By Stan Harvey
Yes, I said it…now bear with me and resist the urge to grab a nearby trashcan for the nausea caused by hearing that oft-repeated phrase. Anti-gunners often try to monopolize terms, and I’m advocating we reclaim this one. In the dominant political squabble over guns and gun laws, a giant elephant in the room is totally ignored. In the patchwork collection of gun laws to come out of our government over the past century, hardly anyof it deserves to be called “common sense” . . .
This goes far beyond guns, it touches on basic American values under threat that most citizens can appreciate when the debate is framed in the proper way. Many of us can relate to having a friend or family member who, despite being an otherwise rational person, succumbs to the fear based arguments against guns. In my experience, sometimes you can reach these people when you point out how totally inane or destructive most gun laws are, and the dangers to freedom posed by enforcement agencies without adequate oversight or checks.
We should all be able to agree that regardless of belief, laws should make sense and they should be results oriented. The battle over gun rights is largely a war of attrition, and if we are constantly stuck on the defensive our rights slowly erode away. It’s time we push for REAL common sense in our gun laws.
Anti-gunners are generally wrong on the facts, yet even they are hard pressed to defend much of existing law as being rational. Take, for example, the 1934 National Firearms Act. It is rarely discussed in modern politics despite being highly ineffective at what it set out to do. It didn’t single-handedly end the prohibition fueled gang violence, ending prohibition did. I have yet to hear any compelling argument why a rifle with a 15.99” barrel magically becomes more dangerous than when it has a 16” barrel.
What about if we take uncle Joe’s advice and keep a shotgun for home defense? It’s not very comforting to know that a 12 gauge is not considered a destructive device only due to it being deemed “generally recognized as particularly suitable for sporting purposes”. A public official advocating wildly shooting into the air is not very comforting either, but that’s another topic.
When a gun law in Europe looks rational by comparison, you’re doing it wrong. Our approach to sound suppressors is harmful and pointless and in contrast some European countries allow much easier access to them even when the guns themselves are harder to get. I would appreciate not risking permanent hearing damage if, god forbid, I had to use deadly force against an intruder in my home. Hearing loss from shooting is a well documented problem, and it should be a “common sense” reform to allow unregulated access to devices that help protect the user’s hearing.
I have gotten befuddled looks and even concessions from anti-gunners in arguments where even they have to admit that many of the current gun laws are rationally indefensible. The debate could still be had about whether machine guns should be limited in some way, or whether or not civilians should be able to own RPGs, but at the very least we should all be able to agree that the clearly arbitrary laws should be eliminated.
A just system of law requires a clear set of rules. Even people who dislike guns should be concerned about entrenched bureaucratic power undermining the democratic process. The BATFE is a textbook example of out-of-control, unaccountable government.
It may be a low bar, but how many anti-gunners do you know who could defend the idea that a shoestring can be a machine gun with a straight face? Is it too much to ask to have a comprehensible code of laws so a citizen can be certain whether they are in compliance with it or not? Is it “common sense” that the process approving gun designs is secretive and that contradictory standards are given by the BATFE?
It’s much harder to defend these positions than it is to parrot emotional arguments for gun control, and we let them get away with it by allowing them to control the dialogue and put us on the defensive. It’s not just about how we should be able to put a vertical foregrip on a pistol, or build a pistol on a receiver that was previously part of a rifle without risking a decade in federal prison. It’s about having a government that is accountable to the people and doesn’t selectively determine and apply vague laws.
Enforcement agencies should not be allowed overly broad discretion in interpreting the law, or to drop prosecutions in order to avoid setting precedents. These actions fundamentally go against the values our country was founded on, and should upset us all regardless of our personal views on guns.
So the next time you hear somebody mention “common sense gun reform”, remember that they don’t get to own that term and point out how what they support is anything but. These laws clearly inhibit and harm law abiding gun owners without causing much concern for criminals. The least we can do is all come together to agree that despite our differences we mustn’t lose sight of the values that made this country great. Now THAT should be common sense.
You’re making a great argument for why the NFA should be repealed in its entirety. The main purpose of the legislation is already served by the assault weapons bans in states that have them and the Brady Bill requiring point of sale background checks for commercial firearms transactions.
Why are they so stupid, they should make a Desert Eagle with a 2.5 inch barrel and 5 shot mag (in .44 magnum). Something like the Glock 26.
“Profiles in Courage” Democrat-style: Do your dirty little mess for the people of Colorado, treat your constituents with arrogance and disdain, then run away when you have to face the consequences.
