Word is the President’s call to politicize the Umpqua Community College shooting was heard loud and clear by many of the usual suspects in Congress. And that they’re readying a (doomed) piece of legislation to #DoSomething featuring, according to the Washington Post, “closing background check loopholes for Internet and gun show sales, expanding the background check database and cracking down on the illegal gun market.” Reader Danny Griffin had some thoughts on the topic in the comments yesterday which seem apropos . . .
Universal background checks? Here’s what I think about that:
I think that the Umpqua CC shooter Christopher Harper-Mercer legally purchased his guns from FFLs and had background checks performed.
I think that the Charleston church shooter Dylann Roof legally purchased his gun from an FFL and had a background check performed.
I think that the Isla Vista shooter Eliot Rodgers legally purchased his guns from FFLs and had background checks performed.
I think that the Colorado theater shooter James Holmes legally purchased his guns from FFLs and had background checks performed.
I think that the Virginia Tech shooter Seung-Hui Cho legally purchased his guns from FFLs and had background checks performed.
I think that the Ft. Hood shooter Ivan Lopez legally purchased his guns from an FFL and had background checks performed.
I think that the other Ft. Hood shooter Nidal Malik Hasan legally purchased his gun from an FFL and had a background check performed.
I think that the Navy Yard shooter Aaron Alexis legally purchased his gun from an FFL and had background checks–state and federal–performed. He also had a security clearance.
I think that the Minneapolis shooter Andrew John Engeldinger legally purchased his guns from an FFL and had background checks performed.
I think that the Las Vegas shooters Jerad and Amanda Miller legally purchased their guns from an FFL and had background checks performed.
I think that the Tucson shooter Jared Loughner legally purchased his gun from an FFL and had a background check performed.
I think that the Sandy Hook shooter Adam Lanza used legally purchased guns, he just murdered the owner first and then stole them.
Should I go on? How many you want? Who did I forget? Oh, yeah, the Columbine shooting. The guns were a straw purchase, but the ATF declined to even prosecute the straw buyer.
It’s like it’s not even about ‘the children’.
It’s not about the children. It’s about the guns – and freedom-hating liberals “feelings” of safety – real or otherwise.
‘freedom-hating liberals’
I think you might be on to something. As Socrates said, when you see two men walking you can always tell which one is the slave and which one is the freeman, the freeman is armed. To tell the truth, I carry a gun more out of a sense of asserting my freedom than out of fear of being victimized by a criminal (as opposed to being victimized by a government). They’re not threatened nearly as much by the gun on my hip as they are threatened by my freedom.
Why do you need to own a gun to feel free, goy?
Put on this dress, say you identify as a woman, buy some cakes, get your hind end reamed out by this illegal immigrant… What more could you want?
That’s only on Thursdays. The other 6 days I carry a gun. Might want to keep it quiet though, my wife doesn’t know about the gun.
BTW, Socrates also wore a dress…
Does she know about the hash marks on her new dress?
The New York Times just published an article called “How They Got Their Guns”. http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/10/03/us/how-mass-shooters-got-their-guns.html?_r=0
It covers this whole argument showing background checks do not prevent EVIL.
What is the world coming to when even the New York times gets it!
Here is another relatively balanced article from today’s NY Times. Title is Common Response After Killings in Oregon: ‘I Want to Have a Gun’. Usual biased editing, but a decent mix of quotes from real people. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/08/us/oregon-roseburg-shooting-umpqua-community-college.html?emc=edit_th_20151008&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=63520981&_r=0
“I say, America, we need to pack guns, if this is what it’s coming to to protect ourselves.”
–Bonnie Schaar, mother of Umpqua shooting victim Cheyeanne Fitzgerald
I don’t trust ’em, no matter WHAT they say.
