‘Universal’ Background Checks and Waiting Periods are Inherently Dangerous

brady bill background check waiting period

Rep. Mike Thompson, D-Calif., chairman of the House Gun Violence Prevention Task Force, joins gun violence prevention advocates to mark the 20th anniversary of the implementation of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, at the Capitol in Washington. At left is Dan Gross, president of the Brady Campaign and Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence. The law, named for James Brady, the White House press secretary who was seriously injured in the 1981 assassination attempt against President Ronald Reagan, called for a five-day waiting period for the purchase of a handgun and a background check of any individual purchasing a firearm from a federally licensed dealer. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

By Miguel A. Faria, M.D.

A good approach to gun violence and street crime should not involve penalizing law-abiding citizens and infringing on their Second Amendment rights, while coddling criminals. Yet that is exactly what Democrats want to do. In fact they have tried to exempt criminal gangs from the draconian laws, including red flag laws, that they want to exact on the law-abiding citizens. It sounds incredible but it is true.

The Democrats want to force strict background checks upon law-abiding citizens with no time limit or deadline for the FBI to issue an approval. Before the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) was instituted in 1998, the Brady Law (1994-1998) was in effect. It mandated a federal background check on all firearms purchases and imposed a five-day waiting period before the transfer of the purchased firearm. It was ineffective and did not keep guns out of the hands of criminals. Gun control is inherently dangerous.

Incidentally, the Democrats also instituted an “assault weapons” ban from 1994 to 2004 that had no effect on crime or mass shootings. Congress, led by the Republicans at the time, wisely let it expire and refused to re-introduce it.

The Brady Law enforcing waiting periods for gun purchases passed in several states, endangering lawful citizens needing to purchase a gun quickly for self-protection. There are lurid stories of victims killed by attackers who previously threatened them. They were killed while waiting to pick up newly-purchased and badly needed guns for self-protection.

The “universal” background checks legislation now pushed by Democrats would do the same thing, endangering potential victims — not to mention the fact that the information can be used for illegally registering firearms, which we know is a prelude to banning and confiscation. This has happened in Washington, DC, Detroit, New York City, Seattle, and several jurisdictions in California.

Gun Owners of America keeps useful data available for study. As I outlined in my book, their research shows that waiting periods threaten the safety of people in imminent danger.

One case described was that of Bonnie Elmasri, who tried to obtain a gun for self-protection against an abusive husband, a spouse who had repeatedly threatened to kill her. She was subjected to a 48-hour waiting period to buy her handgun. Unfortunately, Bonnie did not get her gun in time. The next day, her abusive husband, a man well known to the police, killed her and her two sons.

In yet another tragic case, Carol Bowne of New Jersey tried to buy a gun for self-protection but was forced to wait several weeks for her background check. While fearfully waiting, the man who had been stalking her and who she was afraid would kill her, stabbed her to death.

In contrast, we have the case of Marine Corporal Rayna Ross. She was able to purchase a gun in a state without a waiting period and was forced to use it in self-defense only two days later, killing her assailant. If Corporal Ross had been subjected to a waiting period or burdensome universal background checks, like Bonnie Elmasri or Carol Bowne, she would have been defenseless against the man who was stalking her.

Serious attempts to decrease gun violence should involve keeping guns away from convicted criminals who have legally forfeited their right to possess guns. In fact, the vast majority of murderers are career criminals with long criminal records.

We now know that the typical murderer has a prior criminal history of at least six years with four felony arrests in his record. But instead, Democrats coddle criminals and penalize law-abiding gun owners. Why?

In a recent article, Dr Jim Ausman, Editor-in-Chief Emeritus of Surgical Neurology International and I analyze the topic in some detail. We concluded that gun control is about people control. My recently released book, America, Guns, and Freedom: A Journey Into Politics and the Public Health & Gun Control Movements, which examines the push for civilian disarmament by the public health establishment, also concludes that gun control is about people control which is inherently dangerous.

If the Democrats win the Presidency and the US Senate in 2020, they will empower government to implement very dangerous, draconian gun control legislation. If we are to preserve freedom, that must not be allowed to happen.

