The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms is a scuffed shoe at America’s liberty prom. I’ve said it before, but not today–I’m a dedicated member of law enforcement and that’s one agency I would just never care to work for.
The recent ATF suggestion to get rid of my 5.56mm rounds is ridiculous. Shoot, even the politicians—the smart ones at least—didn’t bite down on that one. But really that’s just one ridiculous idea pulled of a pile of ridiculousness.
Case in point, you are probably aware of the on-again, off-again crusade to get rid of wrist buttstocks for AR pistols. I won’t go into it because it’s really as petty as it sounds and it’s also not what I came here to say, but, oh, boy could I.
Seriously, the ATF is the red-headed step child of federal law enforcement. That said, I’ve only known two agents who worked for the ATF and, of course, they both left. One of the guys was pretty cool.
Anyway, here’s the short of it: I just wish the ATF would stop banning cool gear and/or making it a hassle to purchase and own, because it seems counterproductive to performing their job, of policing illegal gun sales, efficiently with cooperation from the law-abiding majority.
I understand we need laws and I understand we need laws regulating weapons. For those guys who think they need to have frag grenades, well, I think that’s just plain stupid. Somebody gets drunk at a party, and—KABOOM!—parties over for everyone.
But frivolous laws do nothing but frustrate the very people who have an invested interested in the world the ATF is trying to police. I’m talking about regulations on short barreled rifles, shorty shotguns, and even sub guns. I’d like to get myself an SBR or a SMG without having to go through legal hoops and extra government paper trails. Frankly, I don’t want or see why I have to buy a tax stamp for every silencer or SBR I purchase. I understand the thought process behind it, I just don’t like it nor think it’s necessary.
The National Firearms Act isn’t a perfect law and keeping firearms away from evil people isn’t a perfect system. But that doesn’t explain how we got into the position we’re in when it comes to the devices I mentioned above. I believe the answer to this is two-fold: trust and ignorance.
First, trust. Yes, trust is an issue because it is a really hard thing for humans or governments to lend. How can anybody trust that Uncle Bob or cousin Eddie won’t go do something stupid? Now that they’ve got an SMG with a can on it, hey, maybe they think it’s time to shoot up some malls or rob some banks, right? No, of course not. But some people do think like that–clearly. So, because people apparently can’t be trusted, the government makes extra paperwork and legal fees in a severely misguided attempt to stop crime.
Second, ignorance is also an issue. Most politicians don’t even know how these guns (or any guns) work, though this doesn’t stop them from having an opinion on them and they try to enact laws and policies based on their own ineptness, biases, aesthetic tastes and the foolishness of their advisers. That is the imperfect system I referred to above.
At the end of the day I guess all we can say for the moment is, “Oh well. Guess I’ll just have to make more money and buy more guns.” I suppose following the rules is better than not having any guns at all.
I just wish we didn’t have so many lame rules and, in part, I’ve gotta lay a lot of blame on evil people who commit crimes–even if they never used or even heard of the guns heavily regulated by the ATF. We wouldn’t have so many bloated regulations if people would police themselves and do the right thing, at the right time, even when no one’s looking–holding themselves and others accountable for violations.
Of course, I also blame the ignorant politicians and citizens who are anti-gun—those who think guns are the problem. They are the ones who see an opportunity in something they don’t comprehend–a lifestyle they aren’t invested in. Guns aren’t the problem, people who misuse guns are the problem.
The views and opinions expressed in this post are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the position of Guns.com.