Oregon is the most recent proof that UBC’s don’t work. Not like we didn’t know that already…
Problem is, if you could convince these true believers in gun confiscation that background checks don’t work, they’ll just push for more intrusive background checks or to shut down gun sales or to confiscate the weapons we already own. Hell, they act like CHL holders are death on a shingle.
the only reason it isn’t working is because we didn’t go far enough! /shrill
If at first you don’t succeed, PASS MORE LAWS .
Or, as my Dad used to tell me, “If at first you don’t succeed, keep on suckin’ till you do suck seed!”
We need to stop playing their game! The problem with background checks, universal or otherwise, is NOT that they don’t work, it’s that they are UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
Read that. Memorize THAT. Is there anything in those 27 words that authorizes the government, or anyone else for that matter, to create, maintain and enforce a list of citizens they have decided may not exercise their natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms? Is there anything in those 27 words that proposes who should be included on such a list?
NO! “…shall not be infringed.” means exactly that and any effort by the government to establish criteria for who may exercise the right is the exact opposite of the intent of the amendment. This is a simple concept – please keep it always in mind when you are discussing or writing about the 2A.
Except the anti-gunners and leftists in general do not respect the constitution and that it should be abolished anyway so saying “because the 2nd Amendment says so” is a waste of breath to people who do not think it should exist or that the constitution is a living-breathing document to be changed on a whim. You might as well be arguing with a brick wall.
Only cold, hard facts will sway them or make them look foolish not saying “because the 2nd Amendment says so” because they don’t respect it to begin with.
Tragically, you are correct. While I think we must include the 2A in our rhetoric we must also patiently explain the utility of an armed citizenry. It was recognition of that utility that led the founders to ratify the 2A; and, that utility remains. We must also gently explain the disutility of igniting a 2’nd Civil War as the means to reduce gun violence. Civil wars are acutely violent; many innocent people die. A civil war in defiance of the 2A is apt to lead to the elimination of the most Progressive leaders.
I support cracking down on the illegal gun market, so long as that isn’t code for finding a creative way to infringe on honest citizens’ rights. I don’t know how much it will actually impair criminals who want guns. If part of that plan were to actually prosecute straw buyers instead of the ATF just shrugging their shoulders, I would support it even more. Frankly I’m very tired of the government trying to take away my rights while ignoring illegal gun trafficking.
The rest of the proposal is bunk as usual.
What is it about this “straw buyer” thing? How in the world does it make any difference to how people use the guns they buy anyway? Do we worry about how any other tool is bought or sold, really? If people, not inanimate objects, were actually held responsible for their behavior that actually harms people… how, where and why they bought the tool would be pretty much immaterial.
So, do you think UBC and licenses for knives, screwdrivers, matches and so forth would contribute anything toward reducing actual criminal – aggressive – behavior.
I didn’t think so.
“What is it about this “straw buyer” thing?”
When convicted criminals are asked how they got guns, the majority respond that they got them from family members or friends. A straw buyer uses their clean record to purchases a gun from an FFL with the express intent of passing it to a prohibited person. So what I am talking about is holding people responsible for their behavior. Straw buyers are committing a crime and aiding the criminal activity of others. They are harming innocent people, they just aren’t pulling the trigger themselves.
There is a key word here “got” from family or friends, which in most cases is probably “Stole” and there you go, not really a straw purchase, another case of criminals being criminals,even though the talking faces would have you believe that lots of straw purchases happen daily.
Don – Talk to most any FFL and they can tell you stories of stopping a sale because they believed it was an attempted straw purchase. Usually it’s because a second person was there with the buyer directing them, and the buyer showed little interest in the gun they were purchasing, or said something stupid like “Is this the one you want?” It stands to reason that some must be more sophisticated and able to complete the purchase. It may or may not be a lot every day, but we can’t deny it’s happening. We shouldn’t let our government get away with not prosecuting people who directly aid criminals.
Unfortunately, it really is all about punishing gun owners as a whole.
I think the lack of straw-buyer prosecution reflects the fact that it’s a virtually unenforceable law. The government has no way to know when a clandestine transfer happens, and the parties involved aren’t going to start helping them figure it out.
