Why I’m Against Gun Laws
With my last YouTube video which was “Changes I’d Make to the NFA” coming out, it got me thinking on other changes that could be made to current laws to make them less burdensome. Even with that being the case though, I’m still adamantly against gun laws; period.
I think that machine guns should be able to be bought without a license, I think the National Firearms Act needs to be abolished and consequently the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives. Some may see this as an extreme stance to take, so let me explain.
(The image above isn’t entirely true, as there were a few school shootings prior, but none with machine guns according to my research)
They Don’t Work
Firearm regulations haven’t worked in the past and they haven’t worked today. The National Firearms Act of 1934 was designed to be the “end all, be all” to “gun violence”. It heavily restricted several kinds of firearms under the illusion that criminals would follow further laws; surprise! They didn’t.
There are thousands of gun laws on the books across the United States. These laws regulate everything from possession, to transporting, and then onto importing/exporting. If you’re not aware of the many ways firearms (and even the accessories are regulated) checkout my “Is it reasonable? The National Firearms Act” to get started.
“Assault Weapons”. Assault weapons are commonly described as being fully automatic and have “high capacity” magazines. These have been regulated to the point that they basically aren’t obtainable by your average citizen. Yet for some reason they keep being brought up. In fact, many of the last times legally obtained machine guns have been used in crime, have been used by police officers.
Let that sink in.
Beyond this, in 1994 there was the infamous Assault Weapons Ban. This ban was allowed to expire in 2004 and violent crime has been on a continuous nose dive; meanwhile firearms ownership and applications to carry have been going up steadily each year.
The graph above is one of many that follow the violent crime/firearm ownership rate, all of the ones I have seen have been similar.
“High Capacity Magazines”. There are several states like California, Massachusetts, and Vermont that have implemented capacity limits on magazines. These are under the illusion that limiting magazine capacity will in some way reduce death tolls during tragedies. As we saw in New Zealand (where magazine capacities are strictly regulated) the bans do nothing. There is no statistical data supporting these kinds of regulations.
(Past there being no statistical data supporting these regulations, magazines are not regulated federally. They are not date stamped or serialized. There is no way to enforce these types of bans; especially when there’s grandfathering)
If they were to help reduce deaths, why are the police in the states with the bans not forced to abide by these kinds of restrictions? I can easily pull up a dozen articles about cops having their firearms either stolen from their cruisers, or forgetting them in bathrooms (let this fact sink in even more with the “assault weapons”). Why are the body guards of our politicians not bound by these same laws as the citizens…yet the politicians are the ones claiming that the new regulations will increase public safety?
I’ll be diving into the magazine restrictions more in the near future, so be sure to look out for that article!
Carry Permits/Licenses: The licensing processes for carrying a firearm legally (in most states, some have Constitutional Carry) only affects those who are trying to abide by the law without going to jail. There isn’t a day in the United States where there isn’t a story of someone being arrested for illegally carrying a firearm, or even having a firearm illegally.
I would also make the argument that if an individual is too dangerous to have their rights fully restored upon serving their prison sentence, then why are they allowed out of prison to begin with? Are they not too dangerous to be apart of society again?
Background Checks: Many people are in agreement that background checks are something that we need. I do and I don’t. There have been studies done on background checks and they’ve either been inconclusive, or they’ve come out stating that background checks…don’t really do anything.
In fact 95% of all denials are false positives. Meaning that the people filling out the 4473 by law are allowed to own firearms, but for some reason they were denied; be it having a similar name to a violent felon, or something else. Between 2003 and 2016 only 13 people were convicted for trying to illegally purchase a gun; 10 million were sold.
Above all of the statistics that we could dive into, straw purchases are a thing. A straw purchase is when an eligible individual will buy a product for an ineligible individual; such as an 18 year old buying cigarettes for a 16 year old.
These purchases happen everyday whether we choose to believe it or not; the charges are only brought up after a crime has been committed with the straw purchased firearm. The question could be raised… Is it a punishable straw purchase when Friend A buys Friend B a firearm because Friend B keeps getting false positives?
Fact: Prior to the Parkland Shooter a straw purchased firearm was used to kill two cops.
The Class System
The laws and regulations on the books today create a class system out of rights; this is the biggest reason I’m against gun laws. A right is something that everyone has and everyone can exercise. There should be no money exchanging hands in order for an individual to exercise their rights; period.
A tax stamp for a short barreled rifle, short barreled shotgun, suppressor, or an “any other weapon” is $200. When the legislation that started regulating these items was enacted $200 was 50% of the average monthly salary. This meant (and was the intended purpose of said legislation) that the average United States citizen could not exercise their 2nd Amendment rights to the fullest extent unless they were apart of the higher class.
Today $200 doesn’t seem like much to many, especially with the average price of a quality firearm being $450+, but $200 to many is still “make it or break it” territory on a monthly basis. With that being the case, should an individual’s financial status dictate whether or not they are able to exercise the rights affronted to them by the Constitution and beyond that their creator?
Now we move to carry permits. Many states require a processing fee to obtain a permit/license to carry a firearm and some require classes in order to obtain/apply for said license or permit. The permit/license cost can range anywhere from $20 to $200 (highest I’ve seen); very few states offer lifetime permits like Indiana does, so a renewal fee is required. Some states not only require renewal, but a re-certification via the courses required to obtain/apply for the license/permit to carry.
Many like to say requiring a safety course to own/carry is a smart idea… well… if a person obtains a stalker or believes their life is in danger, should their financial status determine whether or not they have the capability of defending themselves? Further more, should they have to wait to be able to defend themselves?
Many of these laws create a system of “haves” and “have nots”. The anti-gunners want to preach about equality…where is the equality of rights in a system designed this way? I’ll tell you; it’s absent.
I’m against gun laws, I’m even more against the government making a class system out of rights that every individual is supposed to have. But, I’m all for finding ways to make current laws less burdensome and more equal among all citizens; not just those with stable finances.
Chances are the National Firearms Act will never get abolished and chances are National Reciprocity will turn into a mess if certain amendments aren’t made to it (such as a citizen only being governed by their state of residence). That being the case, I think we need to start a dialogue in the community to see what we could change to make the laws a little easier…such as getting a solid definition on what an AOW is.
P.S. What’s the solution to ending the mass shootings? I’m not sure; but the thousands of laws on the books aren’t doing a damned thing; even in the strictest corners of this nation.
Maybe not allowing the media to blast the shooter’s name on the T.V. for weeks on end; but that’s going against the 1st Amendment. Maybe it’s the government agencies actually doing their jobs and not selling guns to the cartel.
I honestly don’t know, but the solution isn’t adding more unnecessary laws on top of laws that haven’t worked already.