If It Feels Good, Do It: Republicans side with al Qaeda on assault weapons

(This post is actually an op-ed I wrote Sunday evening that I pitched to three editors over the past three days. The third editor wanted to run with it, but by the time we worked out a couple of minor changes, it was just past the publication's deadline for the day, and the editor decided -- probably correctly -- that the story's shelf life will have expired by tomorrow. Ah, the trials and tribulations of a struggling writer! Anyway, here it is for your reading pleasure.)

If It Feels Good, Do It: Republicans side with al Qaeda on assault weapons
by David L. Englin

I’m not ashamed to admit it: Whenever I had occasion during my military service to open up on the shooting range with an assault rifle, I enjoyed it immensely. There's a certain visceral pleasure, a sense of raw, aggressive power, one gets when shooting a high-capacity military weapon designed to pump lead into a target as quickly as you can keep pulling the trigger. There’s no question about it: Shooting an assault rifle feels good. Unfortunately, Republicans in Congress chose to put an "if it feels good, do it" attitude toward these kinds of weapons ahead of the national security of the United States.

By allowing the assault weapons ban to expire Monday, Republicans put themselves on the side of the author of an al Qaeda training manual that contains the following:

"In countries like the United States it's perfectly legal for members of the public to own certain types of firearms. If you live in such a country obtain an assault rifle legally, preferably an AK-47 or variations."

Thanks to the assault weapons ban, the sale of high-capacity semi-automatic AK-47s, AR-15s, and other military weapons -- “or variations” -- has been illegal since 1994. The decade between then and now happens also to coincide with the planning and execution of several al Qaeda attacks on American targets.

Refusing to allow the bill reauthorizing the ban even to come up for a vote, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) said, "I think the will of the American people is consistent with letting it expire, so it will expire." Frist is either being dishonest or ignorant on this issue -- and he’s not known for his ignorance. Poll after poll shows the majority of Americans -- two-thirds, according to the National Annenberg Election Survey -- support the assault weapons ban. And why wouldn't they? It helps keep weapons of war out of the hands of the terrorists with whom we are at war, and most Americans, if not most right-wing ideologues, think that's a reasonable measure.

According to the Annenberg survey, even one-third of National Rifle Association members support the assault weapons ban. They apparently are not persuaded by the NRA’s self-proclaimed number one reason to allow what they predictably call the “Clinton gun ban” to expire: “The ban interferes with the right of self defense.” Short of the fictional “Red Dawn” scenario, where a band of teenagers waged a guerrilla war against Soviet forces occupying the American heartland, it’s hard to imagine how a pistol, a shotgun, or a hunting rifle -- all of which are still legal -- wouldn’t provide enough protection to the average law-abiding citizen. But shooting an AK-47 sure does feel good.

Moreover, the recent terrorist siege at the school in Beslan, Russia, highlights the danger overly-armed civilians can pose in a crisis. In that case, armed civilian bystanders apparently fired the shots that turned negotiations and military rescue efforts into a bloody tragedy that left more than 330 dead and 700 wounded. They also mistakenly shot and killed several Russian special forces soldiers who were part of the rescue effort. When the men of Beslan took up arms against the terrorists holding their wives and children, it probably felt good to do something -- anything -- to protect their families, but it turned out not to help the situation.

Beyond self-defense, the NRA claims that assault weapons “have never been criminals’ ‘weapon of choice.’” Al Qaeda apparently didn’t get the memo on this one (or perhaps the NRA distinguishes between “terrorists” and “criminals.”) However you count, or discount, the litany of data showing assault weapons used in deadly crimes during the years before the ban, there can be no doubt whatsoever that al Qaeda considers “an AK-47 or variations” to be a weapon of choice. Aside from the infamous training manual, use of AK-47s and other assault rifles was part of the core curriculum for hundreds of terrorists trained at the al Qaeda camps that were successfully destroyed during the war in Afghanistan.

In 2002, Republican Saxby Chambliss defeated Sen. Max Cleland (D-Ga.), a combat veteran who left both legs and an arm in Vietnam, with ads comparing him to Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden for refusing to support a version of the Homeland Security bill that would have stripped union rights from tens of thousands of federal employees. While politically effective, the link between Cleland’s support for an alternate bill and any terrorist agenda was pure fantasy.

In 2004, Republicans who oppose the assault weapons ban are supporting a policy that is demonstrably in line with al Qaeda’s exhortation to its followers to “obtain an assault rifle legally.” Will Democrats running against Republicans who oppose the ban use ads comparing their opponents to al Qaeda? I bet it would feel good -- like payback for Cleland, and for the stream of attacks on Sen. John Kerry that distort his positions to the point of dishonesty.

It’s usually Republicans accusing Democrats of putting “if it feels good, do it” ahead of what’s good for America. Shooting assault rifles feels good; on that Democrats and Republicans who enjoy shooting will no doubt agree. The difference is that Republicans in Congress seem to care more about letting gun enthusiasts feel good shooting powerful military weapons than about the safety of the American people.