My Body > Your Guns
Let’s cure a pound of patriarchy, shall we?
(TW: homicide, sexual assault)
Let me preface everything that follows with my stance on the 2nd Amendment: it is a farce. I feel this nation would be better if no one had what is comparatively unrestricted access to firearms. The comparison being to other developed nations with much stricter licensing whose mass shootings are grim tragedies of history, not present-day events. Our “right” as outlined in the 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution was drafted when firearms took a long time to reload after a single shot (a fast rate at that time would be 2 or 3 shots per minute). While this was still the case in the Civil War, weaponry has clearly advanced significantly since then.
The 2nd 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.”
OK, so we the people have a right to form a militia and defend ourselves against our government, a government (at least federally) that possesses an arsenal of nuclear weapons. I’m pretty sure none of my friends or neighbors have “ah” nuclear weapon, let alone many that would necessitate an entire arsenal. In the 21st century, the 2nd Amendment protects our right to form a militia with at least one nuclear weapon. This is absurd on its face. [Note: as I have written before, a page one rewrite of the U.S. Constitution may be necessary.] So now the question becomes: how do we ensure protecting ourselves from a tyrannical government? Supposedly in our democracy it is with the right to vote, but our votes are being undermined (a different discussion for a later date). I actually don’t have the answer-- then why am I writing about it? Glad you asked. Because with the ways the “2A” folks (their self-appointed moniker) fight so vehemently for their right to bear arms and fight against any regulation thereof you would think that they were abortion advocates. I have observed a deeply felt right to self-protection that permeates this group and I can’t help but wonder why 2A folks and abortion advocates are often on opposing sides of the aisle. After all, don’t we all want to protect ourselves from a tyrannical government, or at the very least protect ourselves from a threat to our lives? An intruder in our homes is a threat just as an intruder in our bodies is a threat. The parallels have always fascinated me. Recently I moved to Colorado and not long ago I took a firearms safety class, so once again these questions are at the forefront of my pondering.
I have lived in many places where the overall culture was pro-gun and pro-2nd Amendment. I have had several discussions with 2A advocates on the matters of regulated gun ownership, regulation-free gun ownership, and the absence of gun ownership all together. This by no means makes me an expert of feelings and opinions of 2A advocates but I can speak to general patterns I have noted in these conversations. Listening to our firearm safety instructor give the class “warnings” about legislative efforts in the works that promise to “not take your guns outright but they will legislate them into the ground” might as well be the warnings reproductive justice advocates have been yelling from the rooftops for decades about the pervasive legislation eroding abortion access. Indeed abortion access is buried in the ground in nearly half the nation and TRAP laws were the beginning of the burial process, implemented in response to Roe. I’m listening to the quips and the tongue-in-cheek remarks - “we live in 50 different countries” - and observing the use of scare quotes when saying “assault weapons” as if that is an absurd and derogatory term. All the while I can’t help but think: they might as well be talking about the government erosion of abortion access and personal autonomy while pregnant. It was a fascinating experience as viewed through a reproductive justice lens.
Let’s look at some parallels:
2A: I have the right to protect myself and my family which may require the use of deadly force with a firearm.
Reproductive Justice: I have the right to protect myself and my family which may require a healthcare [link to post] procedure known as abortion.
2A: It is my Constitutional 2nd Amendment right to possess a firearm.
Reproductive Justice: It is my Constitutional 4th, 8th, 9th, 14th, 15th Amendments right to not be pregnant if I do not want to be. [1-3]
Abortion is very much a self-defense issue. It is healthcare that treats a life-threatening condition that is not wanted. Someone who is pregnant will undergo risks to health and life and it should be their decision, and their decision alone, whether or not to undergo these risks. If you invade my home, I may use deadly force with a firearm to protect myself and my family. If you invade my body, I may use deadly force with a weapon or with a medical procedure, depending on the type of invasion. Yes, a pregnancy can be an invasion of the body, or it can be a most welcomed guest, but either way this is decided by the pregnant person. And it is here where the parallels to 2A issues cease and diverge: fetuses aren’t people. I state this preemptively because I can feel the looks of “killing someone in self defense isn’t the same as an abortion!” and that is correct because fetuses aren’t people and therefore aren’t “killed” or “murdered” or whatever emotionally-charged permutation can be imagined. My self-preservation with abortion affects absolutely no one else, as opposed to my self-preservation with a firearm that may result in someone else’s death. That death affects families and friends and real people’s lives. So why is abortion treated as the greater sin? No, really, I would like to know the answer to this question.
