Two weeks ago, in an op-ed published in this newspaper, the writer, my son Pierre Beauregard, wrote about our national shooting and murder epidemic ("Your View: The utility of thoughts and prayer," July 3). Now we have Dallas, and sadly, without question, more will come.

So here I add to my son’s offering, concurring in the thought that NRA-inspired stupidity should give way to rational thought, contrary to the knee-jerk Second Amendment chants inspired by the legal thinking of judges like the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. Scalia’s 2008 opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller did lasting damage. Doing what lawyers do, Scalia danced and finessed with Second Amendment language concluding that a true grammatical analysis provides the constitutional language a “degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right.” And here we are today, multiple shootings and murders later.

Aside from wishing for rationality and common sense on the issue of guns, however, legal questions remain: Where in the law does it say what "arms" are? A musket, a rifle, a machine gun, a bomb? Armaments? Private citizens’ handguns? The arms of a state militia? “Originalist" thinking judges (like Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas) don't limit arms to muskets for state militias; somehow they allow later-invented (i.e., far from original) destructive armament devices to creep into the constitutionally protected 18th century products.

Let's not fool ourselves. Whether by way of interpretation of existing laws or legislation, or (God forbid) constitutional amendment, of course we can outlaw guns. Even if that means transforming our national Wild West tradition into a rational society that structures its laws to discourage unnecessary shootings by nuts, terrorists, white people, black people, and others. Without a gun, it's a lot harder to kill other people. Might not such an inconvenience drastically reduce incidents brought by the animalistic urge to harm or kill another human being (or group).

Back to the law: The 5-4 Supreme Court 2008 gun case and the fine points made by Scalia and company over the last several years are sophistry. We need rationality and common sense from our judiciary, not grammarians looking to justify pre-set views.

Common Sense v. Stupidity?

A black Dallas citizen was asked by CNN’s Don Lemon why he openly carried a rifle to the (peaceful) Dallas rally.

He said: Because the Second Amendment and Texas law say I can. The citizen's brother, with him for the CNN interview, added: Also because armed white people would be there, so why shouldn’t black people also bring guns.

Good God! Can't we see, as plain as can be, that we just might be better off (i.e., safer) without guns ― just in case someone either seeks to execute a plan or makes a quick decision, to shoot someone for whatever reason? Won’t peaceful demonstrators and police be safer if the masses forgo bringing guns and rifles to a rally?

Self-protection, it is said, is why we need guns. And the noble added benefit that armed persons can protect innocents when a bad guy or nut shows up at a school, or a theater, or a rally with a semi-automatic. Everyone (except nuts and terrorists) should have one. But is it really so hard for the nut or terrorist to get a gun ― by buying one legally at a gun show, or stealing a law abiding citizen’s gun? No, let's not talk about that. Let’s just keep talking about our sacred, inviolable, inalienable right to bear arms.

Indeed, Pierre is correct that it is stupidity to allow NRA-type thought to control our legislators and lead us in faulty constitutional reasoning. Sad to say, killing events will continue unless serious change is made to our approach to laws on ownership of “arms.”

The solution will not be perfect. Hunters may be more restricted in their sport. But America will be a hell of a lot better off as a society than where we are now. As Pierre said: The obvious solution to gun violence is to outlaw guns. Is it stupid to deny that?

Philip N. Beauregard

New Bedford