Tuesday, December 4, 2007

Is NICS unacceptable?

Snowflakes in Hell brought up this subject, and he's right it is an infringement. Why do we need permission from the gov't to exercise a right? We don't need the government's permission to be represented by a lawyer in trial, do we? If someone can't be trusted with a gun, why are they out of prison or a lunatic asylum? "If you can't trust them with a gun, you can trust them with a can of gasoline and a match."

But I don't even think about it. The National Instant Check System being a rights violation, that it. It doesn't worry me at this point. It DOES sound reasonable from this distance. There are so many other much more egregious violations out there. It is so far down the list I don't even consider it, unless forced to. Now if it WAS the most baddest-horrible-no-good-very-bad rights violation going, and all others were resolved, and I HAD to consider it? Hmmm. It's hypocritical to be for it, having fought and prevailed against the other infringements (obviously, this discussion would only happen in the future, after the others were repealed or rendered moot). You could do away with NICS without a problem, but there would have to be a significant shift in the national culture. One where people weren't considered criminal until after they had committed a crime. One where people were trusted to vote or own a firearm after they paid their debt to society, and were not freed to walk around free until they paid it. But all that talk is unrealistic Utopian thinking that gets people in trouble when they try to enact such an idyllic society... forcefully. And that's not such a good idea. Damn gibbets. Don't want them srping up like weeds again.

Jeez it's HARD to be a civil right absolutist and not fall into the pitfalls. Drawing the line is tough.

But in our imperfect, set up by humans, national system, where reality reigns, perhaps the NICS system is a necessary evil. I know the Assault Weapons Ban is NOT a necessary evil. Certainly not the "all guns banned" that the UK has. That is very far from even practical as to be foolish. Is restricting the sale of firearm to only weapons with a sporting purpose a necessary evil and a reasonable restriction. No, it is contrary to the right and unreasonable. The right is a right to sport, after all. But where to draw the line? A BAR is restricted by the NFA of 1934, but that is a valid military arm for which the 2nd Amendment was written to address. But jeez, the machine guns scare folks. But if the propagandists get scared enough at handguns. is fear the test case for restriction.

It's very hard to draw that line on reasonable restrictions in a real world. Realistically. An absolutist has the principled luxury of not agonizing over the line, but he is less likely to see his vision made reality.

1 comment:

Roberta X said...

Just a thought: The absolutist is swinging through the goal of anyone who'd stop short of full freedom to keep and bear. While he or she might not ever reach the goal, they're hittin' plenty hard and in the right direction!

Of course, that's easy for me to say, since I am an absolutist. Thing is, BARs are superneat but even if NFA were repealed, I probably couldn't afford one. No law needed.