are the NPCs and what are they like? What are our action scenes? What's the best pacing for this story? How challenging will it be? 

What I want to do is figure out what is cool and interesting and unique about this particular adventure. Then I want to lean into that - figure out how show that, use it and enhance it. 

I also consider things that the adventure, as written, maybe doesn't do so well. How well does it tell it's own story? How well defined and interesting are the NPCs? Can I make them more interesting? What does it do to surprise the players? 

I think about how I can bring out the greatness of each adventure. I think about what I can do to address the weaknesses of the adventure. I incorporate those ideas into my adventure planning.

Prep Doesn't Have to Be Work

Most of my adventure "prep" time is really in the noodling, daydreaming, and thinking through the adventure. It's not work. It's the opposite. It's fun. 

Over the days and weeks, I'll go back and skim the adventure a few times and maybe do a close re-read of a few sections. Within a few days of my "run date", I'll have mapped out in my head how I want things to go. I'll have a handle on the characters, scenes, and action sequences and how I intend to run them. 

At that point, I'll prepare my notes. I prepare a single piece of paper, in two columns. I write down names or characters and locations. I'll do quick reminder of each scene. For fights, I'll note the types and number of each adversary. For traps, I'll note the saves and damage. Typically, I can fit everything I'll need to remember on a single piece of paper. 

If the adventure involves fighting spell-casters (and most of them do), I'll have given thought to which spells are likely to be cast. I'll look up those spells and paste the description into my notes. I'll also separate out the stat blocks for the adversaries from the rest of the adventure, and put those with my notes as well.

With that packet - notes, spells, monsters - I tend to have everything I need. I'll have the adventure print-out if I need it. But generally, I won't be spending much time looking at it. I've got my plan. I've got my notes. When the unexpected happens, I can look it up, or make it up. 

For the final steps, I'll grab the maps and minis I'll need from my collection and set those aside. I have a reasonable collection of both, but they are something of an afterthought. I can comfortably make do as needed.

Maps, minis, notes, plan. I'm ready to run.

Uninhabitable Earth: Life After Warming

I've recently finished reading David Wallace-Wells' book The Uninhabitable Earth. It is a sobering, terrifying, and absolutely essential book. It also offers a potent counter to the many lies that we hear and tell ourselves about global warming.



Lie Number 1: This is an issue about prior and future generations.

More than half of all greenhouse gasses released into the atmosphere have been released since 1990. Some changes and warming are already unavoidable. But, if we do not make radical reductions in human emissions by 2050, the damage will be catastrophic and irreversible.

The vast majority of greenhouse admissions have happened and will continue to happen during our lifetimes. Most of it has occurred since we became aware of the dangers of global warming. And it will continue to compound indefinitely. If we do not act then we will condemn all of humanity for every future generation. That sounds like a ridiculous exaggeration. It isn't one.

We, the people alive today, have the only chance to address this problem.



Lie Number 2: It won't be that bad. "Nature lovers" might care, but humanity will be fine.

We are already beginning to see the effects of a warming world: more hurricanes, more wildfires, flooding, heat waves, etc... This is the very beginning. It will continue and it will continue to get worse. As the temperatures rise, year after year, tiny increases - fractions of a degree in a global average - will have a compounding and relentless effect.

Wildfires will continue to eradicate communities. Higher temperatures will render much of the earth essentially uninhabitable. Storms will overwhelm and flood areas where people live on a regular basis - including many of our largest and most populous cities. Water supplies will dry up. Heat waves and droughts will endanger much of the world's food supply. Season after season.Year after year. Without end. The cumulative effect will lead to massive migration, dislocation, and unrest.

Our current path puts us on course for a world that is very different from the one we live in. This is not in some far-flung future. We are seeing it now. We'll continue to see the effects accumulate in the years and decades to come. By the end of this century, the world could be violently transformed. And the changes will continue.



Lie Number 3: We have bigger problems right now. 

With most policy, political, and societal issues we can make changes. Politicians serve limited terms. They can be voted out. Their policies can be reversed. Tax policies can be altered. Health care plans can be enacted. The process of change can be slow, partial, and infuriating. But with time and enough dissatisfied voters, it can happen.

Or sometimes change doesn't happen. We muddle along for decades dealing with inefficiencies, sub-optimal conditions, and even gross injustice. But, we can. We do. We muddle along. Life goes on. And when the conditions are finally right for a change, it can happen.

