Previous Post
Next Post

Reading Barack Obama’s gun control editorial, I admit I was surprised. Surprised that the three points made actually were… somewhat reasonable (if flawed, analysis below). The FBI’s NICS background check system for gun purchases and permits is broken in its current form. It does a wonderful a job keeping me from taking home my transfers the same day I start the paperwork. [Thank you to whoever it was with a name and social similar to mine that decided to murder a bunch of people, resulting in me getting flagged and delayed EVERY transfer for not less than 24 hours.] The NICS is also notorious for not providing accurate data on those prohibited from owning firearms. In short: it sucks at both.

If—and that’s a big IF—there was a true effort to bring NICS up to speed and get it “working,” wouldn’t that actually be progress in the right direction for all involved? I make that statement realizing that it doesn’t matter if I don’t like NICS, or think it should be canned. It’s here to stay, so why not try to make it function as intended? If my transfers are completed faster; I’d be happy. If Danny-Dbag was instantly rejected first time, every time; I’d also be happy.

Summarizing the three bullets from the article below:

1) – “Standardize the reporting process for NICS data across the States” – What a concept. In a past life as a systems integrator / DB D+A we figured out right quick that incomplete data is pretty much worthless. Moreso if the reporting of incomplete data is in so many varying formats that it becomes a jumble. I say hell yeah to this point; finally throw down some standards; while we’re at it, let’s hold the reporting agencies responsible for the quality of their data also. In other words – if you incorrectly mark me as “restricted,” there should be consequences (see TIDE and Railhead fiasco .. good luck getting OFF the watch-list once you’re on..)

2) – “Reward States providing accurate restrictive data” – Seriously? The carrot approach? Why should we be rewarding anyone for doing what they’re expected to do? Reminds me of corporate performance plans that read “will attend 75% of mandatory meetings” as a measure which denotes satisfactory employee performance. … Let me get this straight; you want a cookie for doing 75% of something which is 100% mandatory?? Try again, bucko. This one fails the “sniff” test – in other words, it smells like doo-doo.

3) – “Speed up the NICS process” – I couldn’t agree more. As I mentioned, I have yet to take possession of an FFL transferred firearm on the same day I start the paperwork. It’s absurd; by default a “waiting period” is being imposed on my transfers. Here’s my question; just how in the hell are you planning to accomplish this goal?

“That’s why our focus right now should be on sound and effective steps that will actually keep those irresponsible, law-breaking few from getting their hands on a gun in the first place.” – Excellent strategy. It actually seems here like were going to try to treat the illness, and not just the symptom. Again, the question begs – how?

Is it me or is there a lot in that article that President Obama (or his speechwriters) are “willing to bet” on? All I can say there is that intuition and “feelings” are no substitute for actual analysis. These statements undermine the rest of the speech; they rob it of credibility and much needed validation.

The article doesn’t really help his case with anyone IMO. Yes, some of the statements SEEM reasonable, but there’s very little substance behind them. All I hear is more of the same – “this is what we need to do.” There’s no plan there; just a statement.


Previous Post
Next Post


  1. “That’s why our focus right now should be on sound and effective steps that will actually keep those irresponsible, law-breaking few from getting their hands on a gun in the first place.” — sounds like no private transfers w/o background checks to me.

  2. Or we could just shitcan NICS since it doesnt seem to work anyways.

    How did we ever get from 1776 to 1998 without background checks?

  3. Now, like the majority of Americans, I believe that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to bear arms.

    There. He put it in writing. To “bear” means to carry.

  4. If “Benjamin T. Shotzberger” results in false hits on NICS, imagine what I go through with only one name. All I can say is, Cher and Bono, I feel your pain.

    • I’m actually amazed I don’t have trouble. My first, middle and last name are fairly common.

      Maybe we’re just all law-abiding, smart and good looking citizens. I bet we’re pretty humble too…

  5. The system is broken and I don’t see why its needed. We already have laws saying you can’t kill people. Maybe if we enforce the law based on the actions of people not on things we would be better off.

    I got denied once on a NICS check, I now have as UPIN so that when I buy a gun I just give the UPIN as part of the process and its goes though with out delay. Yes they keep info on me and have my finger prints as part of the process, but I have a CCW and the police have my fingerprints for that anyways…. I also have a C&R FFL so its not like the government does not know I have guns. In the first place.

Comments are closed.