Gun Laws that are FUBAR

This entry was posted in AK Series, AR, CA Guns, community, Franklin Armory, Gun Politics, Mini-14, NFA, Preparedness, Ruger, YouTube. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Gun Laws that are FUBAR

  1. Kenny Murvin says:

    I agree that most of these gun laws are ridiculous. However, I think it is important to recognize the original purpose of the laws. For instance, the issue with short barreled rifles and shotguns comes from the fact that in the 30’s criminals would “saw off” their rifles and shotguns so they could conceal them in long coats. Then when they were confronted by police the police were outgunned, so they outlawed them. Now today, police officers carry hi-cap pistols, and have a shotgun or M4 close at hand in their vehicle, so this is not as much of an issue. But keep in mind these laws were not originally intended to infringe the rights of law abiding citizens, but rather to protect law enforcement officers. Similarly in Ohio it is illegal to view cattle from an airplane. When that law was written there was a good reason for it, today it is pointless. The only difference between that, and the FUBAR gun laws, is that there is no “Bureau For the Protection of Vertically Viewed Cattle”. The problem is not that we have old laws, but that they have been allowed to be held over us like a club. So rather than talk about the idiosyncrasies of the FUBAR laws, we should be talking about how to remove defunct laws from the books. Thanks!

    • savethegun says:

      You are correct in that we need to remove defunct laws from the books, but I disagree about the nature of their very existence- I don’t think the FUBAR gun laws should have been passed in the first place. If the intention was to “protect law enforcement officers”, they missed their mark. Remember, Prohibition created the black market for alcohol that most of these gangsters profited from. So the 18th Amendment empowered criminals to flourish, then more “well-intentioned” laws were passed to fix the unintended consequences. More laws clearly didn’t help help anyone.
      “The purpose of the National Firearms Act was to regulate what were considered ‘gangster weapons’ such as machine guns and short barreled shotguns. Then U.S. Attorney General Homer S. Cummings recognized that firearms could not be banned outright under the Second Amendment, so he proposed restrictive regulation in the form of an expensive tax and Federal registration.” (Wikipedia).
      The intention was not to empower police officers- it was to control civilians. If legislators wanted to protect police officers, they could have increased funding for safety equipment and better tools for law enforcement. Criminals don’t register their guns- never have and never will. And even if they did, do you think a registration cost would have deterred wealthy gangsters from buying those guns? Of course not, it would only make it tougher for the poor to arm themselves against criminals.
      All governments seek a monopoly on the threat of force, as it is in their own rational self-interest. And almost all laws rob people of freedom, not protect them. I think that is where we disagree.
      “The road to tyranny is paved with good intentions”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s