TAW122
Emissary of the right to die.
- Aug 30, 2018
- 6,904
In case anyone is curious about my position on firearms, guns, and the 2nd amendment (in the US), here is my take on this. As someone who embraced the firearm as a method to CTB, no, this thread will not focus on that solely, maybe briefly only, as this thread is going to mainly explain my position and thoughts on firearms in general and why I hold the position I do as well as critique the laws that I don't agree with. First off, here is some background about me. I live in the US and fortunately, in a state where firearms ownership is generally pretty lax and accessible (not in any of the super liberal states or those with very restrictive gun laws). I will be just focusing on the utilitarian and logical aspect of things. I am also not going to go into the rabbit hole of politics and semantics as that would just over-complicate things and detract from what this thread will be about.
I support the 2nd amendment and believe in the right to own firearms (legally and responsibly) and most of the restrictive laws and policies that are in the pipeline and those that have passed are generally unconstitutional and unhelpful. They only serve to hinder the average person wanting to have fun (recreation, hunting, sports, collection, hobby, etc.) or even practically defend oneself (self-defense and deterrence from bad actors). After all, if we are being logical and rational, a firearm is just a tool, generally an effective tool at stopping big mammals, animals and humans alike aside from recreational purposes (target shooting, hunting, competitive shooting, trophy collection, etc.). It is incredibly effective at the hands of a trained individual and those who know how to operate them.
Anyways, here are the laws that I don't agree with as they don't serve any major purpose but only hinder a law abiding citizen or most people (good actors) in society, especially firearms enthusiasts. While I'm not heavily involved in the firearms community, I do read through them as part of research and knowledge as well as understand their stances and arguments on laws. In addition to this, my stance is also built mostly on utilitarian and pragmatic reasoning, as well as objective reality.
Suppressors and silencers being on the NFA
It is quite sad and even wrong that an accessory, albeit a very practical one is actually more restricted than an actual firearm in the US. The irony is while most other countries (particularly in Europe) are more restrictive when it comes to firearm acquisition and ownership (have stricter background checks, must submit to medical screening, must pass tests and training, or other eligibility requirements), yet when it comes to legally owning a firearm accessory such as the suppressor (aka 'silencer') they are much more lenient and even encourage shooters to use them. For example, hunters are encouraged to use them on their firearms as to not scare away other animals or disturb their neighbors and surrounding environment. This also doubles as reducing the amount of hearing damage or potential for hearing damage versus those who don't use them.
On a practical level and in reality, suppressors do NOT silence the firearm like movies (Hollywood and bad faith media reporting has created an inaccurate, false view on the capability of this very tool). They instead, lower the loudness of the firearm, making it easier (not necessarily hearing safe either) for the shooter to enjoy the activity instead of loudness damaging their hearing. They may still need to wear hearing protection, but are safer in general, and also to some degree, the suppressor helps with stabilizing the weapon upon discharge which allows the shooter to shoot better (good for recreation as well). While there are bad actors who use accessories or tools for harm or illicit means, it is not enough reason to ban or even heavily restrict such accessories because of the actions of the very few. Most law abiding citizens use them for legitimate and beneficial purposes that significantly outweigh the drawbacks and ill actions of the few.
Limitations on function, magazine capacity, and similar things
I am against having such (impractical) restrictions on such aspects of firearms, be it the magazine capacity, function of the firearm, or even certain things. This would include semi-automatic, limit to how many rounds a firearm can hold, certain firearm accessories, or even something as ridiculous as the "bullet button" (even though later the law was later changed – but shouldn't have been a law to begin with) just for safety. Other things include resurgence grip, making it harder for people to handle firearms in general (either hunting or recreational use). Limits to magazine capacity only makes it more inconvenient for those who want it for self-defense purposes, and to some smaller extent, somewhat inconveniences the recreational shooter, meaning those who shoot for sport or fun will have to work with less and deal with a diminished experience of recreational shooting. Imagine if sports (think popular sports, American football, football (soccer), and/or other sports) had restrictions or things that break what makes the sport 'fun', I'm sure there will likely be riots and unrest, not just with the sports and athletic communities but even with the popular people. I could list more examples, but I think these are more than enough to prove my point.
