Background checks on gun sales are a clear infringement on Americans’ natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms (which is not subject to arguments on social utility). Background checks are also useless; in a country with more than 150 million guns in circulation, bad guys can get guns, whether they’re drug-addled spree killers, homicidal Chicago gang bangers or death-seeking ISIS-affiliated terrorists. Anyone arguing that increased background checks for firearms purchases – for gun shows and private sales – decreases the possibility of terrorist attack is . . .
either seriously deluded or hiding their desire for civilian disarmament. Or both. The “logic” of “universal background checks” is so fundamentally flawed that even those who champion it can’t bring themselves to sell it without qualifiers. Check out the conclusion of the bostonglobe.com editorial Background checks could help prevent terrorism:
Closing the gun show loophole obviously isn’t a cure-all for terrorism. No single measure or action is. Still, the loophole is something terrorists are aware of and could well exploit. It should have been closed long ago. There is no excuse for not doing so now.
Terrorists are also aware that they could hijack a car or large truck and ram it into a crowd of people. Or pour poison into the water supply. Or release deadly gas in a subway. Or detonate a pressure cooker bomb at a major sporting event. Or fly jetliners into skyscrapers and government buildings. There’s no reason to believe that making people fill-out paperwork whenever they buy or transfer a gun would prevent terrorists from killing people.
There is no excuse for degrading and destroying Americans’ gun rights – especially when you consider the fact that gun control leads to government tyranny. More than that, let’s swap this thinking around. Would removing background checks from gun purchases prevent terrorism?
I’m thinking no. Dramatically increasing the number of armed Americans – by eliminating all background checks – might change the terrorists’ choice of target. They’d have to look harder to find “soft targets” (e.g. New Jersey and Hawaii). But the presence of concealed carriers would do little to stop them from launching attacks, anyway. The more important point: armed Americans might – might – limit the carnage during a terrorist attack.
Your thoughts? [h/t JA]