A TTAG Reader writes:

Background checks are one of the favorite “fingernails on the chalkboard” subjects on this forum. Fearing no contradiction, background checks are never acceptable for readers here. So, what is there to talk about?

There is an old saw that goes, “When you point a finger at someone else, you have three pointing back at you.” And that’s the launching point for discussing background checks. If you are predisposed to simply rail and rant, you’ll find nothing interesting here, and I don’t want to waste your time. But if you have a natural curiosity, maybe we can “talk”.

The quick response by the People of the Gun to any mention of background checks is actually unhelpful, and maybe even dangerous to the right to keep and bear arms. How blithely we regurgitate, “They don’t work”, “Too many flawed denials”, “Infringement”, “Violate the constitution”, and so on. We also seem to love to shout that background checks do nothing to stop someone from committing a heinous crime with a gun after successfully passing a background check. Really?

Do we ever consider that the anti-gun crowd is doing us a favor by not figuratively shoving our own argument down our throats? Do we believe that magic will prevent that going forward? We are truly fortunate the anti-gun collective has not figured this out yet.

All our arguments about the uselessness and lawlessness of background checks for gun purchases are the very reason why gun confiscation becomes the logical, default goal of the anti-gun industry. If no regulation or legal restriction will prevent the use of guns in crimes, then the alternatives are two: do nothing or confiscation.

Doing nothing plays right into the hands of the gun control movement. Confiscation (no, it doesn’t require massive neighborhood door-to-door sweeps) has a singular advantage: grabbing guns from criminals means at least one (or more) gun isn’t available for further use in crime. Confiscated guns rarely, if ever, are involved in further crimes. Problem is, guns aren’t confiscated at a rate sufficient to have a measurable effect on reducing crime or terror attacks.

Complaining about background checks — taking the absolutist position that there should be no efforts to prevent legal gun purchases by people who are already criminals — only serves to strengthen the case for banning gun sales. Under such bans, guns would still be available illegally, but how many otherwise law abiding (is there no other descriptor?) people will actually risk buying a firearm from a criminal?

One can easily see that if the criminal element is the only source of guns, and if guns are routinely confiscated from criminals, the numbers work against the criminal element. If the options are no controls vs. confiscation, the theoretical becomes silly; reality will eventually squeeze out notions of “rights”. Fighting gun control where we are weak is a losing proposition.

Rather than sound like a bunch of cry-babies, shouldn’t we be doing everything we can to make the background check system work as well as possible? Just saying “no” didn’t work in the war on drugs. Will that strategy ever lead us to victory on gun ownership?

If we (gun owners and 2A supporters) show ourselves to be leaders in improving the checks, we take away a highly effective tool of the gun-grabbers. We slow down the march to outright removal of gun rights. We force the other side to defend why they support systems where legitamately rejected gun purchases aren’t properly prosecuted. Or why “gun crimes” as top counts in arrests aren’t prosecuted at all. In other words, we force the other side to live up to their standards.

Being enemies of background checks delays nothing and is a purely defensive stance. It requires that we win every contest, everywhere, while our opposites need only be successful here and there. We need to be on the offensive. We need to demand the anti-gun industry (and their political masters) fulfill their own promises (thus delaying further erosion of gun rights?). We need to remove, permanently, the ability of the anti-gun crowd to beat us to death with claims that we want criminals and terrorists to have guns.

 

155 Responses to Reader: Let’s Talk About Background Checks…Seriously

  1. First. Your argument about the “argument against” BGCs is circular. You argue that saying they dont prevent criminals from getting guns indicates a point for banning gun sales. Then you follow with criminals will still have access to guns, which is a point against banning gun sales – we’re right back where we started.

    Secondly, you leave completely unaddressed the encroachment argument against BGCs. That once in place they can and are abused. That they can and will be used as the basis for further infringment – buy-limits, wait-times, privacy violation, to name a few. These issues having nothing to do with the criminal access issue.

    PoTG are willing to listen to the arguments, they just find them uncompelling.

    • You forgot creating a defacto gun owner database so that if/when confiscation comes they know which door to knock on.

      • That database only covers those who give out information. The 4473 form only shows who bought the gun, not who currently owns the gun.

        • I’m sure they will happily replace your door and appologize for disturbing your peace after you point out that you no longer own the guns listed in their paperwork.

        • @ BDub: Exactly. Although the law in most “free” jurisdictions currently allows for the private transfer of lawfully-owned firearms, when/if the dark days of confiscation come, I somehow doubt that police will accept “I sold it to some guy and I can’t say who” as an answer.

        • @Peter Well put. At that point the grabbers won’t care about the guns so much as nabbing people who know how to use and/or make guns. When it boils right down to it, they aren’t after the tools of freedom, they’re after the free-spirited people.

    • Some people, such as the author, think too much. Things really aren’t all that complicated. Go read the Bible. Go read the Constitution. Proceed accordingly. It really is that simple. You don’t have to be a Christian or an American to understand the concepts of how to conduct one’s self and how to treat others. Things get out of whack when the Bible and Constitution are ignored.

      • you are insane. if you had any recollection of history, you would know in every society where the bible was adhered to strictly, absolute MISERY followed.

        • Yes, please, do tell us what society you’re referring to and provide explicit verses from the Bible that shows that they followed said book strictly.

        • Be specific Preston. Which societies? You must have at least one in mind, with factual historical data to back up your assertation. I can’t think of a single one, myself. Do share multiple examples and provide your reasoning behind why it’s so bad. We’re all ears for real data, not your unfounded opinion.

      • Well this turned into a humorous demonstration of what happens when you arbitrarily bring the bible into a compleatly areligious thread. Well done.

        Thanks guys,

        Your friendly neighborhood atheist.

        • I think you need to read my original post about the Bible and Constitution a little closer. I’m not sure how even an atheist can find fault with the principles contained in the Bible, as far as how man can conduct themselves and treat one another. You might notice I worded my post carefully to avoid certain references to God and Jesus that cause atheist butt-hurt.

          Choose whatever reference you please if you cannot deal with the principles of the Bible. The simple fact is life is not that complicated. Some people over think it. For a firearms background checks, the principle is pretty simple to me. Follow the Second Amendment. You get a gun, just like any other inanimate object, unless you’ve proven that you do bad things with them.

        • “Even an atheist cannot find fault with the principles contained in the Bible, as far as how man can conduct themselves and treat one another. ”

          Sorry, I’m more agnostic than athiest, but I have read the Old Testament, have you?

          Chapter after chapter of God instructing the Jews to go forth and kill their enemies by the thousands. Something about “slay your enemies, their women, their beasts, destroy their crops and salt the earth upon which they grow.” (paraphrased)

          It amazes me how often Christians totally ignore the Old Testament until they find something (The Ten Commandments, etc.) that they wish to inject into a discussion.

          The Bible – either agree that the whole thing is the word and will of God, or shut the hell up. Please.

        • You can tell more about a person by the quotes he uses, than you can tell about the book he quotes.

        • Yup. You can cherry pick the Torah/Bible/Quran to justify that yours, yours is a religion of peace. (Really hard to do in the Torah/OT, or Quran…)

          Christians, specifically Catholics have become something approaching civilized in the last 200-ish years – they really are often pretty nice – though they still think they have some moral duty/authority to stick their nose in your business. Muslims, they’re 500 years from being acceptably modern humans, and the world doesn’t have that long left.

        • ” I’m not sure how even an atheist can find fault with the principles contained in the Bible, as far as how man can conduct themselves and treat one another.”

          Well, I dunno. By actually reading it, and knowing what it actually says, might do for starters…

          As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace. If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor. But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town. When the Lord your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the Lord your God has given you. (Deuteronomy 20:10-14)

          If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her. (Deuteronomy 22:28-29)

          They must be dividing the spoils they took: there must be a damsel or two for each man, Spoils of dyed cloth as Sisera’s spoil, an ornate shawl or two for me in the spoil. (Judges 5:30 NAB)

          How about selling your daughter as a sex slave? The Bible’s got a rule for that too…

          When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl’s owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21:7-11)

          (I can do this for hours. I went to Catholic school…)

          Believe whatever you want, that’s your right. Just please know that your sand-cult has no moral high-ground to argue from.

    • The biggest problem with universal background checks is that they are beyond the power of the Federal Government. The Federal Government is “allowed” to regulate interstate trade. They are not allowed to regulate private sales that do not cross state lines. (I know about the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938).
      Bu than again, who knows, it may the the Supreme Court case that finally restricts all the BS the Feds push with the Commerce Clause.

      All the federal gun laws use to be based on trade and taxes, not guns themselves (other then them being the object of the trade that was being regulated or taxed).

      • I’m sorry, the author’s argument was not compelling.

        The biggest problem with NICS/background checks is that they are prima facie UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

        “…the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

        Why is that simple phrase so damned difficult for even POTG to comprehend?

        So here I go again. Maybe some of you are tired of reading this, but apparently too many fail to understand the implications of background checks:

        “If you concede that the government that the Second Amendment was intended to protect you from has the authority to create, maintain and enforce a list of persons who, in the judgement of that same government, may not exercise their natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms, HOW WILL YOU KEEP YOUR NAME OFF OF THEIR LISTS?” – Cliff H.

        • Yes, but then you are also stating that a convicted violent felon should be able to be armed? And then you will give the argument that if they are dangerous, they should not be released. Then the goverment will just have to keep everyone locked up forever?

          SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED IS NOT A ABSOLUTE or you would need to issue firearms to inmates.

        • Also for a FYI, I know you hate Illinois, but we have the closest thing to “universal” background checks that doesn’t create a firearms owner registry. For a private sale, I run the FOID card and get a verification number that goes on the bill of sale. That number only represents a query, not an actual sale. I keep the bill of sale, not the state.

          And I know the FOID card has no effect on keeping firearms out the criminal hands. But it is nice to know that the guy I’m selling to is not a convict

      • “They are not allowed to regulate private sales that do not cross state lines.”

        Actually, they are. See

        That case used the fact that toothpicks used in the motel restaurant were transported via interstate commerce, which is in regulated under the commerce clause of the constitution. The case ended the “We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone” rubric used throughout the deep South to enforce racial discrimmination.

        And there are other cases where the feds required a producer to sell product the producer wanted to retain for personal use.

    • Something else there is a different reason why there should not be background checks. This reason isn’t going to earn me any points with the prognosis community but I still think it’s a valid reason nonetheless.
      Okay here it is:
      Take the guy who has made a bad mistake that amounted to a felony conviction and he lost his gun rights forever. I’m referring to the non violent offender not the violent ones. Forgot to mention that by the way.
      So anyway what about his right to have a gun? He has just as much of a right to protection just the same as you, or me, or anyone else does. After all everyone makes mistakes in life. He has never demonstrated any violent behavior since his crimes were non violent in nature, he’s only demonstrated that he has made some bad decisions at some point, but then again who hasn’t? Well he may really need a gun someday and a background check will kill that. Before you start ranting about HE SHOULD NEVER HAVE DONE WHAT HE DID crap, you will be correct… but he made a mistake and paid for it by law. He is probably someone who can be trusted with a gun.

    • The OP isn’t advocating BCs; but rather, is arguing for a smarter game plan. Legislators will draft BC bills whether we like it or not. If we refuse to participate in the amendment process then we are counting entirely on defeating the bill when its brought to a vote. That’s not necessarily a winning strategy in the long-run.
      We ought to be arguing that BCs won’t work; and when the BC laws are violated the judicial system isn’t vigorous about either pursuing violators or punishing criminals. Nevertheless, if the Antis insist on “doing something” then we insist on their doing the least damage as possible.
      As just one point of negotiation, I’d argue for reducing the mandatory retention period for 4473 forms from 20 to 10 years.
      If the Antis want UBC then we need to argue for ubiquitous access to NICS; hardware stores, 24 hour gas stations; notaries public. And, no 4473 forms. No UBC for loans.
      All the while, pointing out that BCs are nothing more than security theater.

  2. Because every time we cede ground to the anti-gun folks, it placates them and they stop attacking us, right?

    There’s no such thing as “taking away” any particular avenue of attack from these people, because they will just continue to use the same discredited attacks over and over anyway. We have forty years of statistics and facts that show more guns doesn’t mean more crime, but that doesn’t stop them from shouting the opposite at every opportunity. They have the advantage of a compliant mass media that won’t call them out on falsehoods and logical fallacies. If you think ceding ground on background checks (or any other point) is going to get them to stop claiming that “the NRA wants to arm terrorists!”, you must be very new to this game.

    • Correct. And when the anti-gunners can’t get the Federal laws they want (because the laws are not effective, which makes them harder and harder to pass), they go to the state legislatures. And when that fails, they take the same proposals to big blue cities (assuming no preemption). And if they can’t make THAT stick, they browbeat individual stores or retailers to get the same results, implying they will lose market share (or threaten them with picketing) if they don’t do what the crybabies want.

      Screw’em.

        • Here’s hoping the courts will take care of that, eventually. I believe the same thing happened in Ohio, and several cities had to be bench-slapped back into line. It took a while, but it did happen. That’s one of the reasons that I think preemption and “emergency powers” restriction laws should have teeth, to actually make any/all who participate in violations personally feel the pain.

  3. Dear whoever penned this,
    Universal background checks are a trojan horse for a federal firearms database. Don’t believe me? Okay, how about an aide to Senator Schumer? After Sandy Hook, Coburn was willing to compromise on background checks. But Schumer held firm. No deal unless federal paperwork was a mandatory element. That is, federal record keeping. That is, a federal database of every firearm.(1)

    Now, why would Schumer insist, at the point of wrecking negotiations for background checks, on a federal database? Why was a federal database so important to him?

    1. http://swampland.time.com/2013/03/29/behind-bloombergs-gun-buyer-background-check-ad-blitz/

    While increased background checks are popular, Coburn and the NRA say there is less support for expanding paper records, which gun-rights advocates warn could be used to create a national database of gun ownership that might allow the government to confiscate firearms. Gun-control groups, and Schumer, say any bill without the paper records would be meaningless.

    • Color me confused. I did a search of the article and never saw the author mention “Universal”. The page search found the first mention of “Universal” was in your reply to an article that said nothing about it.

      Now, what exactly is “Universal background checks” – it seems every time I go looking, I find as many answers as I find results where it seems no one can agree on exactly what those are. How in the hell can we agree or disagree on something that is not clearly defined? Sure, there may be things in common with some answers but the fact that answers vary at all is an issue.

      A national database? I’m not for that in any way. And if this article is to be believed, then what? There definitely needs to be accountability but what happens and to whom? Some poor schmuck will be the fall guy.
      http://personalliberty.com/atf-forgot-comply-policy-accidently-creating-gun-database/

      So, they want to store all the information but when some FFL wants to check to see if a gun is stolen… NOPE!
      http://www.wptz.com/news/gun-dealers-seek-access-to-stolengun-database/39456338

    • If all you want to do is prevent a firearm registry, jut follow the Illinois model. (If you really caret, you would look up how private sales work in Illinois)

  4. “We need to remove, permanently, the ability of the anti-gun crowd to beat us to death with claims that we want criminals and terrorists to have guns.

    Eh. I was kinda with you up to here. I don’t know why we need to give credence to stupid ad hominem arguments. I’m all for making the laws we have work better, but I’d rather repeal most of them. Wouldn’t you?

    I’m also not sure how bringing up drugs is working for you. Is confiscation working there? No. No it is not.

    • Perhaps the author believes there should be background checks on people who buy drugs.

      Not that it would matter, because people who want drugs are going to get drugs, regardless how many checks they perform.

      Too, his war on drugs comparison is totally rediculous, but that’s what can be expected from liberals wanting to control the world.

  5. Compromise on one thing, then they present another thing. If we keep meeting them halfway, we’ll be moving left fairly fast.

    Even if you are for background checks, state you aren’t.

    • “Compromise on one thing, then they present another thing.”

      Exactly.

      The citizens of New York state were told “Nobody wants to take you guns” when the passed registration.

      Shortly after, they outlawed AR-platform weapons, and they had a list of who had those weapons.

      You LIED. You sent letters verifying you lied about AR platform weapons.

      No registration. Ever. YOU concentrate on dealing with CRIMINALS.

      Mandatory ‘background checks’ are a red line, full stop. DO NOT cross it.

      That will be a declaration of war on the citizens of the United States.

      Don’t act all surprised when un-pleasantries commence…

      • Mandatory ‘background checks’ are a red line, full stop. DO NOT cross it.

        On every NEW weapon I’ve bought a background check was required by the FFL. Unless you’ve bought every gun through a private sale… you would have had to cross the same line.

        And depending on your state, even private sales mandate that. And if you’re caught well…you made that decision.

  6. Illinois has universal background checks, and they have done a lot to lower the level of violence in Chicago. It’s a night and day difference since before they were enacted – violence is up and arrests are down!

  7. Waste of time.

    We slow down the march to outright removal of gun rights.

    Oh goody. Nothing like a temporary stay of execution to bring about a party.

    We force the other side to defend why they support systems where legitamately rejected gun purchases aren’t properly prosecuted. Or why “gun crimes” as top counts in arrests aren’t prosecuted at all. In other words, we force the other side to live up to their standards.

    No we don’t. Since when has their side ever been forced to justify or defend anything they do? There are reams of failures here and now that should have them out defending themselves and they don’t. They’ll never have to. It’s the nature of feelz.

    Being nice and polite and pointlessly giving in to these psychos will only accomplish a reduction of liberty for all as has always been and always will be. We’re way too eager to not only extend the olive branch but to hand it over completely for absolutely nothing. We’re doing exactly what the antis always recommend victims do: just hand over your wallet and just give into the rape because fighting back might get you hurt.

  8. So then what do you suggest happen instead? I hear complaints, but no solutions. The Feds are in control of the nics system and the prosecution of violators. There are drastically low numbers of prosections for lying on a nics form. What do we do then? The community is not responsible for the actions of the Feds and their bureaucrats.

  9. You lost me when you said our argument supports universal ban. Their ultimate goal IS and has always been universal ban. Background checks is and always has been a stepping stone to the universal ban. Your words suggest you think they are bargaining in good faith and think we’re missing the boat by not responding. They are not bargaining in good faith, and I think it’s a waste of time ‘having a dialogue’ with them. I WELCOME the argument ‘let’s just ban them all’. The constitution is on our side. They have their easily disproven lies and arguments for social utility. Let us get down to the raw of what they really want. They want nothing less than a ban on firearms ownership by anyone who’s not a government drone. Let them argue and try to defend that against tens of millions of people saying ‘no’!

