We previously discussed Pat MacNamara and his support of universal background checks and waiting periods for firearms purchases. Uncle weighed in today with this.
I waited until the dust seemed to settle on this one. But a pro gun guy said something that seemed dumb, likely due to editing from Comedy Central. The internet lynch mob kicked in. Tam is correct. Everyone should, right after one of these things happens, cool their shit and find out what happened before grabbing the pitchforks and torches.
Good advice from Sebastian:
So for Christs sake, for the dozenth or so time: dont talk to the fucking media or Comedy Central. They are snakes with cameras and editing rooms. They will make you look bad. No you cant beat them at this game
Nope, don’t like it. And I don’t like Sebastian’s counsel either, not one damn bit. This has nothing whatsoever to do with talking to the media. If I talked to the media there isn’t the slightest chance anything I said could be mistaken for any kind of support for universal background checks or waiting periods.
Besides, I think it’s good to know what people think. I see no need to wait – he clearly said he supported what he said he supported. There was no mistake, and there is no mistaking what he said. He said what he thought, and he thought what he said. This isn’t a tautology – it’s clearheaded thinking on Pat’s part, albeit very foreign to liberty and very wrong.
Now let’s take a stroll through Tam’s thoughts on this.
Well, that was pretty heavily edited, but it sounded like Pat Mac was in favor of waiting periods. The background check remark was pretty ambiguous. I mean, we already *have* background checks, so…
Yes, Pat was in favor of waiting periods. And yes, he was in favor of universal background checks.
I reserve the right to form my opinions on these things on a case-by-case basis. I haven’t really formed mine here yet, other than I think Pat Mac is as wrong as tw…well, as a very wrong thing…when it comes to the utility of waiting periods.
As far as Universal Background Checks, here’s the correct and constitutional way to implement those: Since the right to keep and bear arms is a civil right, the default setting is that everyone has it. If someone becomes a felon or is otherwise debarred from arms, then make a NO GUNS ALLOWED black mark on their DL/ID/passport/whatever.
Show me an ID without that disclaimer, and you’d be good to go, no background check necessary. And you’d be good to go in all 50 states, at that.
I’d trade that for moving suppressors to Title I, repealing the Hughes Amendment, and interstate handgun sales. Hell, I might throw in a 3-day wait on sales from FFL dealers for that package deal.But that’s not what the other side means by “compromise”.
Oh dear. Since this post is pregnant with ideas and there is an awful lot here it might be difficult to fisk all of it. I’m not going to try in this post. But I’ll observe first of all that many felons are convicted of non-violent offenses and deserve to have their rights restored.
Second, even if you don’t want violent felons to have firearms, that doesn’t mean that form 4473 stops them, or that they have to keep records of non-offenders like you and me (by keeping form 4473s) in order to conduct a background check. It doesn’t, and they don’t. Form 4473s are written and kept for reasons other than doing a background check, and you know it full well, don’t you? Just admit the truth.
Finally, you know what they are going after with universal background checks, Tam. They are going after person-to-person transfers, and we all know it. My position on gun control remains unchanged. It is evil, perpetrated by wicked rulers for nefarious purposes.
And my position on Pat MacNamara remains unchanged. What he said was clear and I have no need of waiting or trying to dissect it or find out what he “really” meant. He said what he really meant.
Hey, doesn’t Tam write for the NRA?