 

Miguel A. Faria, M.D., is Associate Editor in Chief in socioeconomics, politics, medicine, and world affairs of Surgical Neurology International (SNI). This article is excerpted and edited from his newly release book, America, Guns, and Freedom: A Journey Into Politics and the Public Health & Gun Control Movements (2019)

comments

  1. avatar Gofundyourself says:

    Liberals believe background check can alert the authorities someone will become nuts or commit crimes in the future. How many nutjobs have passed background checks simply because there was nothing in their background to pull a red flag? Should we also run x,y,z tests for people buying vehicles, just in case they decide to drive under the influence one day?

    1. avatar Hannibal and the Elephants says:

      “Should we also run x,y,z tests for people buying vehicles, just in case they decide to drive under the influence one day?”
      Sure, why not. I do not recall anywhere in the Constitution mention of a right to drive a car. However, the Constitution assures us that rights can be retained by the people beyond those enumerated in the Constitution. Yet only one enumerated right in the Constitution and no non-enumerated right has the instruction attached that it “shall not be infringed.”
      Even the First Amendment does not anywhere say it shall not be infringed.

  2. avatar Hush says:

    “In a recent article, Dr Jim Ausman, Editor-in-Chief Emeritus of Surgical Neurology International and I analyze the topic in some detail. We concluded that gun control is about people control. My recently released book, America, Guns, and Freedom: A Journey Into Politics and the Public Health & Gun Control Movements, which examines the push for civilian disarmament by the public health establishment, also concludes that gun control is about people control which is inherently dangerous.”

    Control of “We The People” is the end goal.

    1. avatar Someone says:

      Yes. And fight against crime was never the true reason for gun control.

  3. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

    ‘Universal’ Background Checks and Waiting Periods are Inherently Dangerous”

    Not to mention,un Constitutional.

  4. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    “A good approach to gun violence and street crime should not involve penalizing law-abiding citizens and infringing on their Second Amendment rights, while coddling criminals.”

    There, fixed that for you.

    As I stated in another recent post, STOP using Progressive language! There is no such thing as “gun violence” — just like there is no such thing as bat violence, pipe violence, knife violence, Molotov Cocktail violence, or car violence. Rather, there are humans who commit violent acts upon innocent humans.

    The non-sensical and fictional term “gun violence” subtly conveys the idea that the violent act would not have occurred if we eliminated firearms. And it deflects blame and attention away from the root cause of violence: nasty people. Of course those are wins for Progressives. And they are losers for us.

    1. avatar Red in CO says:

      Well said and I strongly agree. We do ourselves a large disservice when we use leftist propaganda phrases like “gun violence” or “assault weapon”

  5. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    Serious attempts to decrease gun violence should involve keeping guns away from convicted criminals away from society who have legally forfeited their right to possess guns.

    There, fixed that for you, again.

    I know the author means well. We can clearly see, unfortunately, how Progressives have even sucked-in a Second Amendment advocate. As I stated earlier, Progressive language focuses on the firearm, which deflects focus away from violent attackers and implies that we can eliminate violent attacks if we “keep guns away from convicted criminals” (which ample experience shows is an abysmal failure).

    A criminal convicted of multiple violent crimes on multiple occasions has amply demonstrated that he/she can no longer live among our society. That criminal should either be executed, imprisoned forever, or banished from our nation (and be summarily executed if captured back inside our nation after being banished). THAT is GUARANTEED to significantly reduce violent crime — far beyond any efforts to disarm the populace.

    1. avatar rt66paul says:

      The best way to keep firearms away from criminals is to keep them in jail.

  6. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    I really want to put a stop to the idea, once and for all, that we can somehow control criminals (who have been convicted of multiple violent crimes on multiple occasions) among us in society, including the fairy tale that we can somehow prevent said violent criminals from acquiring firearms.