Global warming is not like that. If the good people of 2040 or 2062 or 2087 decide that they have had enough - it will be too late. If they decide, only then, to get serious, then we will be on the wrong side of irreversible. Dramatic action in future years can prevent an even worse fate. It won't allow them to un-melt the glaciers, refill aquifers, or turn parched fallow fields back into fertile land.

The time to act to is now. We can continue to strive for progress elsewhere. But we really don't have more important issues to work on.



Lie number 4: This is a partisan issue.

Nobody will escape the effects of catastrophic climate change. It doesn't matter where you live. Rural, urban, north, south, coastal, inland - everyone will be affected. We're all in this together. And everything and everyone you care about is under threat.

We know that tribalism has an extremely powerful pull. We can see that the human capacity for rationalization is limitless. You can find reasons to look away, to ignore the problem, to oppose the solutions, to wait-and-see. There is no shortage of people offering convenient excuses and lies.

But you can choose to see the truth. You can choose to confront it and all of it's terrible implications. You can support, request, require, and demand action. And when you do, you can do so knowing it the right and necessary thing to do.




Lie number 5: It's already too late

It is not too late to act. We've been slow to act. At this point, some warming is inevitable. But it's not too late to achieve a stable, sustainable world. It's not too late to leave our children and grandchildren a world that is recognizably similar to the one we inherited.

We have the technology today. And that technology will continue to improve. We can see the extent of the problem. The solutions are known. Changes will be needed. We'll all be asked to make sacrifices. There will be costs. But the cost of inaction will greatly exceed of costs of doing what needs to be done.

This is the fundamental challenge of our time. But it's not too late to embrace it.

Crying Wolf

There is a blog post making the rounds entitled "You Are Still Crying Wolf". The thrust of the piece is that it is inaccurate and unfair to call Trump a racist, and that doing so is counter-productive and scares people unnecessarily. It argues that calling out Trump is calling wolf.

If it is, then let me join the call. There is a wolf.

To me, the piece reads like holocaust denial literature. It uses statistics and clever argumentation to convince us to deny the evidence that has been placed plainly before us.  Trump made a name for himself in politics by peddling the "birther" lie. During the Republican primary he jettisoned all conservative orthodoxy and boiled it down to the different groups of brown people we need to expel and be afraid of. During the general election he advocated for targeting racial minorities for voter suppression and mass incarceration. In the early days of staffing his administration, Mr. Trump has already appointed a racist, rogues gallery who openly oppose the civil rights and sacred laws they will be entrusted to defend and enforce.

These choices will have terrible consequences for real people. American citizens, lawful residents, and people, whose only crime is a desire to live and work in America, are going to be persecuted. They will be intimidated, insulted, beaten, disenfranchised, and have their rights denied. They will be detained, imprisoned, deported, tortured and killed. Some of this will come from people who have been inspired and energized by Trumps rhetoric. The worst of it will come from the administration itself and be backed by full force of executive and law-enforcement authorities.

This is not based imagination or speculation. These are promises that were made. Looking at the what's going on, day by day, it is clear that the pledges of persecution are promises Trump intends to keep.

I fully expect, indeed I am counting on, the majority Trump voters to say this is not what they want. That they are not racist. That they do not support it when people are attacked based on their race, color, or religion. Trump voters are not some unknown other. You are my friends, colleagues, neighbors, gaming-buddies, and family members. I know you and have always known you. You say it's not about race. And I believe you. I live in New Hampshire. We've really only got the one race. Why would it be all about racism? I believe you.

But you had a choice. And you made a choice. And you chose the wolf. You may have had any number of reasons for your choice. You didn't hear the cries. You didn't trust the crier. Whatever the reason, if you voted Donald Trump, then this is the choice you made. It may not be what you want, but it's a consequence of your choice. And you are responsible for those consequences.

If this isn't what you want, if these aren't your values, then you need to stand up. And you need speak up.

We chose the wolf. We need shepherds more than ever.

Do Not Vote for Donald Trump

After everything that has been said and done in this campaign, I know that nothing I can say is going to sway anyone. But everyone who cares about the country has an obligation to say this. So, I am saying it.

Do not vote for Donald Trump.

If you already hate Donald Trump, then this isn't for you. If you're on the fence, or you don't like Trump but kinda agree with what he's saying, think maybe he's the best of some bad options, or are a sincere Trump support - then I am asking you-  Please. Think about this. 

