The gentleman thinks universal background checks are a good idea.
+++++++++++++++
If “By definition criminals don't obey the law and wouldn't submit to
this check. It will only put a burden on the law abiding citizen.” then why have
any laws? We can’t stop all drunk drivers, all burglars, all murderers,
all thieves and all those who flout the law. All we do is inconvenience
good people with silly rules the bad guys ignore, so what’s the point? The
point is, we do have laws which we try to enforce, albeit with limited resources
(tax cuts don’t pay for police, prosecutors and our court system) and do the
best we can to provide for the safety of our citizens. That is a worthy
goal. If you’re not breaking the law, you have nothing to fear and aren’t
we all safer for the effort?
This is a common straw man argument. Criminals don't obey the law, so why have any?
The law allows us to punish those who violate it. "Enforcement" is a idea that appeals to the controller, the tyrant. Enforcement requires the police to take an active role in searching out "violators" rather than patrolling and being available to assist when they witness an actual violation.
Laws that prohibit certain items or force certain actions do nothing to ensure the safety of the public at large - they only allow the lawmakers to feel like they are "doing something".
Take laws against driving while intoxicated. No one would argue that allowing people to drink themselves stupid and then go out on the highway is a good idea. So, let's pass a law that you can't drive drunk.
Fair enough. Now, someone who gets tipsy on two beers gets pulled over for weaving. Only problem is - he's got a good lawyer, and convinces the jury that two beers is not "drunk", and the perp goes free.
So - let's pass a law defining "drunk" by blood alcohol content - and pick a number out of thin air.
Now, when someone is pulled over, they have to "blow", and if the detector registers under the magic number, they are let go with a warning. If the number is equal or greater than the magic number, they go to jail. No wiggle room for the guy who is inebriated with BAC under the limit - he goes out and kills someone, and then we have to pass another law lowering the limit.
Or, seeing as many people can function just fine with BAC at almost double the "limit" and never give the cops any hint they are DWI, we now have to have "sobriety checkpoints" where everyone on that road is stopped and has to prove their innocence before being allowed to continue on. Ever hear of freedom? It just got narrower.
Since roadblocks don't catch all the bad guys, now let's put a tester into every car, so you have to prove to your vehicle that you aren't drunk. Of course all the people who are responsible will have to buy one and the price of cars goes up - but we are safer. There have been suggestions that this actually my happen.
When you get to the bottom of it, it is a question of personal responsibility. Freedom has the price that we have to risk something in order to retain that freedom. The risk is that there are people out there who don't care, or actively are evil. They will always be there no matter how many laws we pass, but our freedoms will keep shrinking right up until we reach the Nirvana of the nanny state - where everything that is not required is forbidden.
And people will still commit violent and stupid acts.
By the way - "If you’re not breaking the law, you have nothing to fear" sounds very Orwellian. Do we really want to live in that world? I do not.
Chuck Kuecker
+++++++++++++++
No comments:
Post a Comment