WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A COWBOY AND A SOLDIER?

Having once debated NRA representatives over reasonable gun control measures in Texas, I can well understand why most citizens are afraid to address the topic today. I received personal taunts and death threats due to my supposed attempts to erode Second Amendment rights to gun ownership. The prevailing thoughts were that if the government removes by law any aspect of gun purchase or gun ownership, citizens would ultimately be regulated away from the Second Amendment and be left unable to defend themselves against the very government which methodically confiscated their weapons. Today, of course, our government would merely send a drone to accomplish their purposes, and our personal arsenals would be useless in combating such an attack. The NRA and its supporters would argue that the real issue is the erosion of our personal rights – if you give the government an inch, they will take a mile. We need less government and regulations, not more. There is some truth to this position.

Can there be a society with no regulations? Are my personal rights violated by speed limits on roads, seat belt requirements, emissions controls, food and product labeling, lead paint and asbestos prohibitions, meat processing standards,professional licensing, construction safety, and other practices aimed at preventing unnecessary injuries and deaths? There always needs to be a balance, but most regulations derived from a chronic problem resulting from not having safeguards in place. Not wearing seatbelts resulted in more severe injuries and deaths during collisions, while wearing seatbelts evidenced a significant reduction in such severe outcomes. Isn’t the purpose of our government to serve and protect its citizens? Many might argue that the wearing of seatbelts should be the individual’s choice and should not be made mandatory and punishable by our government. But does preserving an individual’s right to make his own choice in every situation sometimes have too costly an impact on society as a whole? Is the collective welfare of a community ever more sacrosanct than individual rights? Did mandating seat belts, speed limits, and drivers’ licensing limit our right to drive and own a car?

So I now return to the topic of restricting the purchase, ownership, and use of automatic assault weapons in the United States. The first question should be who benefits from allowing the unrestricted access to purchasing, owning, and using automatic assault weapons? Would not all members of the National Rifle Association still have the rights afforded them under the Second Amendment to self-defense, hunting, and the right to bear arms, if they were not allowed to purchase automatic assault weapons? Was the Second Amendment meant to provide a citizen the right to possess nuclear weapons or biological weapons or bear any arm he chooses in the name of self-defense and providing for an instant militia in the 1800’s? We have specialized weapons of mass destruction for use solely by our armed services during acts of war. An automatic assault weapon was developed as a military weapon to be used in defense by soldiers during an armed, enemy attack. There is NO correlation of automatic assault weapons to personal ‘self- defense.’ A rifle or pistol should suffice in fending off an intruder.

There is DEFINITELY a correlation between military style automatic assault weapons and the mass shootings which are regularly occurring in the United States. The automatic spraying of bullets has only one purpose, killing a throng of people in an instant. Although every country has people, every country does not have frequent mass shootings like the U. S. Therefore, the availability of assault weapons does make a difference in regard to the number of people capable of being killed by one person. The statement ‘people cause shootings, not guns’ is not sufficient justification. The fact that there are already 8,000 assault weapons on the streets of the U.S. and anyone can obtain an automatic weapon illegally if they desire, does not justify not prohibiting more automatic assault weapons from being made legally available to individual citizens. Does anyone believe that simply because cocaine and meth-amphetamines are already available on our streets is a justifiable reason to allow the uninhibited distribution of even more drugs?

A boundary has been crossed between weapons for personal self-defense and military style assault weapons in the U.S., under the guise of Second Amendment rights. If ever a wall is to be built, it should be erected between the legal ownership of hunting and self-defense personal weapons and ownership of military style automatic assault weapons. As to people, we as a country of 350 million people have no way to know who has undiagnosed mental illnesses, terrorist tendencies, or who should not be allowed to own a weapon, until after the fact. What we do know is that weapons of mass destruction, such as automatic assault weapons, cause mass homicides in minutes. They have no other purpose. So, what would our country look like if the purchase, ownership, or use of automatic assault weapons were banned? How would that threaten anyone’s life or rights?