It also reflects the true intent of most of our gun laws — to discourage those who are most easily dissuaded (i.e., law-abiding citizens) by turning gun ownership into a minefield that’s likely to leave them on the wrong side of the law despite their best efforts.
The problem isn’t even with (D) head Schumer, it’s with all the (D) heads in NY that voted for him.
NY is a pissant little state and they should not be allowed to dictate to the rest of us.
Where is the Republican leadership to shut this cr_p down. If the (D)’s were in power (and this was something that they were against) they’d be out there guaranteeing that no vote would come to the floor on these issues.
If Republicans are for this and just hoping trickydick Schumer does their dirty work then they can all suck-it.
“GUNS” AIN’T THE ONLY THING THAT (D)HEAD SCHUMER HAS BEEN WRONG ON.
http://www.thepoliticalguide.com/Profiles/Senate/New_York/Charles_Schumer/Views/The_War_in_Iraq/
I’m here in upstate and guarantee you that we New Yorkers did not vote for this crap and a large majority of us want the SAFE act repealed.
We are having this crap law shoved down our throats by NYC. You might take some thought before you state that “NY is a pissant little state and they should not be allowed to dictate to the rest of us”.
All of us in this country are facing the same problem; statism enforced on us by elitist tyrants allowed to gain power by uninformed and stupid voters, corruption and outright fraud. NY is just a micrososm of what is happening from coast to coast.
I think we are going to need to work together here and blaming the state of NY on all this isn’t helping anything.
Have you upstaters thought about seceding? I hear you all are really pretty normal folks.
Sure there is talk about it, and I would welcome that. But it’s not easy to accomplish.
Our plan is to relocate to a free state – WY is what we are looking at. Even that’s not an easy thing to do, we have family, jobs etc.
Plus fleeing statism is never a solution anyway, at some point you run out of places to flee.
And yes, we are quite normal.
Funny you should mention “seceding.” That came up a couple weeks ago, after a southern tier meeting to discuss the possibility.
– Multiple articles all over the state about how hard that would be, so don’t bother trying.
– One state rep quoted saying (out loud, one presumes on purpose): “We would never abandon upState.”
As for the SAFE act, every single upstate county passed a resolution against it. Every one of them.
Look, when 50%+1 vote can do any damn thing and impose that on the other 50%-1 vote, this is what you get. So downstate does, indeed, have the votes. (There’s a reason Candidate Clinton – the current one – was referred to as Senator Clinton (D – NYC)).
What they don’t have is the interest. The flaw is that people 300 miles and a world of lifestyle and consequences away have the same “standing” in decisions that impact upState as the people that live there. See also the effective ban on pellet stoves and boilers, fracking, and so on.
NY isn’t a state. It’s the country estates administered by a satellite office of the federal state, and JV-league, farm-team for the same. Do not get me started on the “hunger games” competitive so-called economic development exercise out of Albany. I mean Capitol City.
to Jim:
“– Multiple articles all over the state about how hard that would be, so don’t bother trying.
– One state rep quoted saying (out loud, one presumes on purpose): “We would never abandon upState.””
Anything is possible and the last people we should look to for advice is any politician or their bought and paid for media mouthpieces. Eff em.
I wouldn’t just vote for this, I would actively support it with my time and money, if I thought the effort had a chance of success.
But failing that, and once we get ourselves in a position to do so, we are gone. And one of the main criteria we are looking for in a new home, is wherever we can go that there will be the fewest progressives.
I agree with Mr. AR-10…no need to hastily color the entire state of NY by what the politicians from the NYC area pushed through. This happens in a lot of states where there is a large consolidation of voting power from a liberal area, which coincidentally represents a small geographic area of the state.
This is the same dynamic in Oregon and Washington (two states I’m familiar with)…both the Portland and Seattle politicians dominate the state legislatures but represent a very small portion of the states geographically.
