Replies

This law represents a political solution going in search of a problem. There isn't now, nor has there ever been, a crisis involving insane and deranged people buying guns. It used to be possible to buy guns anonymously through the mail.

The increase in crime in this country is primarily attributable to the War on Drugs and gun-control. Ending the war on drugs and repealing all gun-control would result in an enormous decrease in violent crime. Open-carry and concealed-carry should be allowed without the need for a license or any government interference whatsoever.

It's misleading to say I don't want to give somebody the means with which to accomplish something. Government is not the fix-all, cure-all for societal problems. Appealing to government for help is asking for trouble. No law or program will ever be written and enforced exactly the way you imagined it. It will invariably result in waste and abuse for the reasons I previously outlined.

Government should be the last place you go seeking solutions.

"Government should be the last place you go seeking solutions."

You say in 109, "Anyone who gives an insane person a weapon should be charged with a crime"? That's making the seller responsible for knowing the mental health and history of the purchaser, just as 922(g) does. You have already gone seeking a solution in government, to a problem you now say doesn't exist.

The NICS is supposed to balance that responsiblity, which the seller didn't ask for but you say should be his, with a tool that will reduce the impact of that "unfunded mandate" on the seller's business. This law is an attempt to make the NICS actually accomplish the goal you desire. Would you rather that the seller is just going through the motions to satisfy an empty bureaucratic request, wasting both his and the taxpayer's money?

Your first paragraph is correct after the first sentence and the second is debatable (I tend to agree), but they have no bearing on the discussion we've been having, which was begun by your comment in 109.