Intelligencer Journal/Lancaster New Era
Background checks aren't an imposition
TO THE EDITORS:
The NRA is now against universal background checks, because it doesn't prevent criminals from getting guns. Well then, there shouldn't be any drivers' licenses either, as it wouldn't prevent drivers with revoked license, or those unauthorized to drive, to obtain the use of a vehicle.
But back to the NRA's changed argument, contradicting its 1999 testimony before Congress. The gist of the argument is the checks are a burden on law-abiding citizens.
To what extent? A few minutes or even days of waiting are not worth the possibility of preventing a criminal, or insane person, or even a terrorist from buying guns freely on the open market?
That would mean, if terrorists can sneak into our country, they'd have easy access to weapons of mass destruction. That's cheaper than learning how to fly an airplane and purchasing a ticket, with which they could attack our schools and public gatherings.
That logic is beyond comprehension, let alone rationalizing, and the consequences exposed are frightening.
It makes more sense to legally prevent criminals, mentally ill and those with restraining orders from procuring weapons of quick dispatch. Slow down the process, at least, so they have to exert some effort.
Public safety is more important and vital to our country's well-being than objects, and unfettered rights, and a modicum of inconvenience should be acceptable sacrifices, to minimize the carnage that has been wrought by appeasing the stubborn absolutists who idolize a weapon's distribution rights regardless of human attrition.
I ask the NRA members to evict their leadership, who really represent the gun manufacturers, and those gullible folks who fear their own government and fantasize that they live in a 17th century environment.