    • Bargaining in-good-faith is irrelevant in legislation. The only thing that matters is optics. Perhaps the optics that matter most to US are those that are in the minds of the margin of legislators who would vote to support the 2A if they wouldn’t lose support from their particular constituents.
      The “just say NO to everything” strategy tells these legislators that we expect them to vote Nay on all gun control bills and then explain our “just say NO” policy to their constituents. If our sympathetic legislator isn’t convinced that this strategy works in his district/state then he won’t vote our way.
      Conversely, if we participate in the negotiations we give our sympathetic legislator an infinity of options. In the end, he can vote Nay on a bill we still don’t like; or vote Yea on a bill that has been watered-down. He can explain his vote either way by saying he tried to get amendments and was unsatisfied that the Antis had made acceptable compromises.

  10. Nobody gives a frack about background checks. It’s about the Form 4473. THE FORM 4473. That’s the paper record. That’s the basis of the illegal registry. That’s the precursor to confiscation. The Form 4473.

    The Form 4473 is the reason that, at the last minute, NICS became a closed system unavailable to private sellers and purchasers. Private parties cannot be compelled to maintain the Form 4473. FFLs can be so compelled, under penalty of losing their licenses.

    OP, don’t you get it? Please tell me that before you showered TTAG readers with your brilliance, you thought this out. What? You didn’t? God help us.

    Until the OP figures out what game is afoot, there’s nothing to talk about.

    • I still hold out hope that the paper and fragmented nature of the 4473 makes it less likely there is already a national database behind the scenes

      I do wonder if a person with a bunch of purchases in another state is more likely to get pulled over say in New York State on excuses already

      • Sorry to derail your hopes, but that database (that they claim “isn’t”) but which the GAO has found to very much be has existed for at least a decade, and has been acknowledged to exist for at least the last 5 or so years.

        We’re the BATFE, whatcha gonna do about it GAO? That’s what I thought.

        Use the search function – it was covered here very recently, and back in 2012 if memory serves.

        There are many cracks in the data, anything pre-GCA68 doesn’t really exist on paper (most states anyway). Not all dealers that were collecting 4473’s in their bound book pre-NICS have died/retired, so those are kinda gray (ATF field agents have been known to come by and flip through though – and you know that’s being scanned when they do.) So there are still guns out there that BATFE can’t kick in your door and be sure of.

  11. The assumption you are making is that gun confiscation is not a goal in itself for the political left irrespective of crime committed using guns. England may not have much crime, but it did not have much crime before guns were confiscated. It’s murder rate was not even dented by confiscation (it’s actually slightly higher now, as are other crimes), but the English are now firmly in the anti-gun cult. Background checks, will be followed by registration and will be followed by confiscation, all in good time. It’s part of the Progressive agenda. Free speech, such as this blog, will also be targeted. That’s the reason we are playing defense is that every new encroachment will not be self limiting, there will be the next step.
    California is showing the way: ammunition background checks. Of course you have to pay for all such checks, so eventually the very cost of owning a firearm will simply become prohibitive, making direct prohibition and confiscation irrelevant.

  12. Universal background checks are a speed bump to registration then confiscation. Giving them UBC WILL lead to R which will lead to C. If we give them that we have lost, and I don’t see any political parties clamoring to overturn GCA and NFA.

  13. See, THIS is why we can’t have a “rational” discussion about gun control. Advocates always start out with a premise they assume their opponent agrees with then launch into a preaching session venting their own misguided ideas without pausing to breath for fear of rebuttal.

    I think this one belongs under the old “Inside the Twisted Mind of a Gun Grabber” heading….

    • I would sign on to your idea as long as the legislation for national CCW overrides all state restrictions (May issue) and specifically prohibits confiscation except in felony criminal conviction.

      • There’s a problem with that.

        They will declare all non-smart guns illegal, then confiscate them after your trial.

      • Only convictions for violent felonies should be the only felonies that shouldn’t have guns. Like for example, gang bangers, serial killers, whoever else that uses weapons in violent or potentially violent crimes. But not for non violent felony convictions. These individuals have not proven to misuse firearms, they have only demonstrated that at least once they have made some bad decisions. But who hasn’t ever made a bad decision? If anyone says they haven’t they’re lying full of shit. Non violent felons shouldn’t lose gun rights forever just because of a bad mistake that they have already paid for and served thier time. After they finish thier probation or parole they should automatically be legally able to buy guns again.

    • Nope, when I got my CCL, I just naturally assumed I was putting my name on a list of obvious gun owners. That means I obviously own at least one. My one gun is registered. I am not happy about that, but I will never register any more than that one gun. If there are ever UBC’s I will never buy a gun again. I will never support or placate to the anti-gun side because they would rather see evil triumph than suffer the pain of free will, they are without courage.

  14. I think we should have “universal background checks” for gun purchases. Here’s what it should look like:

    1) Government makes a publicly-available list of all “prohibited persons” — people with arrest warrants, prison escapees, and convicts who, as punishment for a violent crime, received a specific sentence prohibiting them from possessing a firearm.

    2) Before selling or transferring a firearm to someone else, any transferor must verify that the transferee is not on the above list. No information is sent to the government when the transferor makes this check.

    3) Transfer the firearm.

    Due process. No gun registry. No guns for violent criminals. #commonsense. I’m done here.

    • And what the antis will come back at you with, is that prohibited people have rights.

      It’s what they did in Oregon when a similar solution was proposed. Though in that case it was an identifying mark on state id. But the result was that the Senate Judiciary Chair when on NPR the next day and decried how such a situation is completely inappropriate because felons have rights.

      Not saying I agree with it, but that’s how they counter it, and it for some odd reason resonates with their constituents that someone who has been tried and found guilty by a jury of their peers has more rights than the most law abiding of citizens.

      • Textbook example of trying to have your cake and eat it, too… Felons have rights, which must be protected, but not the right to keep and bear arms… Dumb. If you can infringe their right to have a gun, you can infringe their right to privacy, too. Seems like there’s plenty of precedent for that, with things like sex offender registries and such.

        • If a person is too dangerous to be trusted with a freedom, shouldn’t that make them too dangerous to be trusted with their freedom?

        • That’s because to them, gun ownership isn’t really a right that ought to exist in polite society, but while we have it, then felons have the right to be treated like anyone else, including enjoyment of “rights” they don’t like.

          Counter with the fact that they’re also not allowed to vote.

    • #1 is a constantly changing, moving target, delete…#2 has no enforcement value if it is not reported, delete…#3 transfer is now #1, fixed it!

      • #1 is a changing target, as it should be. It should be the government’s responsibility to keep the list current if they want to do background checks.
        #2 has enforcement value. Government has to show that the transferee was on the list at the time of the transaction.

  15. There’s no “there” there. Or here, or anywhere in this essay. I may have read it too quickly or just a little too tired to understand the point, but I don’t see a point. I have admitted that emotionally background checks make sense to me, but logically not so. One could suggest a background check on anything that may make it easier for a bad person to do bad things, but until the clairvoyants hop in the hot tub no one can guess when an otherwise good person will turn bad. So we can only go by past experience to save the future. So as I’ve said before: if one who has control of their faculties cannot be trusted with a firearm, then they should be incarcerated or executed. Then background checks are inconsequential because those “prohibited persons” would be unavailable to make the transaction.

  16. Personally, I’m not an absolutist on this topic. I really don’t care that much about 4473’s in and of themselves. Similarly I don’t really worry about them being used for a “registry” either. The government is generally pretty poor with it’s records keeping of such things and if they really want to know if you own guns or not they can find out very rapidly with investigative tools they already have. Unless you’ve been going all Jason Bourne about your gun ownership since day one the gubmint will figure it out if they care to apply the effort.

    Now, I must admit that there is some friction here that is rightly pointed out in the article. On the one hand there is a certain amount of infringement inherent in a background check system. On the other hand the “You want criminals, crazies and terrorists to have easy access to guns” while not a logically supported argument, it has certainly shown itself to be somewhat effective for the anti’s.

    The real core issue with guns is that the situation is very difficult to deal with without stepping on someone’s rights and while some may be willing to allow the trampling of another’s rights in favor of their own, I’m not. Often this argument boils down to people talking past each other due to what it is that they believe is possible. Staunch 2A folks who don’t like BGC’s believe that their right is absolute while staunch anti’s believe that absolute safety is obtainable. Both believe that 100% is obtainable. It’s not.

    Now I could go on at length here with my suggestions that would actually go somewhere in terms of fixing the problems while providing what most people would agree would be adequate protection for gun owners. I’m not going to bother for two reasons. First, it would take massive overhauls of numerous parts of our government including overturning some old court decisions and laws. Secondly, our government has proved itself to be completely and totally untrustworthy. I see no point in attempting to “reform” systems within a government that is willing and capable of lying to the public and breaking laws that have been duly enacted while shielding itself and it’s workers from any culpability for said infractions. This happens because “We the People” allow it to happen without consequence.

    Simply put, I’m not against background checks per se, but I don’t trust our government not to abuse the system, fuck everything up through incompetence, possibly a combination of both of those and then lie through it’s teeth about it. The real truth is that the general public doesn’t give a shit about good governance, transparency or anything else. Most of this country is asleep at the switch. The very fact that HRC has even a remote shot at winning the White House proves this to be the case.