If I were to speculate, the answer has something to do with “innocence.” The belabored phrase “it’s an innocent life!” is so eyeroll-inducing I have visually mapped out my entire occipital lobe. The begged question is: what measuring stick of “innocence” are we using? Who is the judge and jury of said “innocence?” Regarding a pregnancy, it has to be the pregnant person determining said “innocence,” does it not? Here’s how I see it: if some human life has put itself inside my body without my explicit and ongoing consent, there is a gaping void of innocence there. That sneaky little zygote invaded my body as far as I’m concerned and I will extricate it from the premises if and when I see fit. You can see your own pregnancy any way you like, but leave anyone else’s pregnancy out of your business. So, no, a pregnancy is not “innocent” in my view, but my view is only applicable to my own pregnancy. Anti-abortion folks are often in favor of capital punishment, which is another dichotomy I cannot intellectually reconcile. Again, the issue is often pared down to the question of “innocence.” Someone condemned to death row has been convicted by 12 peers and is therefore guilty, not innocent, right? And we all know jurors are infallible human beings and no one in the history of the world has been falsely convicted of a crime and sent to their death by the government… But even the most guiltiest of guilty people should not be murdered by the government. No government should be allowed to kill people: not by local police, not by federal agents, and not by a judge or jury. Our carceral system is fraught with problems which is beyond the scope of discussion here but it, too, requires annihilation and rebuilding from the ground up. (Focusing on the rehabilitation of people instead of capital profit per person per year, for example).
Because firearms can take the lives of other people, it most certainly should be more regulated than abortion. Remember the “we live in 50 different countries” complaint? Yes, states differ by laws governing their populations. Cities and other localities within the state may have different laws still as they pertain to their smaller geographical and demographical make-ups, and all of this may differ from federal law that governs the nation. It should come as no surprise that different communities have different needs and require different regulations compared to their neighboring locality, for example, just as the United States has different needs requiring different regulations from Canada. Sure different gun laws are a lot to be aware of and can be annoying when it comes to “Constitutional rights,” but rules change, and therefore regulations change, when you go to different places. So what about the regulation of abortion? There shouldn’t be any, honestly, at least not pertaining to abortion as something “outside of” healthcare. Abortion falls under whatever regulations governing healthcare in general that exist. The laws of physics don’t change with geography. Human physiology doesn’t change across state lines. Even our medical education and training is regulated such that someone who trained in California learns the same medicine as someone in Michigan and both graduates can provide health care in whatever state they choose after completing education and training. And because abortion is healthcare, and healthcare is a human right, and human physiology does not change across state lines or zip codes, healthcare should be accessible to all without question or barrier. At present, “50 different countries” applies to people’s ability to access healthcare, too, and that simply should not be the case. It is unethical, immoral, inhumane and deadly. I envision a nation with unlimited access to abortion and overall healthcare as well as having extremely limited access to firearms. As it is, we are in the Upside Down of that nation.
Reproductive freedom is critical to a whole range of issues. If we can’t take charge of this most personal aspect of our lives, we can’t take care of anything. It should not be seen as a privilege or as a benefit, but a fundamental human right. -Faye Wattleton
Citations:
1. Mystal, E. (2022, March 21). Allow me to retort: A Black guy’s guide to the Constitution. The New Press.
2. Mystal, E. (2022, May 12). We are under attack by the Supreme Court. Freethought Today, 41(3). https://www.freethoughttoday.com/articles/vol-41-no-03-april-2024/elie-mystal-we-are-under-attack-by-the-supreme-court/
3. Why Is This Happening? with Chris Hayes. (2022, May 24). Allow me to retort with Elie Mystal [Audio podcast episode]. MSNBC. https://www.msnbc.com/msnbc-podcast/why-is-this-happening/allow-me-retort-elie-mystal-podcast-transcript-n1295359