You should only vote for Donald J. Trump to be President of the United States if you can honestly say he is prepared to honorably and capably serve in that office. He is not. Trump has shown us time and again, in so many ways, that his not someone well-suited to be President of the United States.

Donald Trump is a horrible person. We require many virtues in our president: Wisdom, sound judgement, intelligence, eloquence, the ability to soothe the American people during times of trouble. Trump lacks all of these virtues. He is thin-skinned, cruel, vindictive, paranoid, undisciplined and self-centered. He associates with bigots and conspiracy mongers. Trump has been enthusiastically embraced by our nation's racists and white nationalists. His treatment of women make him, at best, a foul-mouth, pervy, serial-adulterer. At worst, he's a sexual assault repeat offender. He lacks the temperament and good judgement to be president.

Trump does not know anything. About anything. Most people running for President don't start out as a expert on every issue. There is a certain expected learning curve. Trump has not shown even a rudimentary understanding of any of the issues facing the nation. Time and again, in interview after interview, debate after debate, Trump has shown the same pattern. He gets a question, he spouts some vacuous campaign slogan, pivots to some nonsense on a vaguely relevant or unrelated topic, and then just spins to whine and complain about something he thinks Democrats have done. 

On issue after issue, Trump claims he knows more than anyone else on the topic, and then demonstrates he knows nothing at all. He has no idea what his wall will cost or what impact it will have. He has no understanding the economy, how to craft a trade deal, or how to bring back manufacturing jobs. Trump's foreign policy consists of insulting, alienating, and abandoning our military allies and economic trading partners. His military strategy consists of vague notions that vary from naive, to childish, to dangerous.

His ignorance could be mitigated if he surrounded himself with "good people" and accepted their guidance. He doesn't. He surrounds himself with sycophants and yes-men and isn't interested in their advice.

His secrecy and corruption should trouble you. Trump's primary claim to the presidency is that his successful and reputable business career has prepared him for the office. And yet, in defiance of decades of tradition, he has refused to release any of his tax returns. Without them we can't evaluate how ethically, honorably, and effectively he has run his business. It is expected that the President of the United States will place his assets in a blind trust to avoid conflicts between his self-interest and the interests of the nation. This too Trump has refused to do. Trump has business interests around the world and, incredibly, he wants to serve as president without severing these ties or even revealing his debts, obligations, holdings, conflicts, domestic and overseas partners and debtors. The reason he won't release his tax returns if that if we knew the truth, we would find it unacceptable. We can't accept that.

This might be tolerable if Trump had a history of ethical behavior and putting others before himself. He has no such history. He's been avoiding paying his taxes with dubious loopholes. His charitable foundation is a sham. His "Trump University" was a fraud designed to con money out of the poor dupes who put their faith in him. Trump has been involved in thousands of lawsuits. Many of them stem from his failure to honor contracts and willingness to stiff, rip-off, and abandon the individuals and business, large and small, that are foolish enough to work with him or put their trust in him. 

Donald Trump does not understand or respect the constitution. There was a time when Trump supported reasonable gun control measures. He doesn't any more. For some people, that'll be enough to say he supports the constitution. He doesn't. Trump opposes freedom of speech. He has repeatedly tried to use the legal system to silence his critics. He opposes freedom of religion and plans to persecute religious minorities. He opposes freedom of the press. He supports torture, the very definition of cruel punishment. He supports "stop and frisk" searches without a warrant. Trump advocates voter suppression and voter intimidation efforts to deprive people of their right to vote. 

Trump's admiration of authoritarian leaders, like Vladimir Putin, is well established. His unwillingness to stand up to an aggressive, expansionist Russia should be deeply concerning. His emulation of Putin's tactics is even more disturbing. Democracies can die. They can become dictatorships. Trump has put up plenty of signposts to indicate where he wants to take this nation. When politics is criminalized and political opponents are imprisoned; while minority rights are not respected and leaders focus more on stoking resentment against some scapegoat "other" than trying to address the real problems in the country; when a free press is attacked and discredited; when the truth no longer matters; when the electoral process itself is threatened - then we are on our way to tyranny.

Even as private citizen, Trump abuses the legal system to extract revenge and silence his critics. We should be fearful of what he will do with the full powers of the executive. He can not be trusted to be an impartial executor of the law and to safeguard our democracy.

