The NRA On Universal Background Checks
BY Herschel Smith
11 years, 10 months ago
Back in December, St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner predicted that a private sales ban is the most likely federal infringement on that which shall not be infringed–far easier to pass than banning so-called “assault weapons” (gun banner-speak for “regime change rifles“) or “high capacity” magazines (gun banner-speak for “standard capacity magazines”) will be.
If anything about that assessment has changed, the difference is that it looks still more accurate now. In that article, we noted that even many supposedly “pro-gun” Republicans have historically supported private sales bans even before the Sandy Hook atrocity created an anti-gun feeding frenzy that has terrified many of gun rights advocates’ less stalwart “allies” in Congress.
Since then, NRA president David Keene has made clear that the NRA is quite willing to trade Americans’ right to privately buy and sell firearms for . . . well, really for nothing but perhaps a bit of a delay before the gun prohibitionists renew their push to eviscerate every other aspect of the Constitutionally guaranteed, fundamental human right of the individual to keep and bear arms. The Hill, in an article titled “NRA chief ‘generally supportive’ of strong background checks” has video of Keene appearing on CBS This Morning, where he discussed the NRA’s surrender terms:
Read the rest at Examiner. No, no, no, and a thousand times no. The NRA cannot cave on this issue. Ignore the claptrap about “caring for the children” and “making sure that weapons don’t fall into the hands of criminals.” It’s all a ruse designed by the anti-gun lobby. Universal background checks have nothing whatsoever to do with keeping weapons out of the hands of criminals, or a reduction in violence of any sort. The system, if set up, is a predecessor and necessary prerequisite to a national gun registry. This is evil to its very core.
So the next time you hear this claptrap, if it comes from ignorant people, educate them. If it comes from people who know better, call them a liar. If it comes from the NRA, tell them that they’re cowards and do not represent your interests. And then tell them that you want to see them thrown out on their heads so that they can be replaced with people who honor the second amendment.
No surrender, no retreat. Not … one … inch.
On January 22, 2013 at 8:35 pm, John said:
I still think universal background checks could work, IF they were done correctly. Instead of requiring seller and buyer to go to a store to do the lookup, make a record of the transaction, etc., come up with a way for a seller to check their purchaser online, and if a gun used by a criminal can be traced back to the seller, he can use a printout of the affirmation he got from the government as an affirmative defense.
The database would ONLY give a YES or NO answer to whether the purchaser is barred from possessing a gun. It would also not require any information about the gun, and retain no information about the query.
That way, the burden is on the seller to check if he wants to.
On January 22, 2013 at 8:38 pm, John said:
I also think we would put ourselves in a better position on this attack we’re facing if we came up with ideas (and I know mine’s not perfect) to put “on the table” rather than simply saying “no”.
So, there’s my idea.
On January 23, 2013 at 10:57 am, Herschel Smith said:
David Codrea has proposed something similar. In my state of N.C., viewing a CHP is the equivalent because N.C. law says so. In theory I don’t have a problem with what you’re proposing, and I think the database should always be open to citizens.
But be aware that what you’re proposing IS NOT the universal background check. Giving citizens more power to police themselves isn’t the idea, and statists never go in that direction. Statists always tend towards totalitarianism (as do ignorant boobs who believe that the state loves them and will take care of them).