At midnight on Monday Sept. 13, 2004, the 10 year old U.S. ban on the sale of assault weapons expired. Without going into the technicalities of what constitutes an assault weapon, it is safe to say you don't need one to do a little rabbit hunting or target practice.
The National Rifle Association (NRA) claimed that the ban was "bad law," and, in any event, only restricted certain "cosmetic" weapon features.
 |
TODAY'S TOP STORIES |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
FROM THE SECTION |
|
|
|
|
| Frankly, if I find myself staring into the business end of an assault weapon, I don't much care if its capability for destruction is concrete or cosmetic. The NRA gun lobby has fiercely opposed any attempt to restrict or control the possession of firearms in general, basing their position on the Second Amendment to the Constitution, which provides for "the right to keep and bear arms."
That amendment was written at the time of flint-lock muzzle loaders that used powder and ball. Even experts could only fire 3-4 rounds per minute. This is a far cry from the hundreds of rounds per minute an automatic weapon can let loose. Further, an armed citizenry probably made sense at a time when there was no standing army.
Democracy, otherwise known as the right of irresponsible people to do whatever the hell they please within the law, relies heavily for its success on the maturity, good sense and good will of the adult individual to succeed. I find little evidence that the majority of the citizenry of the United States and other Western cultures even comes close to being able or willing to deal with this responsibility.
For sure, there are thousands of ethical, strong, upstanding people who are capable of being entrusted with this freedom. But there are millions of others who see democracy only as carte blanche to pursue whatever selfish whim passes through their vacuous brains.
Politically, firearm possession is a hot potato. The NRA in America has some 4 million members, which is a very significant block of votes that neither political party can afford to offend in an election year.
As an example of the prevailing attitude in the U.S. towards the use of guns, an article written in 2004 described an abduction from a Queens, New York hospital, in which a hospital employee was shot by the abductor. Carl Haynes, the security officer's union president at the time, stated his belief that this "accident" could have been prevented if the security officer on duty had been armed!
Well, what I know of the marksmanship and weapons handling capability of security guards tells me that a shoot-out in a crowded hospital would have resulted in more than just a single casualty, tragic though that was.
The abuse of firearms reached a pinnacle of stupidity and human depravity in November 2004, when a hunter deliberately shot and killed six other hunters and injured two more. Apparently the perpetrator, a Hmong tribesman from Laos, who is also an American citizen, had been caught trespassing on hunting lands owned by some of the victims.
Some racial epithets supposedly were uttered by the victims, upon which the Laotian opened fire. The defense attorney made a statement at the time that "this case is not so much a whodunit, as a whydunnit." I'm sure the victim's relatives got a lot of comfort from that. The perpetrator is now serving multiple life terms in prison. Ironically, another Hmong hunter was found shot dead in a Wisconsin wildlife area in January, 2007.
My point in relating these incidents is that they are emblematic of the belief in America that more guns are better. And that a gun in everyone's hand is a "good thing," and is somehow a symbol of democracy at work.
I have handled guns in the military, as a competitive marksman, and for shooting small game, and I know how diligent and careful one must be to avoid accidents. Diligence is hardly a quality one would expect to find in angry confrontations or criminal activity.
|
RSS
Del.icio.us
Digg 
reddit
Y! MyWeb
Comments Note: Kindly refrain from personal attacks and profanity.
.jpg)