Trump is not a protest vote. You might be hoping to "send a message" or that, somehow, Trump is going to work some outsider magic in Washington D.C. He won't. Trump is the nominee of one of our two main parties. The main arguments for supporting him are: the supreme court, passing the Ryan agenda, and that he's "better then the alternative" (because the alternate is a Democrat). Notice that these arguments could be made no matter who the nominee is. They allow you to rationalize and justify overlooking Trump's own failures and shortcomings. Voting for Trump sends the message that you'll vote for literally anyone the GOP chooses to nominate, no matter how awful. That's not a protest vote. That is a puppet vote.


This is your vote. Who you support is a reflection on you. It is a reflection of your priorities and on your values. Donald Trump is not worthy of your vote. Whatever your principles are, he does not share them, and he does not live by them. Whatever your standards are, he does not rise to them. Whatever you want for America, he cannot provide it. Whatever qualities you look for in a President of United States, Donald Trump does not have those qualities.


Do not vote for Donald Trump.

Second Thoughts

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.

The founders of our country included the right to bear arms in the Constitution's Bill of Rights. That 18th century decision has serious, often tragic, and too-frequently horrific repercussions in the world we live in today. It is past time to consider the text, meaning, limitations, and implications of an amendment that, for better and worse, still has its hold on us today.

It was included as a bulwark against tyranny, as protection against internal and external powers that threatened the fledgling Republic. The founders were suspicious of standing armies and, having just won a war with them, felt that the individual states' citizen militias were indeed necessary for the security of a free country.

Beyond authorizing state militias, the amendment states that "the right of the people to keep and and bear arms shall not be infringed". Keep. This implies ownership and that the 2nd amendment confers rights upon individuals as well.

On first consideration, the 2nd amendment appears to be quite broad in scope, and specifies a sincere restriction on governmental gun control. On further inspection, we can see the limitations.

We relied on armed militias at the nation's founding. But things have changed. The stated premise of the amendment is no longer relevant or true. Armed, citizen militias are not necessary to the security of the state. More often they are a threat to it. The US has a substantial and very well equipped standing army that is perfectly capable of protecting the nation and projecting power abroad. The old state militias have been folded into a National Guard that is funded, armed, deployed by, and effectively under the control of the federal government. It is no longer the case that a well regulated militia is necessary to have a free country.

Even if the premise is no longer valid, the amendment can still have force. It's text still holds meaning. It confers a right but, like all Constitutional rights, it is subject to limitation.

There is already a consensus agreement that citizens do not have the right to own any weapons they may desire. Explosives, machine guns, rocket-propelled grenade launchers, and all manner of military equipment, are banned from private ownership. It is illegal to own these things because we recognize that there are obvious, practical limitations to the 2nd amendment. Allowing everyone to access the means of mass murder and wanton destruction is a threat to a free society. It is not required by our constitution. There is ample precedent for restricting weaponry simply because of its lethality and destructive capacity.

There is also precedent for controlling not only what weapons are available, but who may have them. Guns are designed for the purpose of killing other people. We can lawfully attempt to keep them out of the hands of dangerous individuals. Felons, fugitives, and convicted domestic abusers are currently prohibited from owning guns. This list could be expanded. People are rightfully aghast that someone being investigated for terrorism ties can still lawfully purchase a semi-automatic rifle.

The Bill of Rights was intended to place limitations on the powers of the federal government. Typically, its restrictions apply to the states as well. Freedom of speech is protected against actions by both state and federal legislatures. The 2nd amendment is the exception. And the exception is written into the amendment itself. The militias were state entities. The amendment plainly states that they are to be well regulated. It's a straightforward reading of the text to see that it does place limitations on federal regulation of firearms. It is also clear that the amendment confers not only the right, but the obligation of the states to regulate access to weapons. Mental gymnastics are required to read the phrase "well regulated" and conclude that it means unregulated. The 2nd amendment gives states the authority to regulate firearms as they see fit.

The second amendment prohibits the federal government from fully disarming the states and their citizens. It does not prohibit a national ban on military weapons that can be used to commit murder on a massive scale. It does not stop us from enacting stronger background checks and keeping deadly arms out of the hands dangerous and unstable people. It does not mean that the states can not regulate guns to any extent that they desire, including creating a total ban. We can create gun-free states.

Honoring our constitution does not require inaction after each horrific slaughter. It is not true that there is nothing we can do. That is our choice. We can make a different one.