Red flag laws and such arbitrary policies
A lot of states (even some red states) have various laws which will preemptively confiscate (or even require a gun owner to surrender their) firearms if there is a report of a risk to oneself or others. While on paper this seems like a sensible law and common sense policy, in practice, it is far more sinister as it's application and use case is that it is often abused. Even while the respondent (the person whose rights are under scrutiny or attack) is ultimately cleared or found to not be ineligible to legally possess firearms, the amount of mental fortitude, the time, money, and resources spent to clear their name is an unnecessary burden. If they win, they still lose in some manner because if such laws did not exist, they wouldn't have had to go through the ordeal to begin with. Ultimately, the issue with such laws is there isn't enough evidence on the respondent (or very little) and said person is first deprived of their rights before having to disprove the complainant's claims. Additionally (even for those who aren't really going to CTB), people who want to CTB on their own terms would be lumped into the same laws and policies, but that is for another topic.
Bonus point: Criminals and bad actors don't care about the law!
I still stand by the fact that most of the restrictions and regulations not only serve to inconvenience and frustrate law abiding citizens, but of course as history proves time and time again, criminals don't always follow the law! In other countries, sure this may be more nuanced and complex than just a blanket statement, but of course bad actors will always abuse something. When the law or government restricts and limits certain features or aspects of a tool, criminals will try to find workarounds or even resort to other means, so it only burdens the law abiding citizen. Countries without firearms, criminals still exist and commit harm towards innocent and law abiding citizens though, so even in other countries where they restrict other tools (like knives, bats, pepper spray, other weapons, tools) through invasive and paternalistic policies, it once again, only inconveniences (at best) and puts their citizens in a less advantageous position.
So there is all of my main arguments and the stance I have with relation to gun rights and such. There are more that I can say, but since that is quite a lot to take in, I thought I'd just state my stance and list the major points that comprise my position with regards to the 2nd amendment. While I do share some views on various topics and issues that are more liberal (economics and social issues), I don't consider myself to be either affiliated or standing with either particular party. If I could have it my way, I would not consider 2nd amendment to be either a conservative or liberal issue, but a non-partisan issue, but I digress. Anyways, feel free to chime in and give your two cents.
I support the 2nd amendment and believe in the right to own firearms (legally and responsibly) and most of the restrictive laws and policies that are in the pipeline and those that have passed are generally unconstitutional and unhelpful. They only serve to hinder the average person wanting to have fun (recreation, hunting, sports, collection, hobby, etc.) or even practically defend oneself (self-defense and deterrence from bad actors). After all, if we are being logical and rational, a firearm is just a tool, generally an effective tool at stopping big mammals, animals and humans alike aside from recreational purposes (target shooting, hunting, competitive shooting, trophy collection, etc.). It is incredibly effective at the hands of a trained individual and those who know how to operate them.
Anyways, here are the laws that I don't agree with as they don't serve any major purpose but only hinder a law abiding citizen or most people (good actors) in society, especially firearms enthusiasts. While I'm not heavily involved in the firearms community, I do read through them as part of research and knowledge as well as understand their stances and arguments on laws. In addition to this, my stance is also built mostly on utilitarian and pragmatic reasoning, as well as objective reality.
Suppressors and silencers being on the NFA
It is quite sad and even wrong that an accessory, albeit a very practical one is actually more restricted than an actual firearm in the US. The irony is while most other countries (particularly in Europe) are more restrictive when it comes to firearm acquisition and ownership (have stricter background checks, must submit to medical screening, must pass tests and training, or other eligibility requirements), yet when it comes to legally owning a firearm accessory such as the suppressor (aka 'silencer') they are much more lenient and even encourage shooters to use them. For example, hunters are encouraged to use them on their firearms as to not scare away other animals or disturb their neighbors and surrounding environment. This also doubles as reducing the amount of hearing damage or potential for hearing damage versus those who don't use them.
