The National Rifle Association has always supported including the records of individuals adjudicated mentally defective into the National Instant Background Check System. We believe that the NICS should serve the intent of Congress, which is to prohibit the legal sale of firearms to criminals and other prohibited persons...
I don't suppose it's occurred to anyone that there is no Constitutional provision for the government to involve itself in this, and I suppose the political will is such that being involved to steer the direction this takes can be defended by some as "pragmatic."
And, seeing as how these folks believe there's nothing we can politically do (for now) regarding background checks, God forbid we should even discuss alternatives that would identify "prohibited persons" that would not create any record of the purchase or purchaser.
Some have made arguments that this really creates no new powers. Perhaps. But it does "legitimize" (and fund) ones that have been usurped, and gives our enemies firmer ground on which to stand to pursue their next assault.
Can any of the defenders of this bill and NICS in general look us in the eye and assure us that such records will never be used to create a permanent gun registration database? Even if Hillary (or Obama, or...) wins and the democrats have control of both houses? Or that, once included on the "prohibited" list from purchasing a gun--demands won't be made for "common sense" legislation to remove any existing guns from the homes of such persons, or the gun owners who live with them?
And I'll repeat myself: Anyone who can't be trusted with a gun can't be trusted without a custodian. But I will add a caution as to just who it is that gets to do the trusting.
1 comment:
Would not congenital dishonesty be considered a mental deficiency? I mean if one were literally unable to tell the truth, would that person not be considered mentally unfit?
I think so. A congenital liar always has other issues that make truth an anathema to them.
For instance a person might claim to be an advocate of a segment of the population that wishes no more than to adhere to the law. That same segment may have as one of its goals the desire to see the society obey the principles and the laws upon which the entire society was founded.
Now imagine, if you will, a member of that segment who proclaims to believe in the goals and missions of the segment of society that supports the law of the land. Further imagine, that this person is so glib and facile with the spoken word that he/she achieves a leadership position in that segment. Imagine further yet, that his/her hold on this position becomes almost unchallengeable because this person is so practiced in saying what the members want to hear.
However when analyzed, the leader's actions belie his words. Every action taken and every proposal he supports further erodes the rights of those whom he represents, who only want the law obeyed as set forth in the guiding principles of the society.
Add to that the fact that this leader has commissioned the penning of laws, by his staff,ever more restrictive of those he supposedly represents and more in line with the vociferous and openly opposed to his constituency.
Yet, this man/woman still cannot tell the truth about his aims.His words and deed are at diametrically opposed purposes.
Would this not constitute a mental deficiency? There is a terrible break in the reality of his actions and the stated purpose of his words. Barring complete and total immorality and the investment of evil in the character of this traitor, could it not be said he/she was insane?
In view of the above, I believe Wayne LaPierre should become a prohibited person if his latest cause du jour becomes law.
Either as an evil person or a mental defective.
Post a Comment