Be patient, polite, but firm in our rights. All of these proposals will fall away as useless to solve the problem of mentally unbalanced people committing horrific acts with firearms. Sound like a nut and we will be treated like nuts…
Beautiful state, beautiful people, big ol’ pile-of-poo representatives that you are sticking the rest of us with. The problem deserves fixing, and you owe us.
Hypothetically (in an attempt to always draw the argument out to an end-game-state as quickly as possible, and never afraid to throw in the extreme example to make the clearest and most succinct impact statement) IF there was a civil war and ‘we’ went to war with the Blue Triangle with a Tail (evil liberal (D) NY) we wouldn’t sort out the resultant meat, even after the fact. All the pelts stretched on the side of the barn would be ‘of the enemy.’ And if the whiner’s might later complain about the loss of ‘friendly’ or ‘innocent,’ they would have to do so SILENTLY within the confines of their hearts.
“[IMAGINE A CIRCLE – containing a single small stick figure]
If, by example, you are a member within the above circle [or; a member of the set of societal pairs limited in some fashion to a particular grouping, or defined within a given area,figuratively referred to by that circle], and the figure in the center of the circle is an individual member of a paired society not upholding societal agreement, there is expansion of threat of that offending member without dissipation.
For, the individual posing the threat, who is allowed to exist within the circle, without counter threat or eradication from the surrounding societal pairs, does so either by implied invitation from the circle, (either as acceptance or tolerance), or through the circle’s implied weakness-against or ignorance-of the threat (that which you ignore, that which you tolerate, and that which you promote, define you equal to your own action or inaction).
Therefore, with or without warning, other parties (outside the circle) may be forced to act on that offending individual, and as the offending individual is surrounded by the circle, eradication of the threat may come at the cost of the partial or potentially the total destruction of the surrounding circle.
What might be a more discernable example, and equally true in counterpart is to view the picture in the inverse.
Now you, figuratively, are the individual in the circle. You are not the threat but you have allowed yourself or inadvertently found yourself surrounded by a grouping of societal pairs that are adverse to the societal norms that are considered necessary by an individual, societal pairing, or groups of societies outside the circle.
If the circle needs to be eradicated for the threat it poses, you will be eradicated with it if you cannot otherwise extract yourself from it, and regardless of your own opinion of the threat contained by the circle. AGAIN, that which you ignore, that which you tolerate, and that which you promote, define you equal to your own action or inaction [15]. ” [J.M Thomas R., TERMS, 2012, P. 43-44]
Seems as though the general voting public doesn’t know the rest of Charles “Chuckie the Cereal Killer” Schumer’s other “accomplishments”:
Meet Chuck Schumer, One of the Most Trivial Pols Ever. And Your Next Senate Minority Leader
A partial listing of some of the things that the New York senator has tried to ban over the years.
by Nick Gillespie|Mar. 27, 2015 2:28 pm
[…]
No issue is too stupid or inconsequential for Schumer to weigh in on, inevitably calling for a ban or regulation that serves no other possible purpose than to shine a light on the glory and grandeur of Chuck Schumer.
[…]
https://reason.com/blog/2015/03/27/meet-chuck-schumer-one-of-the-most-trivi
Not just ‘wrong,’ wrong-on-purpose – i.e., lying for political gain. Did I say lying? I’m sorry, I meant f-ing lying.
Demand background checks, then don’t follow up. How many B.C.’s were not approved……how many were prosecuted, or for that matter even investigated?…….but attempting a straw purchase IS Illegal…………
That’s right, you can buy all the pot your vag needs for your glaucoma/party needs.
But don’t let them catch your A_ _ buying straw.
The solution is simple then. If mass murderers can get guns, then ban all guns.
Right, which will keep everybody from being able to buy/own a gun, EXCEPT the criminals and crazies… I’m sure a total gun ban will work just as well as the war on drugs has, right?
He’s being sarcastic, taking the tone that you could expect mindless antis to take.
Many years ago, a friend of mine was saying that he was looking forward to the day when guns are banned like drugs have been banned….that “banned” guns would then be as easy to get as the “banned” drugs.