    I will say it in small words so that everyone can understand: WE HAVE ZERO CONTROL OVER A CRIMINAL WHO WALKS FREELY AMONG US. A criminal who walks freely among us can acquire anything that he/she wants, period. Whether he/she fabricates it, steals it, buys it from a legitimate source, buys it on the black market, or has someone else buy it for them, he/she WILL get it.

    Thus, the only effective solution is to physically remove that criminal from society. Period. Full stop. The end.

  7. avatar Timothy Toroian says:

    Let us start campaigning for a Constitutional amendment prohibiting a national registration of firearms. We’d lose a few of our opponents through apoplexy. Just that part is a joke, although maybe not.

    1. avatar Biatec says:

      Why would they follow that amendment? the 2a is 90% infringed soo it would really just be waste. If we had that kind of control in congress we should repeal all gun laws and regulations.

      1. avatar Gordon in MO says:

        I agree with Biatec, “Why would they follow that amendment? the 2a is 90% infringed so it would really just be waste.”

        They ignore the Constitution now, why would they obey any new law they didn’t like.

        When (not if) the left gets full control of the government they will go all out passing laws they want. It will then be our turn to ignore laws we don’t like.

        Full breakdown of law and order, (un) Civil War II to follow.

        Be Prepared !

  8. avatar Cruzo1981 says:

    If anyone has been watching the sham of the impeachment inquiry, its interesting to see Democrats tall about the constitution like it’s a document that has to be respected and how its rules must be followed. It will be interesting to see if any Republicans are taking note of this for later when the Democrats attack the 2nd…

    1. avatar moreadventuresonotherplanets says:

      Not a sham at all. If Herr Drumpf is able to get away with using Foreign Countries to destroy our elections we have lost our democracy pure and simple. He cannot be permitted to get away with this. The future of the Nation is at stake. Herr Drumpf only pulled back on withholding the aid because he got wind of the fact that he was already caught red handed in the plot. Not succeeding is still a crime. If you get caught robbing a bank but did not succeed you do not get a free pass to avoid jail. Any Moron can understand that.

      What Nixon did was child’s play as compared to what Herr Drumpf did. He is not King, he is not above the law and the Republicans that tried to protect him will go down in history as traitors to the Nation and every bit as despicable as Nixon or the Confederate Generals that tried to destroy the U.S. when they seceded from the Union. If any of these traitors had succeeded or in Herr Drumpf’s case permitted to go on doing this we as a Nation are finished.

      1. avatar jwm says:

        You and your fascist buddies are trying to overthrow the legally elected .gov of the US.

        Traitors will be remembered. You will be one of those known to history.

      2. If Herr Drumpf is able to get away with using Foreign Countries to destroy our elections we have lost our democracy pure and simple.

        How exactly are foreign countries destroying our elections?

      3. avatar Southern Cross says:

        I think the Russian interference in the 2016 election was a) just to prove they could, b) to create domestic disharmony (or for $hits and giggles), and c) a trial run for future political interference efforts.

      4. avatar Excedrine says:

        STFU crisco kid, the unrepentant liar. Or should I say vlad tepes, the racist?

        It’s not hard to spot your socialist drivel and bigotry. You could at least try a little harder to not be so obvious. It’s embarrassing.

    2. avatar Southern Cross says:

      The GOP would have an election winning strategy if they played on the Democrats moral bankruptcy for not using Red Flag laws on criminals. If the GOP can revert their cranial-rectal inversion long enough.

      If the Democrats won’t Red Flag known criminals, what would happen if the criminals started Red Flagging each other?

      1. avatar Gordon in MO says:

        Maybe “we the people” should start red flagging the left.
        Give them a taste of their own medicine.
        Would judges issue such orders against local communist party members?

  9. avatar Sian says:

    Their true goal, as it is the ONLY way to accomplish their stated objectives, is to reduce the number of legally owned guns, and as you well know the only way to do that is to take them away from law-abiding owners.

    Anyone who says otherwise is lying.

