Weapons of mass destruction don't kill people. People kill people.
Individuals are the ones that decide to use weapons of mass destruction and kill people. The terrorists who seek weapons of mass destruction decide to kill people. North Korean dictator Kim Jong-Il, who orders the development of a nuclear weapon, kills people. Iranian leader Ayatollah Khatami, who wishes to obtain weapons of mass destruction, kills people.
Although it is individuals who chose to harbor and use such terrible weapons, it is the absolute reasonable and appropriate policy for the United States government to strongly fight for anti-proliferation to prevent "evil-doers" from obtaining the destructive weapons themselves.
Oddly though, President Bush, contrary to his adamant anti-proliferation standpoint, has allowed a different kind of weapon of mass destruction to enter our neighborhoods and threaten our safety. Not anthrax. Not biotoxins. Not nerve gas. Rather, assault weapons.
Bush, ignoring pleas from a wide variety of sensible voices spanning from the National Association of Police Organizations to the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, allowed the decade-old assault weapons ban to expire in September 2004, putting the American populace at risk.
Bush understands that the WMD themselves must be kept out of the hands of potential enemies, even though individuals are the ones that directly kill people -- by planning and executing attacks.
The Bush administration, however, contradicts itself by allowing assault weapons -- a different kind of WMD -- to become legalized once again after a decade of decreasing gun violence, under the National Rifle Association mantra that "guns don't kill people. People kill people." Don't get me wrong. An assault weapon, or any gun for that matter, is a WMD. Just ask anyone that has lost anyone at the hands of gun violence.
Applying Bush's global anti-proliferation logic to the domestic level, even though it is people -- criminals, drug dealers and terrorists -- that directly pull the trigger on the assault weapons, the most practical and effective policy to defend the nation is to rid society of the weapons themselves. Hence, the logical policy of the United States should be to ban assault weapons.
Unfortunately, the president fails to see these analogous conditions in both American global and domestic public policy, creating a massive rift of credibility and judgment.
In fact, even though Al-Qaida training manuals emphasize to its agents to legally purchase assault weapons in the United States for terrorist operations, and that Bush constantly reiterates the ruthlessness of the enemy and the perilous time we live in, by allowing the ban to expire, this Administration is compromising our homeland security -- from threats domestic and abroad.
Who's sending "mixed messages" now?
One phrase explains the president's contradiction between American foreign and domestic policy toward keeping dangerous weapons at bay: the gun lobby. There is a clear distinction between handguns, which are acceptable in modern society given the implementation of common sense measures, and assault weapons. Assault weapons were designed with one purpose: to inflict as much damage as soon as possible. To be frank, handguns, with the capacity to hold only a small number of bullets at a time, do not impose the large-scale destructive power as assault weapons.
Nonetheless, there is a role for guns in 21st-century America. In our democratic society Americans can exercise their right to value the ownership of guns based on either their tradition in our history, lifestyle and viewpoints on the limits of government. American citizens do have the right to own a gun in order to do two things -- to hunt and to protect their own homes. However, the application of guns in modern society ends there. You do not need an assault weapon to hunt game or to protect your home. It is common sense. The only possible instance for you, an American civilian, to need an assault weapon is to defend your home from a band of Marxist guerillas. If this is the case, you have much bigger problems to worry about than the assault weapons ban.
The inherent nature of an assault weapon is just that. "Assault" implies offensive, rather than defensive, actions. The assault weapons that are now legal for American civilians to purchase were intended for military use.
Would you like to find the Beretta AR-70 or SC-70 under the Christmas tree this year? Both the Italian and Jordanian militaries use these two offensive weapons.
Do you need this kind of weapon to hunt deer or shoot an intruder in your home?
Gun lobby: one. Common sense: zero.