Something as important as firearm policy deserves a deliberative and legislative approach, rather than changing classifications at the whim of regulatory fiat.
Why compromise at all? These propositions will do nothing to reduce crime in the slightest, while only giving approval to the federal gov't to infringe on our natural, unalienable right to keep and bear arms.
I think the ability to have suppressors and carbines without registering with the federal government would be an expansion of the right to bear arms, while we would only be updating legislative language to cover new weapon attachments that, honestly, do things which our current laws already establish as outside the necessity of self-defense. I think we would be foolish to look at any and all compromise as infringement when, in fact, compromise when looked at as an opportunity can easily expand the rights of law-abiding citizens. Personally, I would be very excited to have, say, a 12 inch barrel with a suppressor that I could swap out with an 18 inch barrel for hunting on the same lower receiver without having to enter into any additional relationship with the federal government. That situation is much more valuable to me for the means of self-defense than are pistol braces and bump stocks.
I can agree to compromise when it moves the ball towards liberty and increased security of our unalienable rights. These proposals seem to do that, it's just that I hate to give the impression that I support such infringements in the first place. The propositions seem well reasoned, however.
Thanks for the review, and the argument, on the instability of our firearms laws. This is likely the reflection of the instability of legislative logic when it comes to making laws that actually serve the American people rather than merely serving the legislators themselves. Let's muse over this in a future post, shall we? But for now, rather than merely seek a stabilization between opposing camps and brace for compromise (puns intended), let's, as you softly alluded to, cut our spending on an agency that really does not need to exist by closing their doors (an argument that can also be made in a separate post), and secondly, eliminate the SBR law in general? As you said, the stats bear out about what tools are used for what trade.
Why compromise at all? These propositions will do nothing to reduce crime in the slightest, while only giving approval to the federal gov't to infringe on our natural, unalienable right to keep and bear arms.
I think the ability to have suppressors and carbines without registering with the federal government would be an expansion of the right to bear arms, while we would only be updating legislative language to cover new weapon attachments that, honestly, do things which our current laws already establish as outside the necessity of self-defense. I think we would be foolish to look at any and all compromise as infringement when, in fact, compromise when looked at as an opportunity can easily expand the rights of law-abiding citizens. Personally, I would be very excited to have, say, a 12 inch barrel with a suppressor that I could swap out with an 18 inch barrel for hunting on the same lower receiver without having to enter into any additional relationship with the federal government. That situation is much more valuable to me for the means of self-defense than are pistol braces and bump stocks.
I can agree to compromise when it moves the ball towards liberty and increased security of our unalienable rights. These proposals seem to do that, it's just that I hate to give the impression that I support such infringements in the first place. The propositions seem well reasoned, however.
Thanks for the review, and the argument, on the instability of our firearms laws. This is likely the reflection of the instability of legislative logic when it comes to making laws that actually serve the American people rather than merely serving the legislators themselves. Let's muse over this in a future post, shall we? But for now, rather than merely seek a stabilization between opposing camps and brace for compromise (puns intended), let's, as you softly alluded to, cut our spending on an agency that really does not need to exist by closing their doors (an argument that can also be made in a separate post), and secondly, eliminate the SBR law in general? As you said, the stats bear out about what tools are used for what trade.