21 January, 2016
06 January, 2016
I'm actually OK with expanded background checks. The problems I have with gun control involve stupid, arbitrary things like classifying a rifle as an assault rifle based on the fact that it looks like a military weapon, even though it isn't one by any stretch of reality. People talk about "armor piercing" bullets and "machine guns," but the AR-15 that is typically their target actually fires a comparatively weak round and isn't anything like a military weapon - it just looks like one. Things like classifying a normal rifle as a so called "assault rifle" solely because it features a barrel shroud - something that looks like a suppressor to the untrained eye, but is really just there to protect your hands from getting burnt - is the kind of bullshit that politicians on the Left put out there, because they know most of their constituency knows nothing about guns and will just believe whatever they say. Further examples of this include the supposed "gun show loophole," where they would really like you to believe gazillions of potential maniacs are buying weapons at shows without background checks, while ignoring the fact that nearly every gun show requires you to have a check ran through the FFL dealers on site before making a legal purchase. I've never been to a single one that didn't have that requirement. The only people circumventing that requirement are already making illegal purchases out of the trunks of people's cars or whatever, so new laws would be completely meaningless to stop that. They are already breaking the existing laws, which means they won't suddenly decide not to break new ones, yet you'll never here an anti-gun politician on the Left admit that, because it doesn't fit with their agenda of behavioral control, legislated morality, and forced acquiescence to the tyranny of the majority and state power. Never forget that one of the scions of the Left made it illegal to sell a large soda in New York City, because people must submit to what their masters believe is better for them, rather than be allowed freedom. That kind of thinking is endemic among Progressive lawmakers, and it colors their views on firearm ownership and use, despite the fact that statistic show areas where they maintaining control and have strict gun control in place are comparatively more violent.
All that being said, enforcing existing laws with regards to background checks (and maybe fixing the system so that people don't slip through so easily) would be a good thing. My only real critique on that subject is that the federal government has done such a poor job of handling it, I really think we would be better off if perhaps each individual state was responsible for the background checks. Don't quote me on this because I can't produce proof of it, but I'm pretty sure I remember reading that the guy who shot up the movie theater in Louisiana a while back had been previously denied a concealed carry permit by his local sheriff, yet he passed the federal background check to legally purchase a weapon. If that were true it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest. When was the last time any of you folks went to a Social Security office? It's basically the DMV with worse customer service. It literally took me six months and about 30 tries to get another copy of a letter sent to me, because I had committed the awful sin of losing the first one, and the federal government seems to have an extremely difficult time with the concept of pressing print. Likewise, dealing with the IRS in the name of an organization I'm a member of produced similar results. I'm still in the process of trying to get that taken care of, despite the fact that it's something that could be accomplished within a 15 minute span... it's been four months waiting and multiple long drawn-out phone calls. That kind of sorry ass productivity and attention to detail is what you're dealing with when you talk about federal background checks, which is and will always be my only complaint about the idea.
Here's what a President, any President, should not and legally *CANNOT* do, and that's unilaterally write new law through executive order. This is a Constitutional issue and one, therefore, which a man who taught Constitutional Law should be well aware. Whether you typically support Fox News or not, they have it 100% correct here on this subject.
If you enjoyed this article, feel free to check out the rest of the site, and please consider subscribing to the blog via email by placing your email address in the sign-up box on the right-hand sidebar of the screen. You can also "Like" our Facebook page and follow us on Twitter.