On a practical level and in reality, suppressors do NOT silence the firearm like movies (Hollywood and bad faith media reporting has created an inaccurate, false view on the capability of this very tool). They instead, lower the loudness of the firearm, making it easier (not necessarily hearing safe either) for the shooter to enjoy the activity instead of loudness damaging their hearing. They may still need to wear hearing protection, but are safer in general, and also to some degree, the suppressor helps with stabilizing the weapon upon discharge which allows the shooter to shoot better (good for recreation as well). While there are bad actors who use accessories or tools for harm or illicit means, it is not enough reason to ban or even heavily restrict such accessories because of the actions of the very few. Most law abiding citizens use them for legitimate and beneficial purposes that significantly outweigh the drawbacks and ill actions of the few.
Limitations on function, magazine capacity, and similar things
I am against having such (impractical) restrictions on such aspects of firearms, be it the magazine capacity, function of the firearm, or even certain things. This would include semi-automatic, limit to how many rounds a firearm can hold, certain firearm accessories, or even something as ridiculous as the "bullet button" (even though later the law was later changed – but shouldn't have been a law to begin with) just for safety. Other things include resurgence grip, making it harder for people to handle firearms in general (either hunting or recreational use). Limits to magazine capacity only makes it more inconvenient for those who want it for self-defense purposes, and to some smaller extent, somewhat inconveniences the recreational shooter, meaning those who shoot for sport or fun will have to work with less and deal with a diminished experience of recreational shooting. Imagine if sports (think popular sports, American football, football (soccer), and/or other sports) had restrictions or things that break what makes the sport 'fun', I'm sure there will likely be riots and unrest, not just with the sports and athletic communities but even with the popular people. I could list more examples, but I think these are more than enough to prove my point.
Red flag laws and such arbitrary policies
A lot of states (even some red states) have various laws which will preemptively confiscate (or even require a gun owner to surrender their) firearms if there is a report of a risk to oneself or others. While on paper this seems like a sensible law and common sense policy, in practice, it is far more sinister as it's application and use case is that it is often abused. Even while the respondent (the person whose rights are under scrutiny or attack) is ultimately cleared or found to not be ineligible to legally possess firearms, the amount of mental fortitude, the time, money, and resources spent to clear their name is an unnecessary burden. If they win, they still lose in some manner because if such laws did not exist, they wouldn't have had to go through the ordeal to begin with. Ultimately, the issue with such laws is there isn't enough evidence on the respondent (or very little) and said person is first deprived of their rights before having to disprove the complainant's claims. Additionally (even for those who aren't really going to CTB), people who want to CTB on their own terms would be lumped into the same laws and policies, but that is for another topic.
Bonus point: Criminals and bad actors don't care about the law!
I still stand by the fact that most of the restrictions and regulations not only serve to inconvenience and frustrate law abiding citizens, but of course as history proves time and time again, criminals don't always follow the law! In other countries, sure this may be more nuanced and complex than just a blanket statement, but of course bad actors will always abuse something. When the law or government restricts and limits certain features or aspects of a tool, criminals will try to find workarounds or even resort to other means, so it only burdens the law abiding citizen. Countries without firearms, criminals still exist and commit harm towards innocent and law abiding citizens though, so even in other countries where they restrict other tools (like knives, bats, pepper spray, other weapons, tools) through invasive and paternalistic policies, it once again, only inconveniences (at best) and puts their citizens in a less advantageous position.
So there is all of my main arguments and the stance I have with relation to gun rights and such. There are more that I can say, but since that is quite a lot to take in, I thought I'd just state my stance and list the major points that comprise my position with regards to the 2nd amendment. While I do share some views on various topics and issues that are more liberal (economics and social issues), I don't consider myself to be either affiliated or standing with either particular party. If I could have it my way, I would not consider 2nd amendment to be either a conservative or liberal issue, but a non-partisan issue, but I digress. Anyways, feel free to chime in and give your two cents.
