In 2002 I raised my right hand and swore to defend the Constitution against all enemies. Despite taking this oath, when I carried my assigned weapon I signed it out of the arms room and I signed for every round I carried. I met yearly training requirements and had to prove that I was proficient with my weapon and knew how to break it down, clean it and demonstrate proper safety procedures.
We require no similar standard for the civilians who'd like to own weapons like I carried in the military. There are no requirements to demonstrate a competency with the weapons, no requirements of responsibility for the ammunition they carry, and certainly no oath taken that says gun owners won't use their firearms against the public. If people don't want an assault weapons ban, fine. But I want some type of standards implemented for people who want to own weapons of war. These aren't weapons designed for individual self-defense — shotguns and handguns can do that. Assault weapons are designed to inflict maximum damage on a dangerous enemy. They were designed to keep our war fighters safe.
Want to carry the same weapons as our police officers and our military? Fine. But gun owners who follow the rules should be lining up to prove their competency with the weapons that I carried in combat.
Kenneth Meador, Moore