Why are firearms laws good, if they don't reduce crime, but limit the choices peaceable people can make?
I, for one, would have been rather angry if the rifle I wanted to purchase (AR-15) had been made illegal for purchase due to some politicians being afraid of the flash suppressor and bayonet lug on it. The bayonet lug issue doesn't anger me, but since I do about half my shooting practice in low-light conditions, telling me I had to by a new rifle without a flash suppressor would have angered me! Forcing me to buy magazines of less than standard size would also have offended me, since I often practice and compete in courses which would have required me to reload 3 times as often (which increases my time and makes my score less competitive). Thankfully, the '94 AWB expired.
Then, there is the law that prevented me from buying the handgun I wanted to use for competition for almost a year. Yes, I competed on a military shooting team, but could not legally buy a handgun from a dealer. Thank you 1968 GCA! (Sound frustrating?)
I cannot legally buy a new production rifle, like I would be issued (and I do buy into the "practice how you fight" concept). Since the '86 closure of the MG registry, existing rifles of that type are too expenseive for me to own without going into debt.
All of this does not even consider the legislation that was defeated.
...laws that would ban most center-fire rifle ammo
...laws that would give authority for banning common firearms to the AG
Then, there are the quotes from Senators
Quote:
|
I don't care about crime. I just want to get the guns.
|
Quote:
|
Banning guns is an idea whose time has come.
|
Quote:
|
As you know, my position is we should ban all handguns, get rid of them, no manufacture, no sale, no importation, no transportation, no possession of a handgun.
|
Quote:
|
...the only people who use them [so-called assault weapons] are mass murderers...
|
Dang, I better go turn myself in! (sarcasm)
...all from those who write our national laws.