Gun Control III - the Gunnening
Posted: Tue Mar 27, 2018 1:59 pmPreviously, on Gun Control.
Part I, Part II
Part I, Part II
Original Post & Thread by Conservative Morality:
Been gone from NSG recovering from a little accident (nothing major) so I thought I'd return to the forums with a true classic - gun control.
I speak on this issue as an American, and thus I necessarily refer back to the 2nd Amendment here. The 2nd Amendment is culturally important - practically, less so. In an age of effective nonlethal self-defense weapons, 'self-defense' rings somewhat hollow as a justification; in an age of the MIC, 'combat readiness' for the civilian population doubly so; and anyone who thinks that their militia is going to resist the tyranny of the Feds with small arms is loony enough that they probably shouldn't own any guns. One must remember that even in the American Revolutionary War it was not private firearms which provided the majority of the firepower of American forces; such firearm ownership was primarily the province of skirmishers and some irregulars.
I could care less, to be honest, about long guns. We aren't the Wild West. We aren't some wartorn third-world country. Even fully automatic long guns don't concern me too much. Our problems with firearms are overwhelmingly concerned with the tracking of individuals who misuse them, not so much the disarmament of individuals with firearms. We don't live in a country where militias and gangs can resist the force of the State without using the institutions of the State (judicial process, presumption of innocence, civil rights).
Registration and tracking of firearms is all-important, as is licensing for individuals. I'm not sure that there are many circumstances I would support a full ban on a person's right to own firearms, but restricting ownership of certain firearms for certain individuals is probably useful. Acquiring a license to own handguns in particular, I think, is a good idea. Criminal activity is overwhelmingly reliant on concealment of weaponry.
I do think a limitation on different 'classes' of weapons is useful - but the current definitions of 'assault' weapons are asinine and borderline useless. Restrictions on semiautomatic long guns should be based primarily on ease of concealment - 'tactical' attachments, bayonet lugs, that shit doesn't matter. Collapsing stocks and shortened barrels and extended magazine capacity is more important, and even then I don't believe in a complete ban on such things.
Private and government property, naturally, can restrict what comes onto their property. Your rights end where another's begin. If the city doesn't want your glock in the local social services department, leave it at home and quitcher bitchin'.
Silencers is a question I struggle with. Any policy on silencers has to be Federal, not piecemeal state-by-state, but... on one hand, the use of silencers to lessen hearing loss and damage is perfectly legitimate and silencers don't work like Hollywood 'plink plink' kind of bullshit. It turns a roar into a bark. It's not exactly a sneaky-beaky murder weapon. On the other hand, turning a roar into a bark is sometimes enough combined with background ambiance to conceal the firing of a gun in circumstances where a gun should not be fired, which is... problematic.
Open carry is an issue that I think should mostly be regulated by the individual states, with some exceptions. There is no fucking reason you need to open carry a fully automatic weapon in public, full stop. Keep that shit on private property. I'd prefer it if people didn't carry their AR-15 dick replacements into the local department stores with tactical webbing and camo from head to toe either, but I guess that's more a personal preference.
So? Agree? Disagree? Am I just rambling?