    1. avatar Someone says:

      Gun grabbers attack our RTKBA on several fronts. Anything that makes gun ownership harder, more expensive, more time consuming, more legally dangerous and generally less appealing is welcomed. They push for restrictions on
      -what kinds of arms we can own,
      -how we can obtain them and sell them
      -where we can keep and bear them and in what manner,
      -what kind and how much ammo we can use
      -who can own and carry guns. (The easiest way to get guns out of the legal owners’ hands is to turn the owners into prohibited persons. Hence proliferation of the “red flag” laws and ever growing list of disqualifying offenses on the 4473.)

      Weird how we ended up with over 20,000 laws restricting that what shall not be infringed.

  10. avatar GS650G says:

    Disarmament is a precursor for what comes next. It won’t be pretty or kind.

  11. avatar Cooter E Lee says:

    A valid question for anyone in favor of the waiting period is what will it accomplish?

    If the answer has anything to do with mass shootings, then the next question has to be how many of these bedwetting losers would have been affected? (Is, which ones purchased a firearm and used it within the next 2,3,5 days or whatever?)

    I confess I do not know the answer. Of the high profile shootings I do have information on, I’m not aware of anyone that purchased the firearm and immediately used it same day. I’m sure it happened, but it’s the exception rather than the rule.

    1. avatar Someone says:

      Mass shootings are statistical outliers, no matter how much time the mainstream media outlets dedicate to them. In the big picture they get lost in the noise and rounding error. As such they should not be used as a base for policy making. But they are just too useful to the public disarmament propaganda machine.

      1. avatar Cooter E Lee says:

        Agreed.

        So the other potential answers for the “Why (for what purpose) should we enact waiting firearm waiting periods?” Would be:

        1.) to prevent crimes of passion
        2.) to reduce suicides.
        3.) guns are icky and we should make it as difficult as possible for anyone to get their hands on one.

        So my short replies to those answers:

        1.) how many of the 30,000 gun related deaths each year are crimes of passion? Not many, the majority are suicides, gang violence, plain old criminal homicide.
        However, there are some. How many of them would be prevented by an extended waiting period? Again, even less. Because they are using the weapon they already have on hand. If they are even taking the time to drive to a store, fill out a 4473, and drive back it’s already something different – a Premeditated murder. Is having to wait A few days likely to save any victim lives? At what cost?

        2.) I’m ok with sounding callous on this one because it’s the truth. It’s your body, soul, and consciousness so if you want to destroy it, then it’s your right to. I don’t want anyone to make that decision, but the decision was yours and it had nothing to do with whatever tool or method you would use. Some tools are more effective than others as demonstrated by the Japanese, a culture with a high suicide rate and virtually no civilian gun ownership.

        3. I’m sorry you have an irrational fear of an inanimate object that the right to bear is codified in our nation’s construction. If you feel the constitution is ready for a new amendment, there is a mechanism in place to do just that. Good luck. Molon labe.

  12. avatar moreadventuresonotherplanets says:

    Most of the article is complete bullshit. The Federal Brady Bill has nothing to do with State Laws and the Federal Brady Bill does not require a waiting period. It used to but not since the nics check went into effect.

    2nd. Waiting Periods. Again mostly bullshit. Most States that have waiting periods also have emergency exemptions for people under threat. Even if this were not true and no state had such a provision the amount of robbery and murder and mass murder because of no background checks far surpass the people lost because they could not get a handgun fast enough. And lets face another fact and that is that many times if a person could not get a handgun fast because of awaiting period they in most cases could get a long gun immediately. A shotgun in the home is far more deadly to an intruder than any handgun made and a person could carry a shotgun in the car as well until he got his pistol.

    3rd. Registration. More bullshit. The Brady Bill does not register hand guns and never has.

    4th Confiscation. More bullshit. The Brady Bill has never confiscated any handguns.

    On Global Public Square last Sunday it quoted several surveys showing an astonishing 90 per cent of Republicans notice I said Republicans are in favor of Universal Background checks. With those types of surveys the implementation of Universal Background Checks seems almost a certainty after the 2020 elections.

    Presently any criminal or nut case can buy a gun in the U.S. with no background checks if its second hand. And when they commit mass murder it results in public panic and calls for complete bans.

    States that have lax laws funnel thousands of guns into States and Cities with tough laws.

