An Army Veteran’s Thoughts on the Assault Rifle Debate

Summary

An Army veteran reflects on the inefficacy of current gun control debates and proposals in the wake of the Uvalde school shooting anniversary, advocating for stricter regulations aligned with the original intent of the Second Amendment.

Abstract

The article discusses the lack of progress in gun control legislation in the United States, particularly in Texas, where the anniversary of the Uvalde school shooting has prompted discussions on how to prevent future tragedies. The author, an Army veteran, contrasts the military's strict gun control protocols with the lax civilian access to assault rifles, questioning the selective interpretation of the Second Amendment that ignores the "well regulated" aspect. The author suggests that the proliferation of guns, especially assault-type rifles, continues to contribute to mass shootings and that the rest of the world views America's inaction on gun control as a form of insanity.

Opinions

The author believes that the traditional "thoughts and prayers" response to mass shootings is ineffective and that real progress requires action.
There is a critique of the proposal to arm school employees, suggesting it is not a viable solution to prevent school shootings.
The author supports the reversal of Texas' open-carry law and the implementation of background checks and licensing for gun ownership.
The Second Amendment is interpreted by the author as including the necessity for a well-regulated militia, implying that civilian gun ownership should be subject to strict regulations similar to those in the military.
The author argues against the need for assault rifles with high-capacity magazines for hunting or home defense, advocating for single-shot, muzzle-loading muskets or shotguns as sufficient alternatives.
The author dismisses the fear that giving up guns would lead to government enslavement, pointing out that countries with strict gun laws are not under tyrannical rule and that civilian firepower is no match for military force.
The author emphasizes personal responsibility in choosing leaders who will address gun violence effectively, implying that the current lack of action is a choice made by the electorate.
The author concludes that the continued occurrence of mass shootings, without meaningful changes to gun laws, is a sign of societal insanity.

How are we still arguing about this?

Yesterday marks the one-year anniversary of the tragic school shooting in Uvalde, Texas that claimed the lives of 21 innocent people at Robb Elementary School, 19 of them children. Following that mass shooting, we offered the traditional thoughts and prayers which were so effective that a mass shooting in Jasper, Texas two days ago (two days ago) only injured 9. Progress? No.

I’ve been thinking about the whole gun control issue more the past few days not just because of the anniversary of the Uvalde murders, but because there has been extensive coverage of proposals by both the City of Uvalde and the Texas Legislature to prevent another such tragedy. The proposals are familiar to anyone who follows the debate: one side wants to arm every school employee (from teachers to janitors) and station armed guards outside the school, while the other side wants increased security and a ban on assault rifles. The latter plan will inevitably be voted down because banning assault rifles is, inexplicably, a non-starter in America today.

At this point, you might expect me to launch into an attack on the Second Amendment; you would be wrong. I do wish there were far, far fewer guns on our streets and believe that here in Texas we should reverse the insane no background check, no license, open-carry law that went into effect a few years ago (if I have to have training and a license to drive a car, I should at minimum have the same responsibility if I want to own a gun). But I have no issue with the Second Amendment, which you can read in full below:

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

I think the Framers of the Constitution were right to include this in the Bill of Rights; the problem is that staunch defenders of the Second Amendment are really only staunch defenders of the second half of it: “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Bring up the first half, however, and people get seriously up in arms (pun intended): “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State.”

The first half of the amendment causes consternation for a reason, something I can personally attest to as an Army veteran. “Well regulated” and “militia” are terms that have fairly straightforward definitions and thus some unambiguous restrictions as well. As a veteran, let me spell those out, having been part of the modern version of that well regulated militia.

Most who have never served in the armed forces may not know this, but the military has some of the most common-sense gun control measures you will find anywhere. We didn’t just walk around post with loaded M-16s slung over our shoulders; whenever we were not in the field or on the firing range, all of our weapons were locked up in an armory, with the ammunition secured in a totally separate location. If that’s the protocol for the best-trained military in the world, why do people with virtually no training and no need for those weapons have unfettered access to them?

And no, you don’t need an assault rifle with a 30-round magazine to hunt deer, so restricting access to those will not impact hunters. We hunted just fine without them when I was a kid, and deer have neither become smarter nor started wearing body armor in the 50 years since then.

For the strict Constitutionalists who love to say, “the Framers originally meant such and such” and “the Constitution is not a living, evolving document,” the answer is actually simple. You can have exactly the arms the Framers were talking about: after enlisting in the military to receive proper training, you can have a single-shot, muzzle-loading, black powder musket. It would actually work fine for hunting or home defense, but you couldn’t shoot up a school with it very easily. Failing that, a shotgun is more than sufficient for home defense.

And do not tell me that if we give up the 400 million guns and trillions of rounds of ammunition in private hands in this country, the government will have the power to enslave us. To that I say three things. First, I have not noticed our friends in Australia, New Zealand, the U.K., France, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Sweden, and dozens of other countries with sensible gun control laws living in chains. Second, your stockpile of AR-15s and ammo will prove quite useless if the government decides to park an Abrams tank on your street. Third, if you’re so worried about some despot taking control, maybe you’ll think a little harder before you pull the lever in that voting booth; we get the leaders we choose, and usually the ones we deserve.

It is almost certain that nothing will be done to curb the proliferation of assault-type rifles and high-capacity magazines in America, despite the fact that mass shootings continue unabated (and this doesn’t even touch on the issue of handgun violence). The rest of the world will think we are insane, and if the definition of insanity is doing the same thing and expecting a different result, they’ll be right.

If you enjoyed this story, you can support my writing directly by leaving a tip below (just click on the little hand on the right side of the “Written by” block; you tip waiters and bartenders, so why not writers?).

If you’re not a Medium member, you can join here. You’ll get access to all of my articles (including my weekly rants and numerous Springsteen stories) as well as those of all the other great writers here.