  17. As much as I hate to use the byline of the NRA, what about arresting people who are CAUGHT with firearms illegally and/or illegally using them get prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Nothing sickens and tires me as much as hearing about people dying on the inner city streets of Chicago etc. and the perps in many cases being in a position where they are multi time losers and even worse should be in jail still.

    Background checks are like looking out for thought crime and are actually a blemish on the reputation of gun owners “we don’t trust you to buy this we must verify who you are first.”

    Not only that but you never see talk of limiting the scope of who gets rejected in background checks, only enlarging it. Often in vague, hard to appeal ways like the Terrorist Watch List.

    Lastly, enlarging these background checks is stupid at best; The “Charleston Loophole” is in reality that the officer didn’t submit Roof’s name to the NICS database. How is a background check going to work when the police can’t even do their job right?

    Lastly, states like NJ will implement horrible systems for approval that close the nonexistent loophole above and then logjam the background checks as much as possible in an attempt to harass not only shooters but gun shops and ranges as well. This says nothing of wanting a mandatory system that means I couldn’t even let you shoot my gun at a range because there was no background check.

    • I agree with all that you have said and I’d like to comment on the first part, specifically using a gun “illegally”. And I plan on getting philosophical and hypothetical, but below makes sense to me.

      Concealed carry should be just as legal as open carry is, everywhere to everybody, without any type of licensing/ permission system. If you are caught committing a crime, and through investigation discovered to be carrying a concealed weapon, then you should be hit with the criminal charge of carrying a concealed weapon regardless of how you obtained the firearm. And you should actually be prosecuted for it. I know I’m preaching to the choir here about non-prohibited, lawful gun owners CC’ing and it is BS that w/o a license, if a cop happens to notice you are printing or whatever other “probable cause” he may have, you can end up being arrested for a gun crime simply by standing in line gas station. But to me, this would actually address one of the many issues pros and antis are at loggerheads over.

      Wouldn’t that legal scenario make us happy by actually targeting criminals (those who are actually doing wrong) and not regular citizens. Morally speaking there is nothing wrong with CC’ing, unless you are doing so to aid in committing a crime. I guess it wouldn’t make the antis happy b/c they don’t exactly care strictly about guns and criminals. But I don’t see why middle ground folks would care so much.

      Off topic but it is something that’s been bothering me for years.

  18. Speaking from my perspective here in Canada, there are no steps that the anti-gunners take that do not have “ban guns” as the end goal. I’m sure they will give you lots of good reasons why the background check regime needs to be expanded, but the implementation will be designed to bring them one step closer to knowing who owns what in preparation for confiscations. Kinda like how their use of registration allowed them to prohibit all the 4 inch and under barreled pistols (they used the “grandfathering” trick to prevent a large cash payout unlike in Australia, however).

    If the antigunners argued in good faith, I suppose they wouldn’t be anti gunners.

  19. Yep Chicago Steve. Universal background checks and… NOTHING. No change at all. It’s just a pain in the azz if I want to sell a gun to anyone. Like my brother. Remember Dick “let’s talk limits” Metcalf?!? This dude(?) hasn’t got the stones to even use a pseudonym. Oh BTW the let’s compromise azzwholes can go to he!!…shall not be infringed.

  20. The thing is, I do want criminals and terrorist to have guns. Crazy, right? Not really. I want everyone to have access to whatever arms they can afford and use without infringing on the rights of others. By creating gun laws, we create a class of people that have access to certain arms that others don’t have legal access to. This creates an imbalance in society – and we’re seeing the affects of such imbalances now. If we all have the same legal access to arms, then we’re all on a level playing field.

    Remember one other, key, legal idea: Innocent until proven guilty. There’s also the right against self incrimination, and the right against unlawful search without probable cause. By allowing background checks for firearm purchases, we’re allowing a search into our history and potential incrimination – all without any real probable cause. As you’re well aware, simply owning a gun doesn’t make you a criminal, it’s what you do with the gun.

    I can’t square background checks with the above rights, legal concept, and the second amendment.

    Additionally, we do argue for the enforcement of current laws, which includes the prosecution of those who lie on background check forms. I’d rather we didn’t have background checks, and gun laws (illegal possession, weapon restrictions, feature restrictions, and such), and instead just focused on prosecuting crimes that are actually malum in se (Wrong in itself).

  21. I read the first 25 comments. Maybe we are not quite getting the idea.

    Seems the article tell us that fighting background checks as “useless” leaves us vulnerable to an easy attack that without background checks, we are fine with crazies and criminals legally buying guns. The last part of the article appears to be a recommendation for taking the fight to the grabbers by making them live up to their standard that background checks are effective, and can be made more effective. The laws about background checks don’t work because liberal and leftist LE and judges refuse to apply the laws. I don’t find any reason to conclude the article endorsed current or “improved” background checks.

    • You’re right, and we do argue for this, but I don’t think the left really cares anymore. They’ve abandoned background checks as much as we want them gone.

      • ^This- they only care about background checks in the aftermath of a mass shooting. For the most part they are focusing on the availability of guns and making buying and owning a gun as inconvenient as possible.

      • Now, that is interesting. Have not heard before that gun-grabbers were losing interest in pushing more background checks. If only it would become a flood of disinterest.

        • What I mean to say, is that since prosecution rates for failing a background check, or lying on a background check, are so low (as demonstrated on this site, and other numerous times), as well as the prosecution rate for gun law crimes, I think the gun-control crowd sees this as a failure and thus demand more laws, rather than see it as a failure for lack of actual prosecuting and conviction – which is a failure of the system. Does that make sense?

          They’re not really interested in fixing the system. They’re just interested in piling on more laws; thus they’re not really interested in background checks so much as they’re interested in using them as a tool to further their agenda of creating more laws and eventually leading to confiscation.

        • Understand, now. Libs, leftists, statists and Demoncrats love to make illegal acts more illegal; it’s how we arrived at the idiocy of “hate” crimes.

    • There’s little point in trying to structure an argument against Leftists. They’ll just change the parameters, move the goalposts or start crying about dem feelz.

      Leftists have no logic behind anything they do. People say “If they didn’t have double standards they’d have no standards”. Hogwash. They have no standards. They have no overarching theory behind anything they do and therefore will say and do anything that they think advances their argument/cause.

      Just look at this example:

      Lefties say discrimination is bad, right? When they say that they’re what George Carlin would have called “stunningly and embarrassingly full of shit”. They’re all for discrimination against people they don’t like. They want Sonic and Panera to discriminate against OC gun carriers but they want to crucify a baker who won’t bake a cake for a homosexual wedding. These same assholes argue that we have to protect the rights of the minority (homosexuals) and then turn right around and say “The majority want’s gun control and gun owners are only like 1/3rd of the country so we can pass whatever laws we like”.

      • They’re all for discrimination against people they don’t like. They want Sonic and Panera to discriminate against OC gun carriers but they want to crucify a baker who won’t bake a cake for a homosexual wedding. These same assholes argue that we have to protect the rights of the minority (homosexuals) and then turn right around and say “The majority want’s gun control and gun owners are only like 1/3rd of the country so we can pass whatever laws we like”.

        Very cogent. The point we should be hammering is that “we” are an oppressed minority denied our Constitutional/BoR Rights Except we’re ‘evil white men’, or blacks portrayed as race traitors. Or Hispanics portrayed the same way. (Asians are fine with guns as far as I have seen in 30 years of knowing them…). You know, the architects of the only societies worth living in. We’re the bad guys…

        There’s no winning this, white people are portrayed as evil, and until we actually go ahead and fulfill that prophesy, we will be discriminated against in the most basic terms – because some morons think they have some responsibility for what they’re great-great grandfather may have done.

  22. Wow. Epic fail of an article. It’d be more intellectually demanding watching autonomous sensory meridian response videos on YouTube than to demolish this rubbish. Dan the Man really laid an egg this time.

  23. Linked below is the VCDL argument against UBCs. I think it tells the other side of the story. I think it applies to every state and the federal level. Here are my additional arguments against:

    1. UBCs are unconstitutional on the face of them. Does 2A say anything about “the right of the people who have passed background checks to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed?” No, it doesn’t. We have already had our constitutional principles compromised and every compromise has led to more compromises.

    2. We should come up with our own solutions. We need to show we are just as concerned out violent crime as the anti-gunners, and we have our own ways forward. Solutions include actually enforcing current criminal laws against violent criminals. Do anti-gunners know that prosecutors almost always plea bargain current gun laws away and that violent criminals are released early from prison to make room for non-violent criminals?

    3. UBCs don’t work, they only sound like they should work. The anti-gunners have not thought it through or looked at the facts. Why should we support a solution, however unconstitutional, that doesn’t even work? That keeps will mean we have another restriction that won’t lower crime and therefore the antis will have to come up with something else.

    4. The eventual goal by antis is the end of private gun ownership. We must realize this is their goal. This UBC thing is just a skirmish in that war. In a war, you don’t give ground unless it gets you more than you give. What do UBCs get us? Nothing.

    5. There should be NO talking about UBCs using the NICS system. It is broken, unfair and it creates a de facto gun registration, which violates the spirit of the law that created background checks to being with. I have not seen the anti-gunners even propose a better system, even though there are better systems out there and even though a lot of the high profile killers recently have passed NICS. To even talk about UBCs, we need a system that’s “blind.” A system that checks the buyers against a national list of prohibited people. Once they are cleared, the transaction is not stored and the gun sold is not recorded.

    https://www.vcdl.org/resources/Documents/UBC_Flyer.pdf

  24. “how many otherwise law abiding (is there no other descriptor?)”