    Its one of the major reasons of the high crime rate with guns in Chicago as the average gun confiscated after a shooting proved to be at least 11 years old and totally unvetted and many were traced to other states.

    That should tell even a Moron we are operating under pure insanity in the U.S. and every mass murder we have because a gun was not properly vetted results in calls for more draconian gun bans.

    In other words the Far Right Fanatics are actually their own worst enemies when it comes to keeping their guns.

    As far as the standard Right Wing paranoia about registration: Its completely baseless because if the State or Federal Government outlaws something keeping it after that will results in huge fines and jail time and the average person is not willing to lose his freedom, his job, his bank account, his personal possessions and perhaps custody of his children. This is something the Far Right Fanatics never discuss and try to ignore. Reality shows the fear of Registration is baseless because you do not need Registration to successfully confiscate firearms and its been proven many times in other countries.

    All this is a moot point as Universal Background checks are a certainty in the very near future so get used to an expanded Brady Bill that covers the purchase or transfer of all weapons. Its long overdue as the insanity must end if gun ownership is to survive much longer. Remember gun restrictions can get far worse and the history of the courts show they are extremely hostile to gun ownership as it is a threat to their power over the people. The Constitution means little to them as prior history has proven it. I ask you how many of the draconian gun and magazine bans have been overturned by the courts in the last 2 years. Answer: Zero, none, nada, zilch.

    End of story.

      1. avatar Jim Bob says:

        Yep. LOL. That’s actually better than arguing with this idiot. So many lies, half-truths and false assumptions that I hope everyone else here recognizes.

    1. avatar Tired of the bs says:

      You are a total idiot

    2. avatar jwm says:

      Trump will be re elected in 2020. And he will continue to load the courts.

      End. Of. Story. We have defeated you fascists. You’re just too stupid to realize it.

      1. avatar moreadventuresonotherplanets says:

        Kavanough appears headed for impeachment after the Dems take control in 2020. And as far as the corrupt Supreme Court even the general public knows the courts partisanship has gotten so outrageous and out of hand that “packing of the court” by the Dems will be a certainty after 2020 when the new Democratic President brings some sanity back to a very corrupt government in complete disarray because of the insanity and incompetence of a Trump led government.

        The Criminal Moscow Mitch McConnell was responsible for bringing all this on when he illegally prevented Obama’s Supreme Court Justice from even having a hearing with partisan excuses and then did the same thing when he did a 90 degree reverse course and pushed the Republican nominated judge for confirmation. If you think the Democrats forgot about this and are not going to retaliate by packing in more justices your living in a fantasy world. A much larger Supreme court and one that has rotating judges used only for short terms would indeed make Constitutional decisions far less partisan. Right now the general public sees the Supreme Court for what it really is “a hypocritical and partisan joke”. This was not ever the way the Supreme Court was supposed to work.

        1. avatar Tired of the bs says:

          90 degrees isn’t a turn around idiot

        2. avatar Jerry Sweet says:

          First the dems are not going to win in 2020 but they will defecate and vomit and piss thier pants when WE The PEOPLE vote for Trump in 2020

        3. avatar Excedrine says:

          STFU crisco kid, the unrepentant liar. Or should I say vlad tepes, the racist?

          It’s not hard to spot your socialist drivel and bigotry. You could at least try a little harder to not be so obvious. It’s embarrassing.

          P.S.: The Dumbass-O-KKKrats still aren’t going to come within even a whiff of the White House in 2020, and they’re going to lose most, if not all, of the ground they gained in 2018. There is absolutely nothing that can be done to stop it, either, so don’t bother proclaiming otherwise. It’s a lie and you and I both know it. So, just accept it, get over it, and get used to it. You’re going to, anyway, so stop acting like you even have a choice. You don’t now, never did, and never will. Dot. Period. End of sentence. End of paragraph. End of story. As far as anyone’s concerned, including you whether you want to be or not, you’re done talking. Shut the fuck up.

