* [assault] - a violent physical or verbal attack
a military attack usually involving direct combat with enemy forces
a concerted effort (as to reach a goal or defeat an adversary)
a threat or attempt to inflict offensive physical contact or bodily harm on a
person, that puts the person in immediate danger of or in apprehension
* [servant] - one that serves others
What happens when your gun has been your best companion for months? What happens when your enlistment in the army gives you immunity from persecution in the country that you were deployed to? What happens is that you get used to it. In the awake of the school shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary, that left twenty six grieving families, the authorities, at last, took the issue of gun ownership seriously (too little, and some 250 school shooting victims since 1992, too late). One of the measures came from senator Dianne Feinstein, a democratic representative from California, who proposes a ban or a stricter control on assault weapons. In fact, this is nothing new, but an attempt for recall of 1994 law that came to end at 2004.
Unsurprisingly, some alerted Americans immediately clinched to the precious Second Amendment to the Constitution. Amendment that was created in times when the civil state just emerged in the USA and it was unclear how it will affect the citizens, and whose purpose was to legitimize the use of guns against the government (in case the citizen decided that the government is being unjust). Obviously, or may be not to everybody, now, 200 years later, we live in organized states where the government is sovereign - the people have put their trust in it and to disobey the government means to disobey one's own trust.
Then why Americans are so protective of their Second Amendment? Why do they find it more important than their own lives? One of the answers was given on the 27th of December from USMC Cpl Joshua Boston. He expressed his anger with the proposition and specifically with its contributor, Sen. Feinstein, by declaring his refusal of registering his gun, should the federal law pass. Cpl Boston states that he is "not a servant" to the senator, however, the veteran misses one important point. His oath of enlistment: "Enlistment Oath.— Each person enlisting in an armed force shall take the following oath: "I, XXXXXXXXXX, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." Cpl Boston is correct in his statement that he is not a servant. It is true that governments (civil states) were created to serve the people, not the other way around. However, a government is an organization that is carried out by people. In this sense the people employed in the government are servants to all citizens; hence the designation "public servant". The military is still a part of the executive branch of the government and its task is to provide its service of protection. Hence, the term military service. Furthermore, the enlistment oath obliges every armed official to "obey the orders of the President of the United States". In order for a bill to become a federal law, it must be approved by the President. In this sense, a refusal to abide to a federal law will not only be illegal but it will be an infringement of the oath.
I do share Cpl Boston's concern that we live in a dangerous world and these dangers are rather overlooked than being addressed and tackled. I also agree that guns should not be banned as this measure only favors criminals and leaves people defenseless. However, the types of guns that Sen Feinsein is talking about are not meant for defense. They are called "assault guns" for a reason - they attack and kill. A Colt Commander with muzzle velocity of 340 m/s and effective range of 60 m cannot compare with the semi-automatic AR-15 with 975 m/s of muzzle velocity and effective range of 500 m. This is why the rifle looks scary, not because of its lack of "wooden stock" (AK-47's wooden stock does not make it less scary). Cpl Boston's disbelief in the internal security of his country is quite scary given the fact that he was a part of the very same people that are supposed to protect the country - the government armed forces. If this protection is not enough is it justified to even have a military, to have a police force, to make laws? Why not just go back to the state of nature?
Some "wise" people say "guns don't kill people, people with guns kill people" - guns were created to kill (or at least wound) and do not have any other application. Other "wise" people say cars also kill people - however, cars are means of transportation so it is like comparing apples and oranges. Therefore, acquiring an assault weapon from a civil citizen seems inappropriate and dangerous. Why would somebody need a tool that is made with the sole purpose of harming somebody else? There are many more means of personal defense where the person can exercise some level of damage control. Nevertheless the experience the shooter has, using a weapon that can easily kill a target 500 m away, only puts innocent people in grave danger and brings us back to the times when everybody would award justices according to one's beliefs.