I was reading this morning that Bush is coming out in support of the Assault Weapons ban - to the chagrin of the N.R.A., and much of his heartland constituency. The guy just keeps you guessing doesn't he? I actually have a pretty good understanding of the assault weapons ban, and I'm pretty mch in favor of it as well - I only wish I'd bought an AR-15 lower receiver before Dec. 31 2000.

I was flipping through the California handgun safety manual (skimming it really) and I was struck by how intelligent most of the laws concerning firearms purchase and handling are. This is in contrast with the views of most gun-freaks that I talk to, who see ANY control over the acquisition of weapons to be an affront to their constitutional rights...
Though I do see their position as well. There are individuals and groups in the gun control debate which want nothing more than the outright banning of all firearms in the hands of private Americans - and they go about it one frustrating and complicated law at a time. The 9th circuit court of appeals has recently ruled that individuals have NO RIGHT to keep and bear firearms. I wonder what they would do with freedom of expresiion and freedom of the press (pesky constitution!!!)

"The Right of Individuals to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Where, in that sentence, is there any room for interpretation? I'm asking myself this, because I do support the assault weapons ban. It just seems so obvious. Know what defines an assault rifle? It's a semi-automatic rifle which has two or more of the following:

magazine fed receiver
pistol grip
flash suppressor
threaded barrel end

So you can still get some pretty bad-ass shit, and be correct under the assault weapons ban. The thing is, in 22 years living in the states, I've never seen a gun in the street. I hear them go off a lot, but no one has ever threatened me with one. The only instance in which I've seen a gun brandished in a threatening way was when I was in Brazil in 1998. A 16 year old kid walked up to our table in a bar, and leaned back in an exaggerated stretch. This caused his shirt to ride up on his stomach, which revealed a small automatic pistol in his waste-band. He then sat down at our table and preceded to smoke all our cigarettes. I will note that handguns are banned in Brazil.

In upholding the assault weapons ban, Bush is reaching out to women, inner-city poor... I don't know? Who else comes out strongly against assault weapons? I mean, besides everyone; who cares enough to campaign about it?
Michael Moore stumbled on the finding that there is no correlation between the amount guns in a society, and the amount of violence that ensues...
At least that was the crux of his argument that America's hyper-violence is a result of race-based fear. In BOWLING FOR COLUMBINE, Moore cited Canada as having more guns per person than the U.S.A. I found that statistic to be dubious, but I felt no great urge to double-check it (it's easier to grumble). Moore also failed to mention the massacre at University of Montreal, in which 14 people (all female) were killed by a self-styled Rambo named Marc Lepin.

I think the real value of a constitutional amendment which allows the average citizen to possess firearm, is that it trusts the individual with such a grave responsibility. Guns are serious, and learning to handle them, to understand them, and to make the correct decisions about their use - well, I guess it means were not just children, and the government is not just our parent. They work for us, not the other way around.

As Americans, are we ready to rise to ourcivic responsibilities in this great democratic society? Nah, I think we get a fucking F most of the time.