    3. avatar Cooter E Lee says:

      Some fair points made but mostly drivel:

      “A shotgun in the home is far more deadly to an intruder than any handgun made and a person could carry a shotgun in the car as well until he got his pistol.“

      I like my shotgun in the home but it’s not for everyone. If my life is truly in imminent danger, I’d rather have a pistol in a holster as I go about my daily life than a shotgun in a sling. Smaller framed people might not be able to effectively rack a slide without short stroking it and might find a pistol simpler and more reliable. From personal experience, my mother is better off with a semi auto pistol now that her fingers are too weak to load her semi auto shotgun.

      “Even if this were not true and no state had such a provision the amount of robbery and murder and mass murder because of no background checks far surpass the people lost because they could not get a handgun fast enough.”

      Citation needed. Recently, Illinois convicted felons that used guns in their crimes were surveyed as to how they obtained weapon. Turns out gangbangers aren’t frequenting the gun show to score private sales or CR rifles.

      Regarding background checks – we already have them so it’s not really a surprise republicans are in favor of them. I want to ask my own survey question scenarios and get it reported on, here it is:

      A fathers daughter visits and confides in him that she has a stalker. He hands her a pistol so she has a means to protect herself.

      After taking a hunter safety course, a teen boy finally gets to borrow father’s .30-06 and goes hunting with his grandpa.

      A father passes away and there are a few firearms to be inherited. The heirs divide the firearms.

      2 guys work together for 20 years. The first remarks how he always wanted the gun the other is shooting. The second says he wants to start downsizing and would sell For the right number. They agree on a price and shake hands.

      Survey question: Are you in favor of charging these 4 men with a felony?

      1. avatar moreadventuresonotherplanets says:

        tp Cooter

        Quote—————–Citation needed. Recently, Illinois convicted felons that used guns in their crimes were surveyed as to how they obtained weapon. Turns out gangbangers aren’t frequenting the gun show to score private sales or CR rifles.———-quote

        Go back and actually read what I wrote about Chicago, Illinois. It proves that unvetted guns are the most used kind of weapons used in crime and the study proved many came from out of State were laws were lax.

        1. avatar Tired of the bs says:

          Idiot

        2. avatar Cooter E Lee says:

          I read it and understood the first time, though my writing isn’t that great so I may not make my point succinctly.

          My problem is that I’m failing to understand how the background checks you advocate for help anything when guns used in crimes/murders are: Stolen, straw purchased by someone who can pass a check, acquired legally before the criminal commits a felony.

          Like I said, Chicago thugs are pretty indifferent about going to the gun show for just the beef jerky when there is a stolen hi-point for $100.

          And if lax gun laws In Indiana are the problem in Chicago, I’m still waiting to see the carnage unfold (even on a per capital basis) in the state of Indiana since it’s apparently the epicenter if the issue.

        3. avatar Excedrine says:

          STFU crisco kid, the unrepentant liar. Or should I say vlad tepes, the racist?

          It’s not hard to spot your socialist drivel and bigotry. You could at least try a little harder to not be so obvious. It’s embarrassing.

    4. avatar Hannibal and the Elephants says:

      I had heard Bloomie was increasing his budget this election. I did not realize he was serious about pulling all stops and paying just anyone willing to say anything he favors.
      Well, I hope he bankrupts himself putting these intellectually challenged posers on his payroll.

    5. avatar Southern Cross says:

      Hey Vlad, here’s some info for you. The Federal Government can put a background check on sales from a FFL because FFL sales are covered under INTERSTATE COMMERCE regulation.

      But the Federal Government cannot apply background checks on private sales because they are INTRASTATE COMMERCE between individuals of the same state. This the state’s call on whether they do so or not.

      As soon as the gun is sold across a state line, it is interstate commerce which is now under federal jurisdiction.

      1. avatar moreadventuresonotherplanets says:

        Wrong.

