That they are or that they might be? Big difference.
If they are harmful, they should be arrested. But we arrest those who might harm others. Based on a politically driven BAC level, we will take away an individual's freedom, their property, and place their ability to earn an income in jeopardy, all for some harm they might cause.
Is that OK with you? The government arresting you, throwing you in jail, taking away your driver's license, costing you thousands in legal fees, not for something bad you've done, but for something bad you might do? Pretty spooky.
That they ARE, Robert. I maintain that those who drink alcohol and then drive on public roads are inherently harmful to others.
If I read you right, you're vehemently against people voluntarily conforming to federal requirements to acquire a Class 01 FFL in order to, as you see it, 'dishonestly' get a discount from firearms manufacturers. You know, that's something that appears to be an A-to-B business agreement that you as 'C' have no business sticking your nose into. What's puzzling to me is that at the same time you consider drinking and driving to be, as you say, a 'politically-driven' issue.
In short, you're ticked that someone might be getting a discount on a purchase but you're all good with an unspecified amount of drinking alcohol behind the wheel of an automobile?
If I have properly summed your views in this thread up in a nutshell, I've got to say that you're one rare bird RobertPaulsen.
You know, I think I'll step aside and let you continue with others who seem to want your attention. I'm not particularly interested in this debate and you appear to have shells raining down upon you. I'd like to help save you some time and just bow out if that suits you.