I say we start with nationwide CCW reciprocity. If my drivers license works in all 50 states (even Canada!) then my MI CPL should work as well. Crossing certain state lines will not turn me into a murderer. But it will magically make me a felon. Where is the common sense there?
I’d never thought about the idea that NICS effectively does in minutes what the NFA does in months. They both (ostensibly) screen people who wish to buy firearms, though NICS does so for all firearms while the NFA does so for certain firearms and accessories only.
As a step in the right direction, how would POTG feel about NICS checks for all items on the current NFA list of restricted items? Including accessories. I know, on its face it sounds silly to need an NICS check for a silencer, but it beats the hell out of the tax stamp and gets us a bit closer to a right than a privilege. I’d rather be presumed (and confirmed) innocent by a computer than need approval from an LEO and review of a form by the BATFE .
The Second Amendment, as the rest of the Bill of Rights, is an acknowledgement of our natural born rights, not a granting. The entire Bill of Rights is about keeping the governments in their place. The Second Amendment is about the common person’s right to own weapons of war so that we can keep the governments in their place by keeping the ‘monopoly on force’ in the hands of the people where it belongs, as in ‘We the people.’ Remember that? It will not be infringed any further and the ‘gun laws’ in existence will be repealed. End of discussion.
All gun control is propaganda designed to condition the sheeple to accept further ‘control’ until the final objective, civilian disarmament, is achieved. Thus all gun control is an act of war.
What we need is a granite gallows in front of the u.S. capitol, the now red house, every state capitol, every county court house and city hall with a militia force on hand to provide a speedy treason trial and execution for those who violate their oaths.
Millions will dig the ditch they are told to dig then wet their pants when the machine gun bolts slam home and die stupidly wondering “How did this happen to me?” The tiny minority will have to do what will be required.
It’s time to stop arguing over the culture war. It’s time to stop hunkering down for the apocalypse. It’s time to stop waiting to get beamed up. It’s time to start thinking Normandy.
If you sit home waiting your turn you deserve to have your gun taken from your cold dead hands.
The Founders didn’t wait for the Brits to knock down their doors. They gathered at the green and stood up like men and they killed government employees all the way back to Boston.
What will you do when it’s time to hunt NWO hacks, republicrats and commies(“Liberals” and ‘progressives’)?
Don’t understand? Follow my links. Read the quotes page first. Then read my column ‘Prepping for Slavery.’
I hate to think about what they would say about my collection. I have at least 500 rounds for each of the 10 calibers (guess at least that) I own. I have some for the gauges as well. I must have an armory.
22, 380, 9mm, 40, 45, 5.56×45, 223, 7.62×39, 7.62×51, 7.62×57 yeah, 10. Wow, would they have a heart attack or what.
Oh, gauges, 410, 20, 12
Bring on the Zombie’s
The zombie’s what?
Very nice piece. One thing: “We should all be able to agree that regardless of belief, laws should make sense and they should be results oriented.”
Leftists are not results oriented, and will fight application of outcome measures with all they have. Ask a teachers’ union boss how we know that kids are learning, he’ll say “because I can see it in their eyes.” Yeah, right. For rank and file leftists (aka useful idiots), all that matters is intent, or that doing it makes them feel good. They don’t care if it actually works. The arch Progs are results oriented, but their goals are different.
If I have my BUG with me I carry half that on my body. If you include 22lr, I probably have close to 10,000 rounds at home and enough components to load another 10,000. At my current rate of shooting 20,000 rounds is two years worth of ammo and I don’t shoot much compared to some of my friends.
I am at a loss for words to describe what I think of someone calling 106 rounds a large ammo stash.
You HAD to go and mention the “hearing lost” thing. Now they’ll push for further bans to “protect our hearing”.
Alternatively, they could make supressors more easily available. NAH.
Very good article, in my opinion.
Not only is that not legal it is not constitutional by any stretch of the imagination. However in the communist state of California nothing surprises me.
I am a smoker and I have trouble believing that this is really an issue. I understand that smoke stinks I own my own house with no one around and I still choose to go outdoors to smoke if I choose to enjoy a cigar I have my own garage/mancave that my wife infrequently navigates where I can do so. I don’t think that any apartments near me allow smoking. Now on the flipside of the coin the government needs to mind their own goddamned business stay out of my house without a warrent and get those drug dealers thugs and lowlifes off the street.