Just to add to Danny’s fine list:
Mohammad Youssuf Abdulazeez purchased guns legally and passed background checks before he killed five people at a US Navy Reserve Center in Chattanooga, TN on July 16, 2015.
Yep, and to just throw this reminder in there, another “gun free zone”.
Interesting technical point – the shooter in Chattanooga never actually entered the “Gun Free Zone”, he shot at them from outside its perimeter. The only gun inside the “Gun Free Zone” was carried by one of the Marines in violation of Marine Corps regulations.
If you ain’t cheating, you ain’t trying
The worry I have with regards to this information is that if the left realizes background checks do f-all for citizen safety, they will try a more forceful attack towards the restrictions of the guns themselves.
Maybe you don’t realize that’s the plan…
They do just this one small step, a minor inconvenience really, you don’t really want to hinder a chance to stop violence do you? But then when that accomplishes nothing, we really just need one more small step, a minor compromise, you’re not one of those zealots that are incapable of compromise are you? And before you figure out that the only thing that will satisfy them is complete disarmament.
Why can’t people just get it?
Just tool up and kick evils rear end where ever we find it.
Obama pulls the trigger on gobal bad guys so why the disregard for us to fight in our own neighborhoods, towns , states.
Because the majority of people on this planet are cowards and love being told what to do by someone else who will “take care of them”. There is a reason there are more authoritarian regimes on this planet than free one’s (and even the free one’s are not that much better off in terms of being controlled/freedom).
People love to delude themselves that someone else will take care of them so long as they get to not think about anything and live their lives not bothering to look further than their noses because it is too hard or scawy. Cause TV, American Idol, sports, whatever other distractions for the simpleton’s life is more important than being free. Freedom is risky so you can’t have that better have government take care of you. We all know how well that ends up…..
BS, there is work to be done so that people can do their day to days, and it does require a buy in of taxes by all who ‘can pay’ even if the rest are working hard to stay in a position where they ‘can’t pay’. However, we elect representatives to tell others elected representatives to F-off, and that we don’t need to be led.
Hypocrisy, thine name art Chuck Schumer:
http://www.keepandbeararms.com/newsarchives/XcNewsPlus.asp?cmd=view&articleid=1161
Also evil and soul-ugliness.
And now we find the Oregon shooter was remarkably similar to the Newtown shooter-mama babied his asperger azz,took him shooting and generally enabled him to commit atrocities. AND acted as a ‘straw buyer” without being one. And had a daddy who distanced himself from their “damaged” boy. NONE of which any new laws would stop. But it makes good security theater and energizes the lunatic fringe…
I propose that now is the time to launch an attack on the whole notion of “Background Checks” as a solution to gun violence. We have a series of high-profile cases where the BC “system” failed.
We need to publicize BC as a fraud upon the voters. The politicians are lying to the voters claiming that the existing BC system is – at least partially – successful. It clearly is NOT effective at all.
I recommend that we do NOT – at THIS time – propose to roll-back the FFL NICS check. INSTEAD, what we ought to EMPHASIZE that the whole BC idea is obviously flawed.
Demand a Congressional investigation into how the NICS system is working. (We have a pretty good understanding of what is wrong from, e.g., John Lott’s analysis.) We need a government agency independent of ATF to do an investigation and report to Congress and the public. Get the Feds to fess-up to the false-positives, missing data by disqualifying category (felonies, DV, . . . mental illness). Get the Feds to explain why they pursue so few DENY cases; so few cases where the FFL delivered the gun after 3 days and then the FBI found that the buyer really was disqualified.
Presumably, the ATF does NOT pursue prohibited-persons buying at FFLs because they see that the disqualifying event is not serious enough to justify prosecution. E.g., the buyer took a stolen car on a joy-ride when he was 17. We need just this sort of data to mount a campaign to discredit the disabling criteria.
