PercyShelley
Member
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2007
- Messages
- 1,075
Speaking purely in the abstract here, and not looking for any flames. What does it mean for a politician to have pro-gun views with respect to issues that tangentially affect the RKBA? Can we consider a politician to not truly be pro second amendment if their positions on other topics could somehow compromise the armament of the citizen? Can the gun rights debate be compartmentalized from other political issues?
Some examples:
1) Economic protectionism. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that if the US had fewer laws concerning the import of foreign arms and free trade with all nonbelligerent foreign countries, the current boom in US Evil Black Rifle production and development would me muted. Who but a connoisseur purist, after all, would buy a $2000 AR with all the bells and whistles when, say, a similarly-equipped beryl was easily available at half that price? On the other wing, how much do current firearms import restrictions fire innovation for US gun makers? I must say, I find the idea of Kel-Tec selling rifles to be wildly improbable in the case of free trade, for example. How do different trade outlooks change the price, availability and quality of arms for US citizens?
2) Campaign finance reform. Some, (GOA, IIRC) saw Fred Thompson's support of campaign finance reform bills as negative to their ends as it reduced the ease with which they could operate. Is this the case?
3) Miscellaneous security measures. The NRA believes, with good reason I think, in light of the Canadian experience and the freeze on new transferable machineguns, that registration of guns is the first step in their eventual, total proscription, regardless of whether that was the original intention. Could other security measures, such as flooding the world with security cameras as in London or keeping databases of private business transactions have similar implications?
Some examples:
1) Economic protectionism. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that if the US had fewer laws concerning the import of foreign arms and free trade with all nonbelligerent foreign countries, the current boom in US Evil Black Rifle production and development would me muted. Who but a connoisseur purist, after all, would buy a $2000 AR with all the bells and whistles when, say, a similarly-equipped beryl was easily available at half that price? On the other wing, how much do current firearms import restrictions fire innovation for US gun makers? I must say, I find the idea of Kel-Tec selling rifles to be wildly improbable in the case of free trade, for example. How do different trade outlooks change the price, availability and quality of arms for US citizens?
2) Campaign finance reform. Some, (GOA, IIRC) saw Fred Thompson's support of campaign finance reform bills as negative to their ends as it reduced the ease with which they could operate. Is this the case?
3) Miscellaneous security measures. The NRA believes, with good reason I think, in light of the Canadian experience and the freeze on new transferable machineguns, that registration of guns is the first step in their eventual, total proscription, regardless of whether that was the original intention. Could other security measures, such as flooding the world with security cameras as in London or keeping databases of private business transactions have similar implications?
