Quote:
Quote:
|
Of course there is a big difference between a computer and a firearm, and we all know the difference. There's a big difference between a machete and a firearm. There's a big difference between a chainsaw and a firearm. What's your point?
|
A pet peeve of mine. It is a strawman argument that I see a lot of progun people use and I think it makes us look bad. Firearms are designed to kill things, people or animals. Target shooting and other sports are ancillary to why firearms exist IMHO. I think trying to equate them with other objects like hammers and scissors is not valid and I think we are smarter than that.
|
I never equated them. I just said that they can all be dangerous, depending upon what they are used for and how. I can't help it if you see strawmen in your pet peeves.
Quote:
Quote:
|
I think we actually need to separate the legal term "felony" into two different categories, non violent felony and violent felony. If you get convicted of a violent felony you lose virtually all of your rights, including the right to keep and bear arms, free speech rights, and freedom of religion. I don't want violent felons going to listen to Reverend Wright lambast America. It could incite violent felons to commit act's of violence against America.
|
Another strawman. Losing some of your rights does not mean you lose them all. Even people in prison retain rights as citizens. No need to separate the felonies. If you commit one you lose those rights defined by law until and if you can get them restored.
|
I never said that losing some of your rights means you lose them all. You can't be waterboarded in prison, even you are Charles Manson. I call your strawman arguement and raise you one.
I think we should definitely separate felonies. The threat to society by some felonies is certainly higher than others. The punishments should reflect that. I guess we disagree on that one.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
On it's face, the NICS doesn't seem to be TOO dangerous to our liberties. But there is certainly potential for abuse by the government in the future, which would infringe upon our rights. At some point in time, when liberals have more control, you can bet their next step will be registration. This will be sold as a non threatening addition to the NICS. After all, if you are already submitting yourself to government scrutiny before you are allowed to purchase a firearm, why would you care that the government keeps a record of such a purchase, so long as you aren't planning on doing anything illegal?
|
NICs is also different from registration. NICs is a reasonable way to help keep firearms out of the hands of those who are legally prohibited from getting them. It also helps legit guns dealers from selling to them. Doesn't mean they won't get them anyway but they'll have to do it illegally which is another issue in itself. Registration is a much bigger step and not related to reigstration. NICS just establishes legal status.
|
I know that NICS is different from registration. I never said it wasn't. It could lead to registration at some point in time, when liberals have more power. NICS may be touted as a "reasonable" way to "help" keep firearms out of the hands of those who are legally prohibited from possessing them. However, if it was all that effective, our violent crime rates where guns are used as a tool in the commission of a crime, should have dropped considerably after the NICS was implemented. I have never seen any data which would support that. Bill Clinton's administration claimed that 600K felons and other prohibited persons were stopped from purchasing a gun by the Brady Law in its very first year. You'd think there would have been a step function (negative) with respect to the lowering of violent crimes in which firearms were used as tools during the crime. I've not seen the data showing this to be the case.
My gut feel is that we have to live with the NICS. On it's face, it appears reasonable and not too dangerous with respect to our liberties. Clinton was keeping names for up to 180 days, which is defacto registration. Do we believe those lists were destroyed or scrubbed? Only if you really trust the federal government to have the protection of our rights as a high priority. I'm not convinced. There are too many people who believe that the NICS actually prevents prohibited people from acquiring guns. As you mentioned, they can still get them illegally, and we don't seem to be able to stop that. So, we'll have to live with NICS, because it at least "appears" as though we're doing something, even if it isn't very effective.
__________________