The problem with "Universal Backgrounds Checks" isn't so much the issue with distrust of firearms owners as it is with the way the checks are conducted. Heck, legitimate firearms owners are no more eager for criminals that the "mentally adjudicated unstable" to own firearms than anyone else is.
The problem is with the supposedly secure record keeping; there was an agreement back in the '90s that the proposed Background Check system would validate, but not permanently record, firearms transfers. In fact, as soon as a transaction was not denied because neither party was disqualified from firearms ownership, the record of the traction was suppose to disappear within a very narrow period.
Why did firearms owners oppose that facet? Because they didn't want to agree to a "Firearms Registry", which would track firearms transfers in great detail with the subsequent consequence that a database of transfers would be tantamount to registry of firearms.
But it it isn't permanently recorded, why do Universal Background Checks require that the firearm description ... including Make, Model, Caliber and Serial Number ... recorded on the background check form? If it isn't permanently recorded, why is it considered as important as the personal identification of both the buyer and the seller?
And no, that's not paranoia ... that's "learning from Experience" as Californians learned when their state Attorney General back in 1990 agreed that a certain rifle (the "SKS") would not be 'tracked' because it was a legal rifle:
The situation became more complicated for the writers of the
Roberti-Roos law in 1992 when then California Attorney General, Dan
Lungren, approved the sale of Chinese-designed SKS, which use detachable
magazines.
Even though Lungren said the SKS “Sporter” was legal to sell, some
district attorneys throughout the state threatened to arrest anyone who
sold the gun claiming it violated the Roberti-Roos law.
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/1999/07/3745/#ac4ggB4C1wdafWLi.99
... and then later that same Democratic Politician changed his tune and hundreds of up-to-then legal rifles which had been transferred between individuals and the detail entered into a state data-base were (arbitrarily) "reclassified". Then the State decided that the specific firearm was an "assault weapon", retroactively downloaded transfer information from their database (which they swore would never be used for that purpose), and CONFISCATED EVERY RIFLE WHICH HAD BEEN SOLD UNDER THE ASSURANCES THAT IT WAS LEGAL!
And they were able to do so because every firearm transfer was part of their state database.
And now Huffington accuses the NRA of doublespeak?
Despicable!
Ex Poste facto laws are the way that politicians ... and politically biased pseudo "information sources", prey upon the naive and trusting citizens who put them in office and pay their salaries to protect their civil rights.
Just because they come right out in public and say "Oh, that's okay, we're not going to take THAT gun away from you", that doesn't mean they won't come back next week and declare it illegal.
Americans who rely on the Constitution to protect their rights, and their elected representatives (and their appointees) to respect those rights, have been getting a raw deal from both their representatives and the henchmen who do their dirty work for them.
And the Huffington Post is just one of their minions .. who don't get paid for lying to Citizens; they just do it for practice ... until they can get elected to lie to citizens who pay their wages.
The NRA's Background-Check Doublespeak | HuffPost:
... And if NICS is fixed to everyone’s satisfaction in a way that really prevents the criminals, the drug abusers and the mentally ill from walking into a gun shop and buying a gun, the idea that private gun transfers requiring background checks is a violation of the 2nd Amendment wouldn’t pass muster in any court. When all is said and done, the NRA’s opposition to background checks boils down to one, simple thing; namely, that government regulation of the gun industry is a bad and unnecessary thing. In that respect, the gun industry’s opposition to regulation is no different from every other industry.Nobody wants to take your guns away.
Except hollywood celebrities, comedians, talk-show hosts, Liberals, your State Government, your Federal government ... oh, since Al Franken was elected a U.S. Senator these categories seem to overlap quite a bit, don't they? I always thought it was inevitable that a "Franken" was elected to the Senate. He fit right in with the rest of the Clowns; his recent legal problems only prove the appropriateness.
No comments:
Post a Comment