        Although originally the States through the Constitution were empowered to regulate guns but the Feds have just ignored that Constitutional right for decades. If this were not a true statement then the States could allow newly manufactured full auto weapons to be sold the the public as well as other Federally banned weapons like sawed off shotguns or silencers all with no Federal Regulation for purchase.. They cannot because the Federal Government takes priority over the States even though techincally its Unconstitutional. But lets look at history. When has the Corrupt Supreme Court ever gave a damn about the Constitution when it threatened their own absolute power. Answer: Never. So your commerce statement may be true technically but not in reality. When it comes to gun regulation the Feds obey no laws including those of Federal interstate or intrastate commerce. When they pass Universal Background Checks in 2020 at the Federal Level that will be the law of the land Constitutional law or no Constitutional law in regards to interstate or intrastate commerce , it will simply be ignored. End of story period.

        1. avatar Excedrine says:

          STFU crisco kid, the unrepentant liar. Or should I say vlad tepes, the racist?

          It’s not hard to spot your socialist drivel and bigotry. You could at least try a little harder to not be so obvious. It’s embarrassing.

    6. avatar Gordon in MO says:

      Don’t feed the troll !!!
      Better response is to laugh at him/it?

      1. avatar Southern Cross says:

        I want to hear the popping sound when his (its) head explodes from the cerebral aneurysm.

    7. avatar Excedrine says:

      STFU crisco kid, the unrepentant liar. Or should I say vlad tepes, the racist?

      It’s not hard to spot your socialist drivel and bigotry. You could at least try a little harder to not be so obvious. It’s embarrassing.

  13. avatar Smittybangbang says:

    Gun control is just control. Been saying it for years.

  14. avatar Hannibal and the Elephants says:

    “Carol Bowne of New Jersey tried to buy a gun for self-protection but was forced to wait several weeks for her background check. While fearfully waiting, the man who had been stalking her and who she was afraid would kill her, stabbed her to death.”
    And the left rejoices doubly. Another potential shooting was averted and no firearms related death resulted.

  15. avatar Sam Hill says:

    Universal abortions should be made mandatory, might stop a future mass murder. Makes more sense and don’t think it affects 2cnd amendment.

  16. avatar "keep your paws off my dead guy",possum says:

    I haven’t seen a Universal .30 Carbine in years. But I guess if they want to do a background checkk they can, they seemed to be pretty robust gunms, so I would assume they’d check out alright. We may have to wait and see.

  17. avatar Jerry Sweet says:

    The Bible states in the book of Romans in the last days before Christ returns the people will believe they have achieved wisdom but instead they have become FOOLS nnancy Pelosi come to mind

  18. avatar sewalk says:

    Universal background checks are one of those things many people say are a good idea then never give it another thought. So they pass in many states and the the legislators start creating mandates on how they are to be implemented with no thought given to how it will work out. I live in of one of those states and compliance has been infuriatingly frustrating. Oregon law requires that the two parties involved in a transfer find a local FFL and have that dealer run the background check through the Oregon State Police, who charge the dealer $10 per transaction (notice I did not say per firearm). These dealers are free to charge whatever fees they wish to perform this state-mandated procedure, which is commonly $35-50 PER FIREARM! so, if you’re buying a large part of a late friend’s collection from his widow, be ready to be bent over the counter at the gun store. In a way, I understand the dealers’ position: they want to sell their inventory, not process paperwork for the state. Still, it doesn’t leave a good impression and the legislature gets to farm out its dirty business without having to pay for it.

    1. avatar Southern Cross says:

      Many will say yes to UBCs in the context of keeping guns out of the hands of criminals.

      But many would object to UBC laws that make impossible gifting a firearm to a family member or having a friend fire a few rounds at a range to try out a firearm they may want to purchase. Many of the UBC laws have been very badly written and make common activities virtually impossible.

  19. avatar Unrepentant Libertarian says:

    Hey, Vlad Jr.- quit gas lighting the subject and attacking straw men. Gun control laws only affect law abiding citizens. Chicago problem is that the gangs run roughshod over the innocent citizens and the authorities do little to stop them. As for the guns that they use, they come from any number of sources and the gun laws do nothing to stop the gang bangers from acquiring a piece when they need one. I know of several streets in L.A. where I can walk down and get what ever gun I want.

Write a Comment

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

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email