    The descriptor I use is the term innocent instead of law abiding, because they are innocent of any wrong doing.

    Peaceful can be another good alternative.

  25. How about a grand trade:
    “They” get ‘universal’ background checks / closing the so-called ‘gun show loophole’
    “We” get national reciprocity concealed carry, suppressors off the NFA (background check for the tube, like a receiver, other parts sold freely), and removal of the import bans (free trade and all).

    Oh, and maybe we can get a two-month ‘amnesty’ to register machine guns with the NFA, for $2,200 instead of the usual $200. The other $2000 goes to support cancer research. Bet you could raise 9 figures.

    • The antis have started saying that the only law that works is background checks, so you’re selling it way short on the ‘compromise’ we could get. Obviously we need a good robust national concealed carry reciprocity. But why stop at silencers, and why even consider keeping them as firearms? Get everything off the NFA except machine guns and explosives (I’ll cop to trying to be practical here). AND repeal Hughes amendment.

      Let’s see just how badly they want background checks.

    • Complete repeal of the NFA. If you are going to universally register the firearms why would there need to be some special class of them that needs to be double-registered?

      • This – SO much this! I find it strange that I need to fill out a 4473 to buy a firearm, then a separate BC to buy a suppressor (AND pony up another 2 bills for the stamp), THEN an additional one to cut the barrel down on a firearm on which I’ve already obviously passed one BC, not to mention the additional 2 bills. All to LEGALLY possess a firearm that is easy to maneuver and won’t cause permanent damage to my hearing… Really?

  26. Maybe someone already mentioned it, but how do they confiscate all of the illegal guns from the illegal owners? That seemed to be a premise relied on heavily.

  27. i agree with parts of it. we definitely need to champion for fixing the existing BGC system. with any position there are going to be fundamentalist that refuse to listen to basic reasoning and just plug their ears and yell. we have them on our side and so do the anti-gunners. some people just lack the ability to be rational and consider another point of view. after all, its when you actually fully consider the anti-gunners point of view that you really start to see the problems with that mindset and can respond to them with credible examples.

    • I consult in the area of mass media and large group persuasion and I completely disagree. We will never, ever convince anti-gunners, any more than they will convince us. We waste too much time with this kind of thinking. Even getting into a dialog with them winds up making us look bad because everyone gets up upset and the ad hominem attacks begin. We wind up looking just as stupid as they are.

      I like the answer I’ve seen the president of the VCDL give to anti-gunners who ask him what compromises he would be willing to make. He says, “I am a pro-gun advocate. I’m not in the business of suggesting anti-gun solutions. You propose a solution and I will be happy to comment on whether I think it will work or not and why. But I won’t give you arguments to use against us. What would I?”

      Who we want to convince is the much larger group in the middle, the group who could be persuaded one way or another. That takes a completely different direction in terms of strategy.

  28. OK, I’ll bite. Again.

    Ignoring all of the “should we” arguements the question then becomes how can you, me, or licensed dealer run an instant background check on anybody without there being any trace of who was buying, selling, or what was being transfered? To do this the government needs to provide the information they have in their database to an end user device that makes the decision. It could work something like this . . .

    The government needs to:
    They already have a database of names, social security numbers and random facts about you. A single boolean value needs to be added to a table to represent the simple yes or no answer. When new information comes in that could change someone from the Yes/OK value to No/Prohibited simply update the one value. The name, SSN and Yes/No values need to be accessible to a web page or small, free application.

    The application needs to:
    One screen with a Name field, a SSN field and a Send button. In theory the seller would type in the buyers name and the buyer would key in their SSN. Each of the fields would be far enough apart to require scrolling beyond where the other could see what had been entered. When the Send button is clicked the website/application sends a list of say 500 (or howevern many you like) random SSN’s to be checked. The government’s end receives those SSN’s and sends back all 500 along with accompanying name and Yes/No value. The website/application receives the incoming values and runs the following logic on every one of them.

    Compare every SSN to the value in the SSN field on screen. If the SSN value does NOT match, do nothing and check the next one. If the incoming SSN value DOES match the the value in the on screen SSN field, continue on and check the associated name with the value in the Name field. If both the name and SSN are a match, then check the incoming Yes/No value. If the value is a Yes, make the computer BEEP and turn the entire screen green for 10 seconds. If the value is no make the computer BEEP BEEP and turn red for 10 seconds.

    The seller needs to:
    Do the right thing. Hell, if they bothered to check in the first place then it probably won’t be an issue.

    Why this could work:
    The only records the government could keep are 499 ficticious requests and 1 genuine with no way to tell them apart, and the IP address of where the request was made from. Use a public computer and even that is useless information. At best they could try to filter down probable buyers from last known address and proximity to the IP address but even that can be masked.

    The application/website itself only transferes the data stream. Once it is on the local PC, the PC does all of the work. Since the incoming stream is comparing itself to unsaved values in text fields, that information is never present on the hard drive. All of the processing is done in the virtual memory. Simple changing of screen color means the result of the match is never even recorded.

    In essence this is a means of ensuring the hard drive on the local computer never records any invormation that could be retrieved, and make sure the government had 499+ false background checks for every one actually performed. Again, ignoring the “should we” arguement, this is one way it could work while preventing the government from compiling any useable list. Besides, it would be fun to inadvertently run up hundreds of background checks on Watts’ or Bloomberg’s SSN without them ever knowing.

    • “…how can you, me, or a licensed dealer run an instant background check on anybody without there being any trace of who was buying, selling, or what was being transferred?”

      Easy. Much easier than what you suggest. There is no reason to include all of that information. All that is needed is a check of a person to determine if that person is cleared to buy guns that day. A simple yes or no answer will suffice, with a transaction number than can go on the bill of sale.

      If the goal is to check a buyers’ background and NOT create a gun registry, then why do you need information on what was eventually purchased? You don’t. For instance, people get background checks all the time for jobs. But the background check doesn’t care if the person actually starts the job, or how long he stays. It’s irrelevant.

      • That’s what I described. I understand it is TL/DR but it was just details around a very simple concept. Send SSN, the check sends back 499 random yes/no answers in addition to the one requested. No record of who requested it, the person being checked is hidden in along list of possible pass/fails, and no record of why the search was done. Even if the government records the 500 sent, the computer that made the request never had anything in memory so there wouldn’t even be anything for a forensic IT department to dig up.

  29. “.. If no regulation or legal restriction will prevent the use of guns in crimes, then the alternatives are two: do nothing or confiscation.”

    Yes, but very much no.

    The flaw in your logic is the idea that any regulation or legal restriction will PREVENT something. Laws don’t prevent crime. Regulations don’t prevent criminal intent.

    It is illegal to kill people without cause. Why do we need an additional laws or any amount of regulations beyond that initial illegality? Is killing someone with a firearm any different than killing them with a baseball bat? Or with poison? Isn’t the victim just as dead regardless of what tool was used to kill them?

  30. The problem is they don’t want compromise. They want confiscation. That’s their compromise. When you hear them utter the phrase compromise, or common sense, they mean their side gets everything, and guns are only for the police and military. I’m not against backround checks, but the problem is the unrelenting left. And to your other point, no, it won’t ever end. Our rights are in constant peril and always will be. It’s a never ending war against slavery.

    • “…but the problem is the unrelenting left. ”

      I think this is what the article is talking about. Time for us to be unrelenting in our attack on the gun-grabbers. One approach is forcing then to PROVE the background checks are based on validated date, and work to put law-breakers in jail. Accept no partial solution. We keep waiting for the next assault.

  31. We need to remove, permanently, the ability of the anti-gun crowd to beat us to death with claims that we want criminals and terrorists to have guns.

    There is a problem here. The anti-gun crowd hate guns, gun owners, and the culture of self reliance (with guns). The anti-gun crowd support criminals and terrorists. They want to import Syrians. They want to minimize prison sentences and punishments for violent crime. – And… They want to get rid of the guns. They sympathize with violent criminals because of their lack of “equal opportunity.” Sympathy for gun owners? Nope. How can anyone have a weapon of war/baby killing gun in the home??? … You are X times more likely to be injured or killed with a gun in your home than compared with a home intruder, etc etc, endless illogical stream of this, ad nauseam. Yes they want to confiscate them. 3.8 homicides per 100K? With the vast vast vast majority of that in inner cities in specific neighborhoods. I feel safer here in the US than in Germany with strict gun controls. But the anti-gunners purposely sensationalize every story, every event, every study, every statistic – Because they hate guns and gun owners. This is the new progressive agenda. You think we couldn’t get that 3.8 to 0.6? Of course we could and we could all keep our guns. The problem is already known and the left ignores it. It is the inner city gang violence. All the high rates of homicides exist in the city. But they don’t want to address the violence – they want to address the presence of guns. They don’t talk in terms of violence or the interconnection of violence with guns, or knives, or whatever method is used. They only want to talk about “gun violence” as if it was an isolated static element rather than a dynamic entity in a system of variables. They don’t want to talk about if the gun was removed from the equation that a difference method would be used. To them they don’t care – because a gun wouldn’t be used.

