Ban Military-Style Assault Weapons!

Last weekend saw two mass shootings, one in El Paso, Texas, and one in Dayton, Ohio. The one in El Paso was done with an AK-47 semi-automatic assault rifle:

AK-47 assault rifle

The AK-47 is a military-style weapon. Many of us have erroneously assumed that private ownership of AK-47s and similar semi-automatic, military-style weapons is protected by the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution — but it's not! According to Barry Mendelsohn's letter in today's Washington Post (scroll down to find it):

In the written 5-to-4 District of Columbia v. Heller Supreme Court decision, which dramatically expanded the Second Amendment rights of individuals to possess guns outside of militias, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia explicitly excluded military-style weapons from that right.

According to this article about the Heller decision:

The Supreme Court stated, however, that the Second Amendment should not be understood as conferring a “right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” The Court provided examples of laws it considered “presumptively lawful,” including those which:

• Prohibit firearm possession by felons and the mentally ill;
• Forbid firearm possession in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings; and
• Impose conditions on the commercial sale of firearms.

The Court noted that this list is not exhaustive, and concluded that the Second Amendment is also consistent with laws banning “dangerous and unusual weapons” not in common use at the time, such as M-16 rifles and other firearms that are most useful in military service.

The AK-47 qualifies as a type of weapon that is "most useful in military service." So does the similar AR-15 assault rifle:

AR-15 assault rifle

Therefore, banning the AK-47 and the AR-15 would not violate Heller. Banning weapons like these would prevent untold numbers of mass shootings in America. So let's ban all privately owned military-style assault weapons now!

Let's Plant Some Trees!

"Scientists say planting a trillion trees globally could be the single most effective way to fight climate change." That quote comes from an article found here. The article continues:

According to a new study in the journal Science, planting billions of trees around the world would be the cheapest and most effective way to tackle the climate crisis. Since trees absorb carbon dioxide, which contributes to global warming, a worldwide planting initiative could remove a substantial portion of heat-trapping emissions from the atmosphere.

The researchers say a program at this scale could remove about two-thirds of the carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions caused by human activities since the start of the industrial revolution, or nearly 25% of the CO2 in the atmosphere.

In other words, we need to pursue what advocates are calling "reforestation."

One of the best things about
forests is their natural beauty.

Humans have over the years cut down huge numbers of forest trees in order to expand their economic activities. Those economic activities have involved burning fossil fuels — coal, oil, gasoline, and natural gas — to generate power.

Cutting down trees causes the fallen trees to release their stored CO2 — carbon dioxide — back into the atmosphere. If the downed trees are burned, that process happens even faster.

Burning fossil fuels puts yet more CO2 into the atmosphere. CO2 is a so-called "greenhouse gas." The extra CO2 in the atmosphere traps heat that reaches us from the sun. The trapped heat raises temperatures at the Earth's surface. This is the cause of global warming, also known as climate change.

Reforestation — planting billions and billions of trees throughout the world — can help reverse much of the climate change that has occurred since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution some two centuries ago.

*****

Where can these trees be planted?

One excellent place, surprisingly, is in our cities. Many of our cities were built, in fact, where forests once thrived. We simply cut down the trees to build our civilized, city-based habitats.

Now we need to restore the trees. And in performing that so-called "urban landscaping" today, we ought to prioritize the poorer communities in our cities. See "How Can We Get Trees to the Communities That Need Them the Most?" for ideas about why and how to do that.

Also see "The Benefits of Trees" for a rundown on all the many reasons why we'd be smart to plant trees wherever possible, including our cities, and particularly in our cities' poorer neighborhoods. In particular, notice that "Urban landscaping, including trees, helps lower crime rates."

*****

Senator Kamala Harris, a Democratic presidential candidate, and Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez have "unveiled legislation aimed at ensuring that climate change plans benefit low-income communities," according to The New York Times. They call their goal "climate equity." It's part of what's being called "the Green New Deal."

What better way to target our efforts to deal constructively with climate change than to aim urban landscaping plans, including the planting of trees, directly at poorer communities?

*****

Yet let's not fool ourselves. This would be a hard sell politically. "Study explains why thousands of Detroit residents rejected city's tree planting efforts" tells why. That article clues us in that once a city government or other organization plants trees in a neighborhood, it has to follow through and take care of the trees: giving them tender, loving care while they're young; pruning them back away from power lines when they get bigger; and raking up leaves every fall. Neighborhood residents have enough to worry about; they don't need the extra responsibility of tree maintenance.

Obviously, expanded tree maintenance done at the city level costs money. Often, that kind of money is not easily available in city budgets. So money for the maintenance of new trees planted in poorer communities needs to derive from the federal government. Such funding needs to be part of Sen. Harris's and Rep. Ocasio-Cortez's "climate equity" plan; it has to be part of the Green New Deal.