Last weekend, an 8 year-old Massachusetts boy was killed after he lost control of an Uzi submachine gun and shot himself in the head. A third-grader shooting an Uzi – are you kidding me?!
Let me start by saying I believe in everyone’s Second Amendment right to bear arms. I have a Class A license to Carry in Massachusetts and I am a member of the NRA. We all have an inalienable right to bear arms that allows us to lawfully protect life and property.
The Second Amendment assures: 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.
The first clause leads some to believe the Second Amendment was intended to provide for militias and that is partially true. James Madison once wrote “The Constitution preserves “the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation…(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.”
The second clause is what guarantees a right to bear arms that all citizens had prior to the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Samuel Adams’ comments affirm this notion – “That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms … “
That brings us to the tragic accident with the 8 year-old boy. I am quite certain that throughout history, boys (and girls) learn how to fire a gun at a very young age. Some start with a BB gun; some a .22 rifle; some a small caliber handgun, but there is no reason for children to be firing automatic weapons!
WARNING: I am about to commit heresy here, so if you are a fan of automatic weapons, stop reading.
Firearms should be for two reasons – protection of life/property and hunting (and target practice that goes along with those two). I believe that was the intent of the Second Amendment – not to allow people to own an arsenal of automatic weapons that serve no rational purpose.
Fully automatic weapons, like the Uzi, are firearms that continue to fire as long as you depress the trigger and there is ammunition. Is that 
necessary for protection of life/property or hunting?! Hardly. Even Law Enforcement agencies who have a valid reason for using automatic weapons will seldom use weapons like an HK-MP5
on fully automatic because it’s hard to control. Once you fire the first burst, it’s anyone’s guess where the rest will go. That’s me in the picture to the right shooting an MP5 at the range. Single shot was dead on, but I was all over the place on semi-automatic, never mind automatic.
The Federal Assault Weapons Ban under the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 legislated a 10 year ban on “assault weapons”. It was not renewed in 2004 for a few reasons, one of which was because it was too broad – it should have focused on fully automatic weapons that truly had little use other than murder and mayhem.
Coincidentally, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, where this young boy was killed, has an assault weapons ban signed by Governor Mitt Romney in 2004.
Bottom line - There is no rational reason for private citizens to own, possess or use fully automatic weapons.