    Also. Mass shootings can’t be prevented. Period. The root cause isn’t the gun. If the gun wasn’t available they would “NICE, FRANCE” it with a truck. The problem is the people and their mental issues and mentalities. The only, I repeat, only defense against this, is to be prepared for it. If people are going to continue to own guns, then mass shootings are going to continue to happen. If people didn’t own guns, mass killings are going to continue to happen. The difference? I can defend myself with the former rather than latter.

    Lastly, because the anti-gun crowd hates us – they want us to become criminals. They want to make us criminals and terrorists (who own *GASP!* – a gun!). Supporting background checks/government registration, in my opinion, only supports our own disarmament.

    • I would also point to post-Good Friday Agreement Northern Ireland as a good example of violence in the absence of firearms. In the early 2000’s, the major IRA organizations (PIRA and CIRA) decommissioned most of their guns, as did most of the loyalist paramilitaries. However the breakaway dissident republican groups continue an armed campaign against the UK. Former connections in eastern Europe, Libya, and the Irish-American community had dried up. So what have the dissident republicans come to rely on to carry on their armed struggle? Pipe bombs, IED’s and other crude/homemade explosives in general.

      While the dissident republican groups are not as large, connected and organized as their predecessors, they are still very active in perpetrating violence against others. They don’t get the media coverage they used to, but not a week, or even day goes by on BBC NI where a “viable explosive device” is not discovered or thwarted or whatever.

      We have terror and criminal groups in this country who are much better connected and supplied than the dissident republican groups. Obviously they have no problem getting guns and weaponry. What are UBC’s going to do to stop them? How easy do you think it would be for them to get going on building some bombs, should the fairy-tale of gun-free become available?

  32. Universal background checks would be a wonderful thing if they were handled by, say, the JPFO, and the government wasn’t involved at all.

    The problem isn’t background checks, it’s government meddling.

  33. Brave stance, but one I agree with! If we can more effectively police oursleves, the anti gun crowd has to stop saying “common sense” gun laws: we’ll have already shown our side to be more reasonable. This is an easy alternative to gun registries or confescation that could actually do some good.

    • WE have nothing to police because WE aren’t the problem.

      If you want to count any of the criminals and mass murderers as one of you that’s on you. I don’t. And won’t.

      I did not enable, allow, support, or in any way put good vibes out towards the Orlando shooter, the Newtown shooter, the Boston Bombers, or any other criminal who committed any atrocity ever. They are not me, they are not mine, they are not something I have to police.

  34. I agree with the author.

    Furthermore, The NRA could attach a big ask to universal background checks. Is there nothing it wants that would make the “quid’ worth the “pro quo”?

  35. Fine, let’s pretend we support UBC’s. We do this knowing that they are ineffective, unconstitutional, and not enforced.

    10 years from now…
    Crime is still present, and likely still declining, yet it’s not 0, so obviously “we must do something”. So we have gun owner registration, similar to ownership permits already in place in some states. We support registration, knowing that it is ineffective, unconstitutional, and not enforcable.

    20 years from now…
    Crime is still present, yet it’s not 0, so obviously “we must do something”. So now we require that gun owners must keep firearms at designated shooting ranges in secured lockers, but can be checked out for hunting as needed. We fight this, since it is a clear violation of our rights, yet lose because so much of the population feels we must do something, and obviously what we are doing is not enough, and there are countries in Europe that do this already.

    30 years from now.
    Crime is now growing, and although “gun violence” is steady, physical violence such as assault and rape is now skyrocketing, since there’s no easy way to defend oneself against a physical superior, or more numerous aggressors. Obviously while violent crime is rising, gun violence is important type of violence, so gun ranges are closed down except to police and military, and a non-voluntary gun-buyback is enforced.

    40 years from now???

    Backing a solution to a non-existent problem is not a solution at all. Violence is the problem, not gun violence. Specifically gang violence is the problem. Acknowledging that gun violence is a topic worth discussing is simply giving credence to a false premise to begin with. Unfortunately due to a failing education system, and mass media’s influence on the populace supporting gun control, some voters in less free states will continue to give away rights they themselves don’t use forever, at least until there is a culture shift prompted by some major event, such as civil or world war.

    No, the only type of background check I will ever endorse is a universal system to determine if one is a prohibited person that has no possible way to enter what the transaction is or what firearm it entails, that merely identifies whether the buyer is a felon or prohibited person. I’ll only support this system if it is voluntary, however if they make it’s use mandatory to vote, I’d be willing to support it’s mandatory use for gun transactions. Obviously it would be completely unenforceable, and making it enforceable requires the creation of a gun registry, which is a non-starter.

  36. This author is either ignorant or in denial about the ultimate goal of the top anti-gunners. It is never enough for an anti because there is always one more rule/law that can “just save one life”.

  37. Here is a quick not so well thought out idea.

    Any law passed to restrict the 2nd Amendment MUST equally apply to the 1st Amendment.

    Let see how everyone reacts when you have to apply for a permit to:
    – Post on Facebook/blogs
    – To attend the church you want ( or not at all)
    – Have a weekly vegan hipster anti- fur meeting at the local whole foods

    • Man this one doesn’t really work. I saw an anti replied on Youtube “no one has been shot by the internet.” It was a good jab.

      We need to assert again and again how much MORE important the 2A is than posting on the interweb. And thus an equal amount of infringement on the 2A is costing a lot more.

  38. To have any hope of getting my support, Any background check scheme should require some actual harm before an individual can be prosecuted.

    If sell a gun to someone sans bgc and they, as expected, never commit any other crime, there is no justification for the law to come after me.

    If I trade guns with someone and we skip a bgc since we both already have guns, there is no justication for the law to come after me

  39. So I’d like to put forward option C:
    What I’d like to see available for private sales is a system for voluntary anonymous background checks.
    Voluntarily: not required by law – so when I sell to my brother in law or some other person I know and trust I just sell and skip the whole process. If on the other hand I sell to a stranger I want to know that he’s not prohibited. This puts the power in the hands of the seller.
    Anonymous: As the seller I call in to inquire about a buyer. The buyer supplies their info to the seller, and gives consent for the check. There could be an online or phone or text system worked out that would still respect privacy. The key is that there’s no record kept of if a sale took place or what gun if any was sold. This alleviates the possibility of deafacto registration. This is just a service to provide the seller with good info as to if they should sell.
    If implemented it needs to be gun owners who push and use this. We get the benefit of knowing if to sell, and by taking responsibility we get the high ground of showing we take this right seriously. UBC will always be voluntary anyways- because the bad guys are still going to ignore the law.
    I personally use a form of this as is. When I sell to a stranger I require seeing a carry permit to prove you’re good to buy. Just makes sense to me.

  40. I could maybe get behind the following scenario:

    If you sell a gun with a background check, you are granted unlimited statutory immunity if the purchaser does something naughty with said gun.

    If you decide to skip the background check and the purchaser does something naughty, you lose those protections and it can be left to a jury to decide if you were actually negligent or not.

    I’m not saying i love this system since it still allows for people to be help responsible for the actions of others, but it makes a helluva lot more sense than “No background check, go to jail”

  41. “Poop to that!!!” – Marvin Boggs

    ““When you point a finger at someone else. . .
    you have it along the frame/receiver of the weapon and three wrapped around the grip or stock”

    IT IS
    W R O N G F U L
    IT SHOULD BE
    C R I M I N A L
    To claim that honor system background checks protect you or anyone else from ANYTHING.

    If your government (a/k/a: your a-hole neighbors who needed a job) claims that “[IT] cannot protect you unless/until you do [X]” then only the first part of their statement is true.

    BACKGROUND CHECKS ARE NOTHING but window dressing on government’s failure to protect you, and (an at-best) marginal justification for the employment of the people claiming to fulfill the task. The proceeds of the investigative nature of checks are anecdotal AND AFTER THE FACT, yet have a HUGELY disruptive effect on your RTKABA, and demands an acquiescence to OVER-REACHING AUTHORITY that is damnable if you trace it out to it’s final moment (leverage) in history.

    YES FU to background checks, FU to all of the a-holes that sell them as effective, and useful.
    FU to those opposed to arms as a means (position) to provide individual or collective safety.
    FU to all those who think their momentary/individual safety can even be considered a sacred gift of LIBERTY, without the ABSOLUTE THREAT TO DESTROY EVERYONE ELSE’S PEACE AND QUIET if jeopardy is threatened.

    We only survive together by the rules of armed conflict. I didn’t decide that, human nature did, and it took a hundred thousand years of living on this rock together in this environment to hash it out. FU in the goat a_ _ if you think you can fix/change it stupid.

  42. For me the argument for Background Checks is flawed. The intent, on the surface, is sound and just. But in practice and implementation we ALL know that some bureaucrat/politician will find a way to exploit the system to his/her advantage.

    In other words, if every gun owner in America KNEW, and I mean with out a doubt, that their right to keep and bear arms wouldn’t be infringed upon as a result of background checks then not a single one would balk at the idea. Period.

    Reality has sunk in for most gun owners though. Every initiative by the Left in regards to guns, every single one, has proven to have one singular goal, the disarming of the American people.

    That’s why people of the gun will never accept background checks or any other government run program that involves the second amendment.

    • Never ever ever- since the passage of the NFA, we have seen nothing but erosion. I think it’s a miracle the ’94 AWB wasn’t extended another 10 years or put into law.