We should also call for a study of cases of felon-in-posession. Are these cases pursued aggressively enough? Is felon-in-posession the proper place for emphasis compared to gun-control at point-of-sale?
The huge problem with UBC is that it APPEARS to be a “good idea” on first impression. Our strongest line of attack is that FFL-BC is a demonstrable failure. It follows that unless-and-until FFL-BC can be “reformed” to justify it’s burden on society it’s premature to extend BC to non-dealer transfers.
Repeated from above:
We need to stop playing their game! The problem with background checks, universal or otherwise, is NOT that they don’t work, it’s that they are UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
Read that. Memorize THAT. Is there anything in those 27 words that authorizes the government, or anyone else for that matter, to create, maintain and enforce a list of citizens they have decided may not exercise their natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms? Is there anything in those 27 words that proposes who should be included on such a list?
NO! “…shall not be infringed.” means exactly that and any effort by the government to establish criteria for who may exercise the right is the exact opposite of the intent of the amendment. This is a simple concept – please keep it always in mind when you are discussing or writing about the 2A.
Jerad Miller was a prohibited person, but his wife was not and since she was in on the plot could have bought the guns for both of them. I can’t recall if they ever publicly released any trace info on their guns.
Every day that goes by, my irritation and my frustration, grow. Every day my opinion on the whole matter distills, growing purer, clearer – it is simply this, “Repeal the 2nd Amendment, or shut the fuck up.”
If the anti’s response for every mass murder is a solution that wouldn’t have prevented/impacted that mass murder, how can anybody believe that they aren’t working toward the end goal of confiscation?
It is already illegal to sell a gun online without shipping the gun to an FFL for NIC
How about stop proscribing psychotropic drugs to young male adults, all but one of
mass killers were on these drugs. And repeal Gun Free Zones, it a law with unintended consequence. Common sense would be stop disarming responsible gun owners.
Well duh… If they pass a law that doesn’t do anything they get to campaign for more laws like ants carrying away the whole pot of sugar one grain at a time.
That is one gawd-awful picture of ol’ “lizard face” himself, Carl Schaumberg… I mean Chuck Schumer.
“Both ends? What a player!”
Awesome quote. Unintended Consequences is a great read.
There are thousands of kids with no father or from families where the parents are divorced, but I find it interesting, that Lanza, Roof, Rodgers and the guy from Oregon all came from families with no father figure or from families of divorce. The Oregon shooter father didn’t even know his son owned firearms…
Its as if they have no concern for recreational boaters, and the rash of accidents this will cause across the country.
These people are relying on other people to not think for themselves.One has to be a special kind of stupid to think that criminals who are dealing in stolen guns are going to have background checks done. What we don’t hear about is the real percentage of guns used in crimes which were bought through so “straw purchases”. I’d be willing to bet the percentage is actually quite low and that stolen guns are far and above those used by criminals. Which of course begs the question, “Just why would they want universal background checks”? Once again it’s doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out the most likely reason is to create a data base of gun owners. Paranoid you call me? Think of it; the most publicized mass shooters of recent past passed background checks (see article above). If they didn’t want the information for some other reason why is such a ruckus being made to expand a system which obviously doesn’t work?. Oh yeah, the expansion is to improve the system. Since when have you seen the government improve anything??? Takes a special kind of stupid to believe that.
He is a traitor. Google Resolution 2117 lists 21 points dealing with firearms control, but perhaps of most interest is point number 11. It:”CALLS FOR
MEMBER STATES TO SUPPORT WEAPONS COLLECTION and DISARMAMENT of all UN countries”. He voted for that.
Any politician that has voted for gun control has committed treason and a breach of contract. He/she swore an oath to defend the Constitution. THAT is a verbal contract. By breaking that oath he/she is in breach of contract and can be sued in a tort action. Go for it, someone should get some money out of it and it will hurt him/her and maybe shut him/her up. No double standards put the DC politicians on Obamacare and SS.Thanks for your support and vote.Pass the word. mrpresident2016.com