An overwhelming number of Americans say that they favor universal background checks — that is, they want anyone who obtains a gun to pass a background check first. Gun-rights activists retort that these restrictions only impede the lawful ownership of guns. But that’s clearly an exaggeration. When laws make it harder for people to sell guns to criminals, well, criminals will have a harder time finding guns.(H/T HOT AIR via a comment by IRONS IN THE FIRE)
We thank the kind people at the Washington Post for providing such a rich textual missive for fisking. But we're not going to fisk this, because it's just ... too .. easy.
I'll only say that universal backgrounds do not make it harder for people to sell guns to criminals; that only assumes that criminals and otherwise-lawful citizens do NOT share contempt for these wussy, hopeful, ineffective Liberal Laws. The sad fact is, both crooks and honest people consider these 'laws' as pure, unenforceable, useless freaking bullshit. And rightfully so.
The rest is left as an exercise for the reader.
In the original article (see link at the top) WaPo once again demonstrates its blind obedience to the Liberal Message: Guns Are Bad, There Is No Redeeming Value.
The nice thing about being a member of the Fourth Estate is that you don't really have to prove the value of your assertions. "Hey, we're WAPO! If we say it, it must be true!"
For example: " ... Americans say that they favor universal background checks".
And in an overwhelming number! Who could argue against that?
Well, anyone who owns a gun, for a start. And this is a nation where there are enough guns to arm everyone, were they distributed equally.
(They're not distributed at all .. they cost money, and some people have to choose between buying food and a gun; these are usually those people whose economic situation makes them the most likely victims of hoodlums ... who have guns. Hoodlum guns are most often acquired illegally, regardless of this Wonderful New Connecticut Law.)
Oh, and did we mention that Washington and Oregon voters recently approved "Universal Background Check" laws with the same naive expectations? As Mark Knopfler of Dire Straits says in "Money For Nothing" ... 'that's why I wrote this song!;
Here's the thing: When you force people to jump through governmental hoops just to transact a legal sale, you are regulating it. That's Strike Number One.
Regulation equals Infringement of a constitutional Right which (according to that passe' document) is a God Given Right. It goes further: when you require a background check, the FIRST thing you have to do (as a governmental entity) is to track the transaction. If nothing else, you absolutely need to record the name of the buyer, the seller, and the make/model/caliber/serial number of the firearm involved It implicitly requires some form of Registration.
That's Strike Number Two.
.And once your freedom to transact an exchange is monitored, and your property is recorded, and then the Government is granted the legal right to interfere in your transaction .. they can take it away from you.
That, my children, is Confiscation.
And that's Strike Number Three. You're out.
The money quote: "Identification => Registration => Confiscation"
Just ask the folks in California in 1999 who registered their fully legal SKS rifles ... which were subsequently confiscated by the Great Bear State in the person of California Attorney General Bill Locklear. (see summary here)
But it's still happening in California! under now-Attorney General Kamala Harris.
California is much like Oregon and Washington, except that in California there are only seven conservatives and they only claim to be conservatives because it gets their name in the newspapers.
Still, Oregon and Washington are "liberal" states because ... Portland, Seattle, and Welfare.
If you're hoping for a Positive Statement Of Future Good Things Happening Here ... not gonna happen. "We" have tried to re-elect the most egregious governor here for decades, and when he was finally accused of sex crimes, he was replaced by another democrat who has not yet been accused of sex crimes.
This state will no longer elect any politician who is not .. oh, No, I'm not going to commit libel on this website. Let us just say "A Liberal Politician".
As far as the choices being made in this country, we can only look to Benjamin Franklin .. a Great American and a self-professed Libertine:
Ben Franklin Quotes.
“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
”Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither."
BONUS: Money for Nothing
x
(Because I love this song!)
x
2 comments:
Is it true, that often it is criminals that are selling guns to other criminals?
[@Anonymous 5:27 AM:] Yes. Incarcerated criminals have been surveyed as to how they acquired their illegally-owned firearms. IIRC, fewer than 3% purchased them from a licensed dealer. Most received them from friends/family (~40%) or back-alley (read: black market) sales (another ~40%). That's about 80% between those two illegal and impossible-to-regulate sources, right there. Most of the rest are made up of straw purchases (already illegal), pawn shop purchases (already subject to background checks; pawn shops who deal in used firearms are licensed as gun dealers), and flea market purchases (mostly unregulated). It's noteworthy that fewer than 1% availed themselves of the so-called "gun show loophole" -- that infamous source of "40% of undocumented (implied criminal) firearm sales".
[/@Anonymous]
I cringe every time I hear that "Americans overwhelmingly favor universal background checks" line. It's demonstrably untrue. Americans might overwhelmingly favor background checks on retail sales, but not "universal" background checks.
If they did, at the commonly-stated rate of 92%, how on God's Green Earth did Washington's UBC bill pass with less than 60% of the popular vote, and that AFTER Bloomberg's Everytown outspent the pro-gun caucus 12-to-1?
Post a Comment