Reply #11: Not all that many people oppose NICS...

[benEzra]

and nobody, as far as I know, is trying to repeal it.

The gun control debate in 2010 isn't about repealing NICS; if you read the Brady Campaign's blog, their primary goals seem to be (1) new bans on nontraditional looking civilian firearms, regardless of how commonly owned and how rarely misused; (2) banning guns holding more than 10 rounds (5 for shotguns); (3) rolling back concealed carry licensure; and (4) revoking the gun ownership rights of anyone on the Bush/Cheney secret blacklists. If the gun-control lobby *really* wanted to extend NICS to private sales, they would have made that a priority a long time ago instead of spending all their time and money fighting rifle handgrips that stick out and post-1860's magazine capacities, and they might have come up with some proposals that didn't involve back-door registration.

As to allowing the wealthy to protect their money while denying the non-wealthy the ability to protect their lives, well, that's kind of a medieval arrangement that isn't all that consistent with a post-Enlightenment view of the human condition, IMO. The guy who works the counter nights at the 7-Eleven and walks home afterward is in a lot more danger than the guy who owns the business and deposits the receipts, and the single mother trying to raise her family in a low-rent apartment in the Bronx has more need for a gun than the guy who owns the apartment building and collects the rent checks. But yeah, even in Chicago where handguns are completely banned, politicians can still own them and get carry licenses, and Donald Trump and Charles Schumer have carry licenses in NYC but blue-collar workers need not apply.

Personally, I'd love to see elites and their bodyguards have to abide by every single gun restriction that the "little people" have to live under. It might be a little easier for an ordinary homeowner to lawfully own a handgun in Chicago if King Daley and his court couldn't exempt themselves from the restrictions.