I’ve seen many academics defend to the death (figuratively) ideas they treat as “facts” that are demonstrably incorrect or morally reprehensible or both.

I once heard a historian (Ph.D. with several published books and an unknown but large number of published articles in peer-reviewed journals) defend slavery as “the only viable agricultural economic model prior to the 20th Century,” in spite of centuries of data and experience to the contrary from around the world. By the way, he had no credentials or training as an economist.

I’m 68, have lived and worked in five states, and have never observed anything to make me entertain the idea that any of our rights supercede any of the others.

Also, I see no right noted in the U.S. Constitution to “public safety.” Certainly, our nation’s intent is to “promote the general welfare,” but I’ve yet to see anyone demonstrate that disarming everyone accomplishes, or even contributes to, that. My experience has shown me that the opposite is true; the general welfare is clearly served by the 2nd Amendment.

As far as the Pretti case goes, it seems to me that his exercising his 2nd Amendment right was merely incidental to his death at the hands of overzealous, heavy-handed, undertrained, self-serving, and inexperienced federal officers who took his life, not because he had been legally armed or had threatened them, but because they feared loud noises, regardless of the source.

My takeaway from the Pretti incident was that I, armed or not, may be shot by an officer under color of authority if someone yells “Gun!” or “Look out!” even though I have acted within my rights.

It remains to be seen if this Administration will condone such behavior from federal officers.