  43. Background checks are one of the favorite “fingernails on the chalkboard” subjects on this forum. Fearing no contradiction, background checks are never acceptable for readers here. So, what is there to talk about?

    Gun reviews/ Gun Stories. How in the next 50 years everyone will be able to print a steel gun right from their desktop. Or how the regulated items of most guns right now this very moment can be printed on a 3D printer right from the desktop?

    There is an old saw that goes, “When you point a finger at someone else, you have three pointing back at you.” And that’s the launching point for discussing background checks. If you are predisposed to simply rail and rant, you’ll find nothing interesting here, and I don’t want to waste your time. But if you have a natural curiosity, maybe we can “talk”.

    Yeah we’ll do both.

    The quick response by the People of the Gun to any mention of background checks is actually unhelpful, and maybe even dangerous to the right to keep and bear arms. How blithely we regurgitate, “They don’t work”, “Too many flawed denials”, “Infringement”, “Violate the constitution”, and so on. We also seem to love to shout that background checks do nothing to stop someone from committing a heinous crime with a gun after successfully passing a background check. Really?

    Do we ever consider that the anti-gun crowd is doing us a favor by not figuratively shoving our own argument down our throats? Do we believe that magic will prevent that going forward? We are truly fortunate the anti-gun collective has not figured this out yet.

    They are welcome to. In fact, the greater the divide between us, the sooner we can Texit, Oklaexit, Wyomexit, etc etc and be rid of them.

    All our arguments about the uselessness and lawlessness of background checks for gun purchases are the very reason why gun confiscation becomes the logical, default goal of the anti-gun industry. If no regulation or legal restriction will prevent the use of guns in crimes, then the alternatives are two: do nothing or confiscation.

    Nope. We can all make preparations for our own safety – since the state is incapable of protecting us. How about “prepare yourself” or “confiscation.” I would prefer the prepared part. It is possible for us all to individually take on this responsibility rather than have the nanny state tell us what we can and can’t have because some inner city drug dealing gang banger killed someone. Right?? Right??

    Doing nothing plays right into the hands of the gun control movement. Confiscation (no, it doesn’t require massive neighborhood door-to-door sweeps) has a singular advantage: grabbing guns from criminals means at least one (or more) gun isn’t available for further use in crime. Confiscated guns rarely, if ever, are involved in further crimes. Problem is, guns aren’t confiscated at a rate sufficient to have a measurable effect on reducing crime or terror attacks.

    How do we know that confiscation of guns will ever be confiscated at a rate sufficient to have a measure effect on reducing crime or terror attacks? The war on drugs certainly didn’t.

    Complaining about background checks — taking the absolutist position that there should be no efforts to prevent legal gun purchases by people who are already criminals — only serves to strengthen the case for banning gun sales. Under such bans, guns would still be available illegally, but how many otherwise law abiding (is there no other descriptor?) people will actually risk buying a firearm from a criminal?

    I wouldn’t need to. I can make my own receivers. And this is likely where it would go. You can’t stop it, but what you can do it punish people with no intent to harm others. Right? Furthermore, you forgot to mention that the “background check” can and is being actively used to disarm people. Even people with no intent to harm others. It’s called a “felony.” And some of them are ridiculous. Perform a victimless/ridiculous crime and you might not be able to own guns ever again! (legally anyways – or until texit, etc):

    http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/almost-everything-is-a-crime-in-america-now-14-of-the-most-ridiculous-things-that-americans-are-being-arrested-for

    One can easily see that if the criminal element is the only source of guns, and if guns are routinely confiscated from criminals, the numbers work against the criminal element. If the options are no controls vs. confiscation, the theoretical becomes silly; reality will eventually squeeze out notions of “rights”. Fighting gun control where we are weak is a losing proposition.

    I get your point here. However, defending any freedom is a defense battle – not an offensive one. As long as people believe that staying united (United States) is more important than rights, then this will continue. Hopefully it will not.

    Rather than sound like a bunch of cry-babies, shouldn’t we be doing everything we can to make the background check system work as well as possible? Just saying “no” didn’t work in the war on drugs. Will that strategy ever lead us to victory on gun ownership?

    No. Firearm registration plays into their hands – not ours. See my comment above:
    http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2016/08/daniel-zimmerman/reader-lets-talk-background-checks-seriously/#comment-2809823

    If we (gun owners and 2A supporters) show ourselves to be leaders in improving the checks, we take away a highly effective tool of the gun-grabbers. We slow down the march to outright removal of gun rights. We force the other side to defend why they support systems where legitamately rejected gun purchases aren’t properly prosecuted. Or why “gun crimes” as top counts in arrests aren’t prosecuted at all. In other words, we force the other side to live up to their standards.

    So… endorse universal background checks. Tell your neighbor or son they are disbarred from owning arms because they were “felony speeding” or whatever other silly law that met the agenda. Meanwhile, gang bangers selling stolen guns out of the back of a sedan continue to do so and the media continues to push for disarmament. I don’t see this being successful. Especially when you are dealing with someone that isn’t rational, but someone that hates guns and gun owners.

    Also, the other side isn’t living up their standard now or before. We have made this argument before – “enforce the laws that are already on the books.” The media ignored it. The anti-gun groups ignored it, and the legislators passed more legislation for disarmament. I don’t see it working now, I don’t see it going to work later.

    Being enemies of background checks delays nothing and is a purely defensive stance. It requires that we win every contest, everywhere, while our opposites need only be successful here and there.

    Like I said prior, defending any freedom is a defensive stance, until people reach a “is this worth it” moment like “Brexit.”

    We need to be on the offensive. We need to demand the anti-gun industry (and their political masters) fulfill their own promises (thus delaying further erosion of gun rights?).

    We’ve made this demand before – they ignored it. They aren’t interested in yours or my demands. They are only interested in their agenda and the easiest way to get there.

    We need to remove, permanently, the ability of the anti-gun crowd to beat us to death with claims that we want criminals and terrorists to have guns.

    I addressed this in detail here:
    http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2016/08/daniel-zimmerman/reader-lets-talk-background-checks-seriously/#comment-2809823

  44. Don’t take offense but, you ate an idiot.

    Do you really believe it will “somewhat” end after a real detailed background check system is in place??

    YOU DONT GET IT,!

    They are about incrementalism, the end game is far in the future but every little cut draws a little more blood.

    NOT AN INCH!

  45. It’s all about cake and compromises. And this article is about compromises. And we’re all know too well that compromise is a straight way to lose.
    Think outside the box. Why do we need checks of all kind? It’s needed to confirm your health, training and crime status. So create a constantly renewing system, which will contain your crime, drill and heath stats, and issue special “good guy” card to citizens. With this card you can go to DMV, airport or gun shop and get whatever you need.
    The point is – government is not checking and filing what you have, the shop guy is checking. Government is only confirm that you are a “good guy” and give you a card which is prove it. Almost like BGC, almost.

  46. “Being enemies of background checks delays nothing and is a purely defensive stance. It requires that we win every contest, everywhere, while our opposites need only be successful here and there. We need to be on the offensive. We need to demand the anti-gun industry (and their political masters) fulfill their own promises (thus delaying further erosion of gun rights?). We need to remove, permanently, the ability of the anti-gun crowd to beat us to death with claims that we want criminals and terrorists to have guns.”

    Sorry, but no. We have already given way too much the gun-control megalomaniacs and they just keep bitching and whinning for us to “compromise” even further.

    Until THEY give us some of what it has been taken in return (getting rid of the NFA would be a good start), no and million times no.

    I’ve yet to see any compromise from their end, and given previous history and their constant lies, I ain’t holding my breath.

  47. Good read. I agree with you. We need to hold the government accountable for not prosecuting people that commit gun crimes.

    I also agree with the premise of our defensive stance. In an all or nothing world we will lose everything and have nothing. We need to push the government to prosecute people that are not following our current background check system. We need to do what we can to make the current system work.

    A background check system that works helps legal gun owns. As legal gun owners we do not want the government telling us what kind of currently legal firearm we can own. We also do not want criminals, terrorists and mentally ill having easy access to guns.

  48. The need for background checks arises because the bad guys are paroled too easily.

    The only time a convicted (of a crime that harmed others) criminal should be released from prison is when he is fully rehabilitated and paid his debt to society. His rights should then be fully restored.

    Those convicted of victimless crimes should not be in prison.

    We need criminal justice reform, not background checks.

      • That’s precisely how the US ran things from 1780-1900 or thereabouts, and they didn’t have any more pre-crime or mind-readers than we do. (Well, not genuine ones, at any rate.)

  49. Background checks are a bad idea because a safe society is served more by allowing good people to own guns unhindered than it is by preventing criminals from obtaining them.

    Now you have the context within which the standard arguments do not logically lead to confiscation.

  50. Which hurts PoTG more:

    A criminal is denied a purchase because the system works or

    A window licker like Roof slips through and slaughters the innocent?

    Both scenarios argue for MORE stringent regulation and eventually “Red Dawn” confiscation – (the Cuban Colonel sends an officer to the sporting goods store for forms that specify who bought guns.

    • Boy, people are all about the false dichotomies on this page today.

      How about:

      3) An honest citizen is denied a gun purchase because the background check system “worked” wrong?

      4) That honest citizen is knifed by her ex shortly thereafter?

      Google “Philip Russell Coleman.” Then imagine yourself in his shoes.

  51. My problem with background checks: why is the make, model, and serial number recorded of the 4473? Background checks should be just that, and only that, not back door registration stored in a government computer for five (or however long) years.

