ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

Lloyd Omdahl: Gun compromise is a fraud

The NRA says they will support anything that doesn’t encroach on the Second Amendment. That means they will not accept compromises.

Lloyd Omdahl, use online, horizontal.jpg
Lloyd Omdahl
We are part of The Trust Project.

We have had 250 mass killings in 2022 so far and we aren’t even half way through the year. It is obvious that there is no such thing as sanctity of life in the United States.

A bipartisan committee of 20 senators – 10 Republicans and 10 Democrats – has been meeting and has come up with a draft that they hope will be ready by June 26.

The draft has been hailed as a great breakthrough for bringing sanity to the gun culture. If adopted, it will be worse than no legislation at all because it is no breakthrough, just a suspension of hostilities until the National Rifle Association decides on a strategy to undermine it.

The NRA says they will support anything that doesn’t encroach on the Second Amendment. That means they will not accept compromises. The drafters admitted that the gun restrictions would be modest but the mental health provisions will be important.

The mental health argument is nothing but a clever maneuver to sidetrack the gun issue into a dark hole where the issue cannot be resolved. That has been a human strategy since Adam and Eve grew apples.

ADVERTISEMENT

For the past months, the Republicans and Democrats have been at loggerheads over the gun issue. Both sides have dug in and will not likely turn their spears into plowshares.

Opponents of direct gun regulation have suggested that we preempt mass killing with red flag laws in which a judge authorizes law enforcement to take guns away from dangerous people. If I was the sheriff, I would insist on a bullet-proof vest and a Fifteenth Century iron shield. If the person has already been designated as dangerous, the life of any enforcing officer will be in jeopardy.

Besides, the draft only encourages states to adopt the red flag laws. Why not a federal red flag law? Because the policymakers know that states have a way of running away from the tough stuff and will come up with 50 levels of enforcement or nonenforcement. You can bet that there will be no red flags in North Dakota.

The drafters stayed away from outlawing the AR-15s after Sen. John Thune of South Dakota said he needed an AR-15 to shoot prairie dogs. As kids we used to shoot gophers with one shot. Now we know how Thune deals with problems.

It would be better if they passed nothing because all of the “hurrahs” will lead people to believe that something has been done and the gun problem is solved when the legislation will accomplish nothing. Most of the things we have fixed half-assed never get redone properly. This is half-assed.

Since all of the folks who think the gun is more important than lives, let’s accept their argument that it’s not a gun problem but a mental health problem. It’s time to call their bluff.

North Dakota is a gun state so there must be a lot of people who would support a dramatic program for mental health to head off gun legislation. It would be in their interest to go to the next session of the legislature and support a $100,000,000 program for mental health. Since the NRA believes the problem is mental health, perhaps they would write the bill for us.

But to be effective, the program must finance more potential psychiatrists and other mental health professionals and locate them in the wide geographic spaces that are barriers to better mental health services in rural areas.

ADVERTISEMENT

Next, the state needs to look into the future and start screening school children for anxiety disorders. That won’t be cheap but this is being done in some schools to head off more serious mental problems in adulthood

Let’s see whether or not those shouting “it’s mental health” will put their money where their rhetoric is because it won’t be cheap.

Lloyd Omdahl is a former state lieutenant governor and professor at UND.

Related Topics: LLOYD OMDAHLGUNSSHOOTINGS
What to read next
Gates and his trust will own the land, and the family who sold it to him will farm it, and that's all legal under the law.
When the courts improperly read into the U.S. Constitution a right to an abortion that was never really there, they allowed our activists and politicians to entertain stark and unnuanced views on abortion because, thanks to the Roe precedent, they never expected to have to implement those views as law. But now that we have to, we're obliged to ensure that these laws are implemented fairly and without unintended consequences.
Mark Haugen, the Democratic-NPL candidate for North Dakota's at-large U.S. House seat, feels it's important to remember that pro-life Democrats are a part of the party. "Are we the minority? Absolutely. But that's democracy," he said. "I have to work hard at explaining my position."
"The Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade reversal last week may have awakened a sleeping political tiger — American women. A CBS News/YouGov Poll reports 67% of women oppose the decision."