  52. You make it sound like confiscation has anything to do with whether we give way or not to BGC.

    You really believe it’s the average armchair liberals that are going to vote and decide, oh we’re confiscating guns today?

    People that are actually facilitating the mass confiscation don’t need the vox populi. They need 223s to the brain stem.

  53. Arizona resident here… for those of you in the Other 49 who don’t know what that means: it means our state comes closest to following the 2nd Amendment as any state does currently. We have some regulations, but not many… and practically “none” compared to other states like California, and even Texas (e.g., permitless open and concealed carry).

    In my 25+ years as a shooter, I have passed many NICS/4473 background checks, in 4-5 different states… I often like to think, “There was a time where I didn’t know any better.”

    Every time I purchase a gun nowadays, it is a private sale. (Sidebar: You might say, “always used guns then,” but not necessarily– many people don’t shoot but a few rounds before the “toy” becomes a safe queen, and sometimes no rounds… even if they’ve purchased a bundle of upgrades and accessories, which are almost always used as an incentive to take the gun off their hands….) Many people who list private sales perform “due diligence” or CYA by listing, “CCW Preferred!” or “Must have valid Driver’s License and/or sign a Bill of Sale.” But just as many people would rather not know “who you are” and make the conscious choice to take the cash for their gun. During a private sale gun purchase, most of the time I have some variant of this conversation:

    I don’t want to live in a “free country” where a citizen can’t look another citizen in the eye, shake hands, and exchange by sale or trade private property. This is real freedom– there is absolutely no need for any government interference, including notification. A right exercised is a real right.

    I have purchased handguns and “assault rifles” alike this way… and in fact, very often from law enforcement officers and active duty military personnel. I am not a “suit & tie” type, nor is my hair especially short– nor am I even white (i.e., I am a 1st Generation American born of legal immigrants). Talking… your presence, your demeanor, your attitude– communicating with people puts fears at ease and squelches prejudices, as it ought to in a free nation.

    My point is: This happens every single day in Arizona, many many times. The government has no detailed knowledge or registry of this commerce in arms. There are no “background checks.” Just citizens and their word.

    And you know what? The sky has not fallen… the state is not “gripped by an epidemic” of gun crazed violence (despite what some anti-gun polemics might claim, always absent of facts and frenzied by hysteria and dogma…). People constantly buy and sell guns in Arizona without government interference, and also maintain many FFLs and guns stores. And NOTHING HAS HAPPENED. Nothing to warrant the further restriction of our freedoms, that is.

    Some reader above said about background checks, that they are a “red line not to be crossed.” I say, watch us cross it all day long in Arizona… and watch nothing much exciting. Unless real freedom excites you.

    Security Theater, Mass Hysteria, Propaganda– all of these people who advocate for more gun restrictions… they have no clue. Not in reality. The real truth is, if the NICS disappeared tomorrow, and the 4473 forms vanished, the same idiots would use guns in crime, and the same citizens would use their guns responsibly.

    But the truth– reality and facts– has never mattered much to people who hate guns… and worse, hate the PEOPLE who have and use guns.

    Background checks… you don’t have to “imagine what it would be like” without them. Just move to Arizona. We’re doing just fine, thank you. Stay safe.

  54. “If no regulation or legal restriction will prevent the use of guns in crimes, then the alternatives are two: do nothing or confiscation.”

    Only if you’ve been hypnotized into believing that the only possible solution involves some government program. This is where you go off the rails.

    Here’s a third option to crush your fallacy of the false dichotomy: empower and enable citizens to counteract violent crime and terrorism on the spot by opposing it with lethal force while it is happening. For starters, get rid of all phony “gun-free” zones and artificial barriers (like subjective permission slips) to carry by honest citizens.

    The nannies insist on designing everything so that government action makes it “impossible” for bad people to get guns, and they’re willing to commit as much collateral damage to the rights of innocent people as it takes them to reach this goal. They will never reach it, so the damage will eventually become total, and we will still be no better off.

    The minute you buy into their worldview, you lose your abiity to see the obvious solutions outside their box. Don’t fall for it.

  55. I’m with you 100%. I was once an 01 FFL, and most of my customers were friends (or myself. lol). But I sometimes agonized over the decision to sell to someone I didn’t actually know. I obeyed the law and did not to sell to anyone I considered a borderline case, but I didn’t have a system like NICS to fall back on, and I would have welcomed it!

    When I worked at Academy we had hard and fast rules about sales. I appreciated that because it took the guesswork out of my hands, and the NICS checks usually eliminated the borderlines. I don’t wish to imply that any of my, or Academy’s, customers were not qualified to buy firearms, but some were, and that’s enough for me to endorse the system.

    Anything that prevents the sale of a firearm to someone not qualified to possess it is a good thing to me! If you have a problem with that then write me out of your will, because I don’t care.

    Charlie

  56. I only read half the article and none of the comments. Here’s the deal reader. Background checks have been scientifically proven to increase violent crime and increase murder rates very slightly but with a level of statistical significance that makes it real and with enough other variables dummied out that almost all other potential effects are accounted for. Why do you want more people hurt? What makes you that way?

  57. Pondering something here: how many of us wouldn’t sell a gun to someone without verifying that they have a CHL that implies they passed a background check? Because if that’s you, then you implicitly accept that there’s some utility to them. I’d be down with UBC in exchange for NICS opened up to everyone for free. From a rhetorical standpoint, it is superior because it appears as though not only are you accepting the opposition’s proposal, but you’re giving them a better version of it, making them look unreasonable if they suddenly don’t want it any more.

    Remember: you’re not trying to convince the other side. You’re trying to convince neutrals who care not for philosophy.

    • I would like to know that the person I am selling to is legal, but for now all I can do is take their word for it. This is a VASTLY superior system to anything I have ever seen proposed by the government or any group. If they removed all record keeping of any kind with a brutally simple system like the one in my earlier post above, that I might be able to get behind. Might.

  58. Has anyone been able to prove in any measurable way the positive effects of the current system? I don’t mean the ‘…just one life’ crap, I mean an actual quantifiable benefit?

  59. “…Shall not…” not ‘shouldn’t be unless a majority of people think it should be’, “…be infringed.” Infringe: verb – act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on.
    The government is NOT following the law requiring destruction of records regarding successfully passed background checks and lawful gun sales http://www.guns.com/2016/08/02/atf-not-fully-compliant-deleting-ffl-records/. What can you do with all those records…. hmmmm. I know! Create an illegal database of legal gun owners! Also in violation of the law.
    It’s a slippery slope when you give an inch to a government that would rather delay, limit, or deny access to guns from people who follow laws to the best of their ability, rather than prosecuting violators of laws already on the books not to kill, not to steal, not to assault others, etc. You know, laws about MORALITY.

  60. What’s interesting that stands out to me about this article is the countless stories of guns disappearing from police confiscation lock ups, and those are only the ones that we hear about indicating there are likely thousands of others we don’t hear about. If the police can’t even keep up with the guns confiscated from criminals then it only further props up the position that no matter on what level gun laws, regulations, and encroachment on the second amendment takes place there is still one arguement that will likely never change…”CRIMINALS WILL ALWAYS HAVE GUNS”. Period

    Soooo…the right to bear arms will never be less significant than when the second amendment was created. And let’s face it, the definition of “criminal” has evolved into even a candidate for the highest office in the land can be considered eligible for public office so obviously we are protecting ourselves from a whole new type of “criminal” actually making the very essence of the second amendment more viable and important. So your article is nothing more than an attempt to be open minded while the new age criminal is anything but open minded. Any of you ready to continue this subtle and gradual “chipping away” at the second amendment? I.e. “Shall not be infringed”

  61. They want compromise? Here’s my compromise
    – Handguns and CCW for 18 year olds
    – legal provisions that protect any and all semi automatic firearms from bans/confiscations, (not just grandfathering them in either, I mean legislation that clarifies semi automatic firearms are constitutionally protected) same goes for magazines of all shapes and sizes
    – remove Short Barrel Rifles from the NFA and remove the unconstitutional tax involved in all NFA transfers
    – abolish 4473 forms
    – repeal the Hughe’s Amendment to the Firearm Owners Protection Act
    – nationwide conceal carry under the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the constitution
    In exchange for
    – a system for getting firearms licenses that is essentially identical to filling out a 4473 and getting an NICS background check. (sans the de facto registration required when filling out 4473’s) No safety courses, no mental health requirements, no bullshit. Just a simple background check at the DMV or whatever to make sure you’re not on parole or probation, and that you have no previous record of using firearms to commit violent crimes. (which would be the only circumstance in which lifetime disqualification would be permitted) Gun stores would no longer log what guns were purchased by who, but would simply check to see if the license was valid and give the man (or woman) his gun
    – a nationwide CCW license separate from the license above that would also double as an NFA acquisition license

    • Ew land I’ll go along with the entire proposal of yours. If only somebody would present it to Congress and in a way that might actually give it a possibility of passing into law.

  62. Jesus Farago, go on hiatus for a few months, and your Zimmerman has gone senile.

    WTF happened to TTAG’s no compromise RIGHT of self-defense??

    don’t see no ‘proviso’.

    fucking regime MSM harping has apparently gotten to the SJW-Taliban feeeeeeeeeeeeelz brigade, who have apparently infected the gun nerdom, too.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *