I was listening to Al Sharpton on msnbc.com the day before the President’s State of the Union address. America’s preeminent race hustler was paving the way for President Obama’s State of the Union promise to ditch the whole checks and balances thing. “Fifty-two percent of Americans support the President’s plan to take action on his agenda through executive orders,” Al opined in his endlessly annoying sing-song cadence. My first thought: I wonder how many Americans support mob rule? Probably as many as those who don’t know the difference between a democracy and a constitutional republic. Scary thought. Regardless, we are a constitutional republic. So the fact that 90 percent of Americans support background checks (note: no longer “universal background checks“) doesn’t mean Jack. They are unconstitutional. End of debate. Or, alas, the beginning. Again. Still.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

129 COMMENTS

  1. You know I’ve been hearing that ‘90%’ thing for a good while. When I went out and looked up the ‘study’ it really looked to be BS. It cited data from several studies that in and of themselves were poorly worded or misleading. And even then I still couldn’t figure out just where they got that 90% number from.

    • It comes straight from the Department of Polling and Statistics of Their Ass.

      You’re welcome. 😉

    • Just about every “poll” or “statistic” the anti-freedom crowd has ever cited is about as overcooked as the lasagna surprise at my college caf. I did not read the study they cite, but I’m sure its full of BS. You wouldn’t happen to have an actual link or source for their study, would you?

      • http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/background-checks-majority-support/2013/02/07/id/489319

        There you go. They polled about 1,800 with three questions. The first question asked if you supported background checks. There was in no way any mention of ‘Universal Background Checks’. Just background checks. Hell, I’d support that myself IF there wasn’t the problem of it being easily politicized.

        The second question had to do with how you voted (D or R). I’d point out that the second part of the question points out the problem with this poll where they claim that 85% of ‘NRA Households’ supported background checks. Again…. they asked about ‘background checks’. Not ‘Universal background checks’. Never forget that there is a distinct difference here.

        And the third question had to do with weather you felt armed guards would prevent shooting incidents.

    • 90% of Americans can’t agree that the sky is often blue. Anytime a study says 90% agree on something, the word “bogus” should spring into your mind.

      • Besides, even if 99.99% agreed, our Constitution was written to protect the rights of the few (or one) from the unrestrained will of the mob. So why do we care what these studies say? If the majority want to trample our rights, they’ll have to discard the Constitution to do it. We need to keep shoving that reality in their faces. Let them, no force them to wear the mantle of being “un-American” and see how they like it.

  2. Ummm, when I buy a firearm at the gun store, they do a background check? Right?
    Now how is this a new issue? (I do agree it’s against the 2A, but it’s been shown that some rights come with limitations). Eg, yelling fire in a crowded movie theater, etc…

    • Dave,

      Rule of law demands that our government prosecute anyone who violates any laws after the fact. If you falsely yell “fire!” with the obvious purpose of harming patrons at a theater, then the State is welcome to bring charges against you. What the State cannot do is force everyone to wear duct tape over their mouths to guarantee that they cannot possibly yell “fire!” in the future.

      And the same idea applies to supposed limitations on the right to keep and bear arms. Fear of anyone’s misuse of a firearm is not a legitimate reason to prevent everyone from keeping and bearing arms. Not only does that violate the Second Amendment, it also violates our Fourth Amendment right to due process.

      Note: I utterly and totally disagree with limitations on our right to keep and bear arms.

      • Uncommon sense,

        The duct tape response to the crowded fire thing is a stroke of pure genius. Ill be sure to incorporate that into my arguments from now on

      • Uncommon_sense: agreed. The only thing I’m thinking of is someone who our society has deemed as unable to posses a firearm, in the sense of felons and the criminally insane, being able to walk in and purchase a firearm. To me, that type of limitation makes sense.

        Believe me, I’m all about 2A rights, you’ve probably seen my posts about concealed carry at my college. I prefer to CCW everyday where legal, and I am in no way an anti. I just don’t see letting every swinging Richard be able to buy a firearm, it just makes it easier for the BGs. And I am certainly not under the illusion that they will not be able to get them on the street.

        I am of the opinion that the current background checks that are still in place since I bought my first firearm thirty four years ago are a somewhat reasonable limit.

        • If a background check was just that and nothing else, there would be a lot less fuss about it. I wouldn’t mind if the dealer wanted to know if I was a felon or not, but the background check, I believe, is a whole lot more than that.
          Now they have your name on file, where you live your DL number, and what gun you are buying, and it’s serial number, and god knows what other information!
          If those of you that are dealers can correct me or add to my beliefs, feel free to do so. I would really like to know just how much info they can get on a “background” check.

        • Dude, you seem like you want to be reasonable on this so I will make the attempt.

          “I just don’t see letting every swinging Richard be able to buy a firearm, it just makes it easier for the BGs.” Yes, Bad Guys will get guns, whether they can walk into the LGS or take them from someone’s home. There is absolutely nothing we can do to prevent the BGs from arming themselves. But the Second Amendment was not written for the purpose of preventing your average BG from getting a weapon. The Bad Guys the 2A addresses are the tyrants who will attempt to enslave you and deny your liberties. This cuts directly to the reasoning behind “…shall not be infringed.” It is a prohibition against the government having any authority to say who may or may not bear arms. Period. End of story.

          “I am of the opinion that the current background checks that are still in place since I bought my first firearm thirty four years ago are a somewhat reasonable limit.”

          The federal government has no Constitutional authority, and is under a specific Constitutional prohibition, from infringing on any citizen’s right to keep and bear arms. Therefore, whether or not ANYONE thinks background checks are a “somewhat reasonable limit,” they are unconstitutional. If the government has the authority to compile, maintain, distribute and enforce a list of persons that the GOVERNMENT has decided, using criteria the GOVERNMENT has established, who may no longer
          exercise their natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms then it is no longer a right, but a privilege and a license provided solely at GOVERNMENT discretion.

          When the government has full control via background checks and setting the standards that will serve to deny your rights, they are no longer rights and you are no longer a free citizen, you are a government subject. Giving in on even this one topic results in an entire repudiation of the purpose of the Second Amendment.

          “He who will give up an essential liberty for a little temporary safety deserves neither.” – Benjamin Franklin

        • Cliff, got it. I understand the full intent of the Second Amendment. As a matter of fact, like I keep referencing, my Second Amendment rights are being violated EVERY DAY by my college’s “gun free zone”. I am fighting this from every angle possible. Surely by this you can see my dedication to the 2A. I believe in it, I live it every day.

          I fully understand “shall not be infringed” and it angers me every day when I have to travel to and from school disarmed. Illegally. Unconstitutionally.

          Your opinion on this makes perfect sense to me, and logically, legally, CONSTITUTIONALLY, I agree.

          I guess I’ve got a bias against some the people I’ve encountered in life being able to freely purchase a firearm.

          Thanks for the non-flaming discussion. That’s what we’re all about here, right? BTW, It’s not that I “want to be reasonable”, I am reasonable.

        • Dave the Dude – if you bought a firearm 34 years ago you wouldn’t have been subjected to the NICS background check. That began with the passage of the Brady Bill. Also, if you bought your first firearm 34 years ago you are one hell of an old college student now. Unless you are supposedly a professor. I find your post dubious. I always wonder about new people here who say they support the Constitutinal Right to Bear Arms then immediately attack it politely. I call BS.

        • Also, Dave the dude, nothing in the Constitution prevents someone, individual or business, from conducting their own background check on their customer. As private individuals and businesses, they are free to set their own standards as to whom they will or will not sell a firearm. In fact, nothing prevents dealers and individuals from creating their own background check business. The 2A only prohibits government from doing so and making laws requiring it for the sale of a firearm. Once government is brought back under proper Constitutional constraints, such businesses could become prosperous.

        • Marine 03 (and anybody else who cares): Thanks for the shitstorm tonight. It’s been fun. You’re right to call BS, it was only 32 years ago. Mea Culpa. Thanks for the info on the NCIS thing, I wasn’t aware of that.

          Yes, I’m one hell of an old college student. 50 to be exact. No, not a professor, just a guy who stopped punching the the time clock for fifteen years and decided to change careers. Thanks to both my Chapter 30 Montgomery, and my Chapter 33 Post 9/11 GI bills, it helps with my past and present schooling. Thank you my fellow taxpayers. Five years active duty, four years reserve (so far) with a twelve year break in service. 400 days active orders for OEF. I’m still a drilling reservist. If my opinions on the 2A bother you, so be it. It’s our 2nd amendment that protects our first.
          If anybody is still on this thread, yes, I wholeheartedly support (and defend) the Second Amendment as well as all the others. I’m sworn to it under oath. Still.

          My bottom line is: it IS the right of all citizens to keep and bear arms. HOWEVER, if you decide to rob, steal, rape, murder, commit domestic violence, violate firearms laws etc., YOU HAVE GIVEN UP SOME OF YOUR RIGHTS. Period. You are now done playing our game. Go to a judge an have them deem you fit to be a citizen again. That’s your right also. The ONLY reason I support minimal background checks is to at least attempt to filter out these people. I do not support UBCs, gun registration, magazine limits, “assault” weapons bans or any other infringements. Including the “gun free zone” at my college.

          It seems that even here people have differing opinions on the same topic. If we all had the same opinion, there wouldn’t need to be a TTAG, or any other forum.

          Marine 03, I couldn’t make this shit up even if I were a troll. You have my word as a soldier, an NCO, and a patriotic citizen of the US. Thanks for your service.

        • No, you aren’t all about 2a rights. You would have understkod the fallacy of your argument if you were. The “shouting fire” analogy was discredited from the day O.W.H. penned it as a dissenting opinion.

        • The concept of reasonable limitations was created by scotus from whole cloth, or at best misinterpretatiins of already illegal actions being claimed as covered by given rights. Slander and libek for example, are not freespeech isues, but issues where such speech is proven false and defamatory. Again, no prior on speech, even for someone previously found to have slandered.
          In those cases where some reasonable limir on a right could be envisioned, such limit was included in the enumeration. Look at the 3a for an example, or the 4a.

        • Dave the dude,

          You said that you support the current background check system and seem to imply that you are not concerned that even the current system is unconstitutional. What percentage do you think the current background check system lowers murder, rape, and other violent crimes? (hint: trick question)

      • You can take the duct tape analogy even further; with every one in the theater having been securely duct taped into silence, no one can yell fire when there is an actual fire. They all die.

    • In addition to the “fire” explanation above, I want to address why this is a new issue. Yes, if you buy a firearm from a dealer you get a background check. But, if I want to swap guns with a friend then a BGC is not required. If I want to give one to my grown son a BGC is not required.

      When a BGC is required for all transfers that is a game changer. The only way to enforce Universal BGCs is through universal registration. The only reason for universal registration is to know where the guns are. The only reason to know where they are is to eventually confiscate them, either singly or en mass.

      Yes, “Universal background checks” are a big deal and they are absolutely illegal.

      • I disagree that the only way to enforce universal background checks is universal registration. Cryptographic tools exist that would make it possible to verify that any particular background check was performed without being able to simply use that database to track current owners.

        So remember this: the reason all recent proposals for UBCs have included universal traceability isn’t because they have to – it’s because their proponents want them to.

        • I think you have mentioned this in prior posts, but I’m not sure I get your point. UBC idea is to make sure that if you sell a firearm to someone you are required to perform a background check on that person, with penalties if you don’t, yes? If you do not perform that background check you would be breaking the law. Now, let’s say I don’t perform a background check on a sale to a friend…my gun is not registered, how would the govt know I did not perform the background that I was required to?

        • DaveL,

          OK, I’ll play. Explain how the cryptographic checks would work. Oh, and I know something about this subject so please be specific and include some discussion on longevity and non-repudiation.

        • Here’s how it would work:

          Alice and Bob meet up to conduct a transfer. Alice sends Bob’s SSN, along with a cryptographic hash of Bob’s SSN, her SSN, the weapon’s serial number, and a random alphanumeric string. This last bit is basically needed for there to be enough entropy to make it infeasible for the government to “decode” its database by trying every possible seller’s SSN and serial number on every hash, and can be made as long as necessary. The seller could retain it in their records in paper form, but I’d suggest having it scribed permanently on the weapon. It could even come from the manufacturer that way, provided this “serial number prefix/suffix” wasn’t reported to the government – they don’t need it, the “core” serial number would have to remain unique to each weapon and would be sufficient for all the government’s tracing purposes.

          In any case, Alice sends this string to the government who timestamps it and performs the background check on Bob’s SSN (which was sent in clear), and gives a thumbs up or down. They don’t have to know the identity of the seller, or which weapon was transferred, or even if a weapon WAS transferred.

          So now, if during an investigation the police have a firearm used in a crime and they’ve traced it back to the Alice, she can give them her SSN, and the random string if it isn’t scribed on the weapon, and that would prove she’s telling the truth about having performed a background check.

          Non-repudiation is not an issue. A background check request is an informational request, and does not represent any kind of wrongdoing, does not constitute a record of sale, nor a contract to sell. Repudiating a true background check would be like saying “No, officer, that totally isn’t me on that security camera footage 100 miles away from the crime scene at the time of the murder.” Of course, the government may decide to repudiate it, but if they’re to the point of prosecuting people based on stuff they just made up we’re well past the point of gun laws, nor are they going to be stopped because they happen to have a full-fledged registry.

          I contend this is just as enforceable as a full-fledged registry. If Alice and Bob choose to flout either law and just transfer a firearm without background checks, in neither case will it be apparent to the government until an investigation is conducted.

        • So DaveL, does this mean you are for UBC with this computerized system of yours? Because we know the NSA has now way to break such a system. 😉

        • ScottLac – I’d add a few more caveats:

          1) That the system be open to the public, free of charge, rather than restricted to FFLs.
          2) That the buyer have to log on to the system to authorize the check and get an authorization number good for that one check, to prevent the invasion of people’s privacy by third parties. As long as the “buyer” authorizes it, you could even use it for purposes other than firearm transfers, just make up a serial number. Want to check your daughter’s boyfriend? A prospective new employee? Want to get the rod & gun club together and have a Spam-The-FBI party? Feel free. Database entries are cheap; it’s cryptanalysis that’s expensive.
          3) That the NSA get seriously smacked. down. That new multi-billion dollar data facility? Junk it. I’d jail half the members of the Senate Intelligence committee, starting with Feinstein. James Clapper? He can share a cell with one of them. The two parties in Congress can’t seem to agree on the blatantly obvious, so when they all close ranks about something they struggle to justify with rational arguments, my sphincter clenches reflexively.

        • I laughed out loud when I read the first three words “Alice and Bob.” OK, I’m going to assume you think I’m not familiar so you copy/pasted that example from any number of explanations of public/private key technology and then changed a few words to make it fit our example. You say: “This last bit is basically needed for there to be enough entropy to make it infeasible for the government to “decode” its database by trying every possible seller’s SSN and serial number on every hash, and can be made as long as necessary.” I’ll ignore the fact that you mention only one attack, brute force. What algorithm do you propose for that, SHA-2? What other parameters will be “good enough” that the government can’t break it? Did you know that SHA-2 is practically broken already (or will be in a few years)? This is the part I was wondering about. How long will it be before the government can easily break the algorithm, and consider that the government is far ahead of publicly-reported research in this area. Let’s suppose it takes another three years to break SHA-2. In three years, the government has a full registration, so they can start their plans for confiscation. Remember that confiscation is the end goal, period. We are seeing the proof of that in several states. You also say: “A background check request is an informational request, and does not represent any kind of wrongdoing, does not constitute a record of sale, nor a contract to sell.” In the confiscation world, which we have already entered, this statement seems like wishful thinking. The truth that it is only an informational request won’t matter in the full confiscation world. You will be assumed to be a criminal first and the burden that you aren’t a criminal, made that way by a law that instantly transformed you into a criminal in a second, is on you.

      • Bluesmike, the use of “Alice” and “Bob” in describing cryptographic protocols is a common convention. If you don’t like it, tough.

        Do you even understand what it means to say a hash function has been “broken”? There are basically two different ways to claim a hash function has been “broken”: either show you can recover the input from the hash or show you can find a collision in less time than brute force. Only the first type of attack is of any interest to us here; we don’t care that the NSA can put x-number of processor-hours into generating a hash that shows a certain background check took place when it did not. Neither would it be particularly tempting for criminals to spend time trying to generate a bogus hash to send to the database, when it’s easier and much safer for them NOT to submit any entry in the first place. The only purpose of the hash function is to provide a fingerprint the feds can’t reverse engineer to yield the input and that they can’t plausibly claim the accused seller just happens to match by coincidence.

        The choice of the exact hash function is something I leave to people more specialized than myself, but as yet I have seen nothing remotely close to a published attack on SHA-2 (or SHA-1 for that matter) as concerns anything other than collision-finding.

        And you don’t get to hand-wave away the nature of a background check with appeals to “the confiscation world”. The fact remains there’s no reason a seller would want to repudiate such a hash. Conducting the check isn’t illegal, and it doesn’t obligate the seller to do anything. If the government is going to start arbitrarily prosecuting people without evidence because they exist in a “confiscation world”, I fail to see how the existence of this hash in a database would somehow be necessary for them to do it.

        • And of course you didn’t understand me again. I was laughing because I thought you might have just copied that overused example from your CISSP (or maybe Security+ or Cisco) study guides. I don’t think we are going to come to agreement on this issue because you’ve chosen to “trust the government” not to do bad things. You also “trust the government” not to put reasonable computer power on the goal of creating a full registration of gun owners. You’ve concentrated on the idea that the gun sellers and owners are the criminals as a given. So, you talk about the motivations of gun sellers and owners. It probably won’t be helpful to continue. All I can say is that I understand more than you think I do.

    • Dave let’s just skip the BS. Universal background checks are a precursor to complete firearms registration. Anyone pushing for UBCs would also like to see registration. UBCs are legally unenforceable without registration, because registration is the only way that authorities can verify that your rifle XYZ1234 was purchased via a background check. Registration is the precursor to confiscation, based on arbitrary rulings that will surely be determined by a panel of bureaucrats who are tasked with the purpose of deciding which firearms are too dangerous to own, and when they determine which ones those are, they know who has them and where to go to get them. It’s going on right now in NY, CA, and CT – do you even read this site?

      These people have no plans of stopping. UBC is just another step, “just getting started,” and in fact it’s the lynchpin of any other plans that they may have, because without it, they’re operating in the dark.

      • Jeff, respectfully, if you didn’t “skip the BS” you would understand that I am in no way in favor of UBCs. I get it. It’s not only wrong, but destructive to the Second Amendment.

        And yes, I do read this site (blog). It is by far the most informative and logical of all the forums out there. (My opinion) I read it every day and post often.

        I apologize that this discussion has somehow turned against me, that wasn’t my intent. It’s just my (limited) opinion that in my state (WA) that the limited background checks are reasonable, as they have been for decades.

        And yes, I do know what is going on in NY, CA, CT, and even IL. Not only is it unconstitutional, it’s just plain retarded.

        And yes, they will only get my guns “From my cold, dead hands”. (h/t to CH)

        • When I said “the BS” I didn’t mean your comments. I just meant, “let’s get to the point.”

          I also live in WA.

          Are you an I-594 supporter? Because if I-594 passes, Washington’s “limited” background checks – which right now more or less just follow federal standards – could potentially get as complicated as California or any of the dreaded anti-2A northeast states.

        • Jeff, *sigh* with all my energy going into school, my personal 2A fight, SCC, etc…I guess I didn’t keep up on all the issues, even though I know these are important ones. My voter’s pamphlet is on my table though. Literally. After a quick googlation, looks like yes on I-591 and no on I-594. Please correct me if I’m wrong, but provide a (brief) explanation. Are you Eastern WA or West? Just curious.

        • Dave, I understand, and frankly I have been a bit annoyed that these BIG initiatives have been so lightly covered here on TTAG, if at all. I mean we even had Gabby Giffords and Mark Kelly here yesterday testifying to committee in favor of I-594, and using up a huge chunk of time at that – the committee gave them nearly ten minutes to speak, while WA residents had to speak after them, and were limited to 90 seconds.

          Personally I would prefer to not have to vote yes on I-591. I think WA law is fine as-is, but I-591 would put up a brick wall against any further attempts to institute UBCs in the state, and since WA initiative process can only address one issue at a time on a specific subject matter, I-591 would have to be undone in one session, and then UBCs proposed in the next.

          I-594 is a terrible bill, with ancillary goals beyond the usual claptrap of UBCs on all private transfers, such as fattening the state’s pistol registry. But the worst part is that my dad and our hunting partners will be felons for using eachother rifle’s at hunting season. I would be a felon for gifting a gun to a nephew or other close relative or friend. The Seattle area is full of anti-2A people that want to see UBCs done so that they can move on to passing an AWB and firearm registration. I don’t think I need to tell you much else about it.

          West/east, I’m not sure why it matters, but I live in the Gig Harbor/Tacoma area, but with family roots in the Palouse area.. My family once owned many thousands of acres of wheatlands in that area, but not enough sons were born over the last two generations to carry on the family farm, and the land was sold off piece by piece until by the time I was born, there was none left. I still feel at home over there more than I ever do on the west side, but my particular job skills don’t translate well to that area of the state.

        • Jeff, yea I know it doesn’t matter which side, my sister lives in Wenatchee, and I was in Pullman for a few years. I’m in the ‘burbs on Eastside of Lk WA, my reserve unit is in Tacoma. So howdy neighbor, I guess.

          It just amazes me how our state is so divided down the middle, left and right, literally and politically. I know that’s a big generalization, but mostly true. Exceptions to every rule, though. Thanks for the info. DTD

        • OK, cool.

          I would say regarding the east/west thing – it seems that only the I-5 corridor Olympia northwards is where the hardcore liberals are concentrated in the state. Go anywhere else on the west side and it can be just as extremely red as the east parts of the state, but the Olympia/Tacoma/Seattle/Everett population is just way too big to counter.

          P.S. I don’t mean to brag but I always thought this was cool.. If you ever saw or visited Steptoe Butte while over in Pullman – that used to be part of my family’s land until it was donated to the state to form the park.

        • Jeff, Steptoe Butte? Are you kidding? When I was in Pullman, I used to drive my ’73 Beetle (Type I of course) up there all the time. Best view around. I have pics if you’re going to call BS on me like someone here already did. Had a girlfriend in Lewiston, went to the dunes, and that cliff over by Boyer Park on the river. There is nothing else like the Palouse in the Spring. I even heard the stock wallpaper for Windows XP was a photo from around there. Sure looked like it. Thanks again for the info on the issues. I shall vote accordingly.

      • It was my good fortune recently to be referred, via this website, to books by Stephen P. Halbrook, a friend of most people who come to this site. His most recent, Gun Control in the Third Reich, shows in excruciating detail how registration leads to confiscation etc. etc., definitely worth a read [and don’t think “it can’t happen here…”…it’s happening], as well as “Target Switzerland: Swiss Armed Neutrality in WWII.” The latter title shows what a peaceful armed society really looks like “They’re just getting started…” truer words were never spoken.

    • Dude, There is a limitation on the 2nd Amendment. It is already illegal to shoot people indiscriminately in a movie theater with an AR-15.

      Thanks for playing.

    • Dave the Dude – say hello to everyone at Mothers Demand a Plan for us okay……and tell them subtle innuendo and mind-speak doesn’t work at TTAG, okay. You’re playing with the big boys now. This isn’t an MSNBC chat room. These are patriots.

      • Wow. I really don’t know what else to say. What do you need, a copy of my DD 214? My deployment orders? My NATO orders? Pics of my firearms? A pic of my CPL? I guess if that’s your opinion, (I’m actually kind of laughing about that last one, only because you actually believe what you said) there’s not much else I can say, other than that’s the first time somebody has tried to “out” me like that.

        Hopefully we can meet again and at least find something else to discuss. Wow.

      • BTW, “subtile innuendo and mind-speak”? I try my best to call it like I see it.
        “Big boys”? Whatever. Patriots. Well, if your mind was open enough to realize I’m telling 100% the truth regarding my background, you could see that I too, am a Patriot. All the way to the presentation flag on my shelf from my father’s military funeral. My father the Lt. Colonel who fought in WWII and Korea. He was a Patriot, too. I could send you a pic of his headstone in our local Veteran’s Cemetery, but I’m sure you’d call BS on that. Seriously Marine, you seem to have some trust issues.

    • No, it hasn’t been shown. You can show a mathematical proof or a law of physics, but you cannot “show” that rights can be limited or that it would be proper to do so. It is not some independently existing, observable property of the universe.

      No, what has happened is that it was arbitrarily decided by those who wrongly think they know better that the legal ddocument which defines our government and grants it’s powers doesn’t mean what it actually says.

  3. don’t we ALREADY have background checks??

    am I missing something, such as the point of this article?

    • Misinformation to try to make it seem like we have no background checks currently so we need to pass universal background checks right this second to keep the children safe! Its a tactic to gain support of low information voters and the uninformed.

    • yeah, you are. “background checks” is a dog and pony show to hide the real agenda. How do you suppose BATF will ensure background checks are being performed? By auditing sales records of FFL’s. Sales records including name, SSN, gun serial no, etc. Of course under the last bill DOJ is forbidden (wink, wink) from using said records to build a gun registry.

      • Of course under the last bill DOJ is forbidden (wink, wink) from using said records to build a gun registry.

        They weren’t even trying with that one. Sure, the DOJ is forbidden, but the DOHS, the DOD, and the Department of Treasury (which once included the ATF, and conceivably could again) are not.

  4. Congratulations on being able to listen to him. I just hear his name and I want to Arab myself in the eye with a dull pencil

  5. Well, the fascist regimes in Germany and Italy in the 40’s wouldn’t have been possible without a plurality of fools, either, so…

    History may not repeat, but it does rhyme.

    And based on conversations I’ve had at work after the SOTU, your average product of public education now-a-days has no idea how government or the economy function.

  6. I heard the meat puppet on the radio today. Good grief.
    She is obviously dain bramaged, as she keeps spouting the same misinformation. That or she is delusional. In which case, she should not be allowed to own any guns due to mental incompetence.

    • First the Brady Bunch, now this Giffords person. Why do they continue to think it is a good strategy to take advice on Constitutional issues such as the Second Amendment form people who are obviously brain damaged?

    • meat puppet. Tom, that was cold or sick, or…

      …wait. Am I a bad person for blowing boogies out my nose with my beer?

  7. Yes we already have background checks. We even have UNIVERSAL background checks. If you are walking freely among your fellow citizens then you must be assumed to have a clear background.

    For those that argue with “But what about…?”, take it up with your legislators, justice department, and police. If those agencies feel confident letting said individual to rejoin their fellow citizens then those agencies have deemed said individual to have a clear background.

    All arguments of whether someone should or should not possess rights ends with the law. If you don’t agree argue your case to change the law.

  10. @ RF :

    Calling Al Sharpton (and I quote) “America’s preeminent race hustler” is not good journalism. In fact, it made me skip reading the whole of your article to immediately write, proof, and post this comment. As in, no idea at all what you’re posting about until I hit publish and scroll back up.

    As I follow this blog regularly, and appreciate the (relatively) wide range of views and articles for consumption about firearms and RKBA politics, and I’m in complete agreement with the court argument stating that bloggers, are, in fact, journalists, I’d appreciate it if you’d be a little more careful with your words.

    I’m here for good journalism, not to see someone advertise their opinions (and the fact that those opinions indicate they’re probably an OFWG, irregardless of how much time someone has spent on the page, or even looked at the bios page). While your opinions may be justified, you’ve created a wide enough audience that you should be worried about this sort of thing.

    As far as I can tell, this site is a great opportunity to bring The People of the Gun together with those who don’t know as much as We do about firearms – using words to deliberately malign others will only ensure that this is not the case, especially because we need the politically correct housewives of middle America (PCHMA?) on our (indeed constitutionally correct) side to teach the next generation the truth about guns, and I can guarantee that at least some of them (i.e. my mother) would immediately tune out after reading that.

    Good journalism relies only on facts and honest reporting – it doesn’t usually involve the writer’s opinion – AND we’ve got both facts and that honest reporting on our side already (great work!)

    Take the high road here, please. We can be a place of (and appreciate) high-brow firearms related journalism, but at least personally I don’t appreciate that kind of low-brow editorializing on any subject or person for any reason. I’ll watch Fox or MSNBC if I desire that sort of “news”. Except I don’t subscribe to any TV, at all, for that very reason.

    I’ll resend this via email if it feels necessary.

    -AmericanSpirit

    • But he is in fact America’s preeminent race hustler and he absolutely should be maligned as such.

      • True or not, the very people we need to convince that guns don’t, in fact, kill people, are the people who see something like that and get all uppity and righteous and proceed to lump us all in with the worst of the worst from history when it comes to racism or sexism – after all, we’re barely past the “living in a cave and carrying a club” stage if you believe their agitprop.

        If you (or more especially RF) feels like this is a good place to “officially” flame our opposition, that’s all well and good for the site (I’ll stop posting all these damn comments, anyway), but it’s bad for our overall ’cause when somebody does a simple google search for, you know, “the truth about guns” with no prior knowledge of this website.

        Of course, that’s just my opinion – but if TTAG is going to claim journalism (and they’re doing a pretty good job), then to me opinions belong here, in the comments, rather than up above in articles.

        Otherwise this place just becomes one more blogspot full of a group of people congratulating each other on how they’re all right all the time. I’ve only recently found the damn place, so I’d prefer to at least delay the falling of the personal b&hammer as long as possible – preferably forever.

        • Multiculturalism is a disaster and everyone knows it in their heart. It destroys every place it touches and ruins the quality of life for those trapped within it. It has been a noble but catastrophically failed experiment. Some Americans are still too afraid of being called a name to speak the truth. Personally I couldn’t care less if you called me a racist, homophobe, islamaphobe, right-wing, gun-nut, absolutist, squishy pants…..I’m still not going to allow this failed ideology to further ruin our culture. We will fight it. The consequences be damned!

    • @AmericanSpirit, how about this: “Al Sharpton is America’s preeminent racial arsonist, hustler and lying sack of sh1t.”

      Feel better now?

      • You made me chuckle.

        Yep, yep I do feel better. Because you’re free to say what you want, and I’m free to say what I want, (1A ftw) and we’re both batting opinions back and forth here in the comments section of a site dedicated to the 2A.

        Maybe ask me about how young not-stupid poor white men with relatively well-off (but not that well off – read as student loans are the only option) families feel about affirmative action sometime, but this here prolly ain’t the place, just as I feel the place for opinions isn’t in real journalism.

  11. Literally the only thing that anybody is ever going to get a large portion of the U.S. electorate to ever agree on is how much they despise Congress.

    If Gallup is to be believed, Congressional approval is hovering around 10%. That and ONLY that is what “90%” of Americans agree on. Period.

  12. I just found out today my latest Form 4 was approved at the NFA Branch. I am fairly sure I would be shocked to find out the extent of the background check they ran on me to “approve” me to pick up my new silencer.

  13. I do not believe the 9 out of 10 number. You can not get 9 out of 10 Americans to agree that the sun shows up every day. Or on any other subject. They did not poll every single American in the country. (I was never asked. Where any of you asked?)

    • Polling and statistical methods for public surveys are a deep, murky barrel of worms, my friend. They called a ‘meaningful sample’ of people (probably 500 to 1000, sometimes in one state or even single municipality) and then extrapolated to claim those results nationally.

      It’s why I don’t recommend paying attention to polls that have a sample group less than 5,000 or so, with a caveat of truly national polling – any less and you simply can’t accurately capture the diversity of opinion over a country of 300 million people.

      That doesn’t even touch the issue of how asking polling questions themselves affects the results.

  15. “It’s too dangerous to wait…” she says, from the people who brought you the SAFE Act and the Patriot Act…

  16. 90% of Americans is quite sufficient to get the Constitution amended, you know, provided that they actually express their opinion in vote (which, so far, anti-gun demographics has not, as other issues tend to be more important for them and they don’t really do single-issue voting over it).

  17. Yes, theres no time to lose. We could have another incident like GZ’s where a good guy survived, because as many have mentioned this is just the start of confiscation. Great Britain heard the exact same crap. I’m hoping I can hear how they don’t want to take our self defense guns, I can’t get enough of that, Randy

  18. If they had this type of support they’d almost certainly have the 66% needed to amend the Constitution……they don’t…….it’s a lie. I wish Loughner used a .45
    ACP. I’m tired of being lied to by politicians. I don’t care about your platform. Our Constitution is at stake. No mercy. Don’t give one inch to these people.

    • C’mon Marine, that’s not cool. If you don’t approve of the politicians and their views, get involved in the process, campaign, vote, whatever it takes. Wishing ill will on any law abiding American citizen, even one whose views you disagree with, only puts you on the bad guy’s level. As a Marine, you swore to uphold and defend the Constitution, and by proxy the citizens it protects. Semper Fi, right?

      • I agree to an extent…I think maybe it would’ve been more merciful than spending the rest of her life being paraded around to parrot things she’s probably barely cognizant of.
        God knows I’d rather call it a game than survive and not be able to put my own pants on.

      • Dear Dude – Getting shot in the head doesn’t make you an expert on gun control anymore than getting hit by a drunk driver makes you an expert on drinking and driving. The difference is that Gabby is trying to take rights away from law abiding citizens while drunk driving is already against the law. It’s too bad she was shot but maybe next time she won’t set up a card table in a Safeway parking lot and consider it ample security.

        • Dear Marine,

          Ok, one last go ’round. Bad analogy. There is no such thing as an “expert” on drinking and driving. Getting busted drinking and driving, and then being court ordered to attend a victims panel of people who did get hit by drunk drivers will enlighten you, however.
          I agree that Ms. Giffords is speaking emotionally about the fallacy of “gun control”, but that’s her opinion. Like it or not, every citizen has the right to one. Just like your opinion that I’m a troll for the Action Mommies and Illegal Mayors, a wholly owned subsidiary of Bloomberg Industries.

          Damn, just a little compassion for a fellow human being if nothing else.

  19. What actually makes it harder for criminals to get guns is if they are in jail. What makes it harder for the homicidally ill to get guns is if they are in institutions.

  20. American Spirit- I agree with you in theory, that we should be careful about casual smears- but I didnt take it that way- and here’s why.

    Robert wasn’t referring to the color of Rev Als skin per se by calling him a race-baiter. He was referring to Sharptons long and sordid repeated history of twisting the facts, and inciting racial unrest, by outright manipulation of people who dont have access to the facts, or are so upset as to be subject to emotional distress and mob frenzy. Remember Tawana Brawley?

    Rev Al lied, people died.

    And as far as I recall, correct me if I am wrong, he’s never really apologized for it, and if he did, he should be in a monastery working off his penance instead of l huckstering on his fading reputation in places like MSNBC, (which is actually great because it just drags that nest of left-prog looneys down even further into disrepute. but I digress…)

    Does that help? If not, try a thought experiment- What if Robert said “MLK was a race baiter”. Does it fly by your reasoning- after all, has same skin color, same high visibility in the black community as Rev Al.

    Of course not- MLK had a completely different moral compass, and history of courageous action, than Rev Al.

    Or some other Rev, like Jeremiah Wright. Is he NOT a race baiter because he is white? No, obviously- its not about what he looks like…its what he does, which is to twist the truth, and manipulate and inflame a group of people that he has by right of his position and wearing the cloth, the credibility, and the responsibility to rise above petty ego trips and power hunger to serve them as their shepherd, rather than victim-hood hustling, in the most sordid way.

    So yeah, Robert- go ahead- mock the StateRunMedia- they are running scared of their own PC prison first, and the Chicago Way retribution they have already seen in a variety of not so obtuse ways for anyone who dares disagree with the ONE, who frankly, is the real race-baiter in-chief, I am so sad to opine, as one who still has respect for the office, but mourns the loss of an entire generations hard fought struggle to advance civil rights, undone in only 5 years, while besmirching the Office, and even the reputation of the Nation world-wide.

    • And that right there is why I love this site, among the many places I have gone and the nasty things I’ve seen and smelled on this internet.

      Because you disagree, and you aren’t afraid to speak up, and you didn’t try to knock me all up and down the block with poorly contrived insults.

      Instead, we here use our brains (mostly, except for Dirk – he’s usually running on all cylinders or misfiring badly, depending on how much coffee is in our collective mouth at the time).

      Appreciate it.

        • And PS: sorry can’t resist but read this piece this morning that speaks to the wider divide that is deepening in America, thanks to the nature of the prog/left ideology and “ends-justifies-the-means” propagandizing that has been DELIBERATELY organized by the StateRunMedia (Journolist) and facilitated (OFA, Nudge Team) with taxpayer money, and huge amounts of well-organized non-profit sheltered bucks from sources such as Open Secrets (Soros) and others. Look into how the Ayers were supported and funded (Tides Foundation, Ford foundation, etc).

          Read it- this is what objective rational moral and independently honest thinkers are facing. How this translates into racial issues, dependency issues in young men, education, gun rights- is fundamentally because of the disconnect, deliberate or otherwise, from the truth, by those on the left.

          http://reason.com/blog/2014/01/30/its-not-just-msnbc-making-flip-assumptio

          We TTAG 2A rights supporters are but one outpost on the innertubz on the frontier of the Culture War, fighting back the tides of oppression that have been set loose by the Elites Who Know Whats Best For All Of Us. (‘Nanny Bloomberg’, ‘Mommy Watts’, ‘Mission Commander Kelly’, the ‘First Post Racial President’ et al) .

  21. The thing about statistics is, you can massage them to fit your purpose, very easily. Just like any sponsored study or review usually has a tendency to spotlight the sponsors in a positive light, or at the least, their competitors and the things they have solutions for, in a negative light. Phrase the questions just right, phrase the answers just right, allow pollsters to fill in the blanks where no answers are given, etc. You can get a tainted result that can support any claim made.

    Jesse Ventura may have some out there conspiracy theories (you may opin, they all are) but his statement of “Follow the Money,” if done, will usually expose any source of bias or motive for what it is, if it exists. (it’s one reason Consumer Reports claim they don’t accept advertisers… advertiser money would try to influence reviews in favor of the advertiser.)

  23. Complete bullsh.t .When you check ALL their polls and I mean ALL, the average poll-less than 1000 PEOPLE POLLED.Surprise more lies. The BIG LIE- 90%

  24. PS- the real point is that 90% number was discredited something like 2 years ago. And has since been even more conclusively proven wrong by surveys and studies like the Harvard, and CDC stats, not to mention all of Lotts work before.

    But thats not the real point- its the collusion, for thats all it can be, in the face of well known fact to the contrary, of the State Run Media spreading the meme. You dont think its an accident or coincidence that we see same kind of blatant and obvious astroturfing and sock puppetry to go along with “executive action” and repeat versions of useless and ludicrous legislative attempts like in CA?

    This reminds me of how people like Hillary Clinton repeated the same kind of discredited stat on “guns smuggled across the border 90% from gun shops in US” long after it was exposed.

    Its really just another version of the Big Lie technique, amplified by the StateRunMedia who gets the Talking Points, and lines up the useful idiot reporter or editor who faithfully repeats it- naively in some cases, or more likely, quite cynically.

    Hey, the ends justifies the means, right? All we can hope is that by continuing to call a spade a spade (OMG did I just say that?) when the Big Lie appears, and offer up the facts, over and over again,

    that we can empower others who are in that ‘looking around for the light, blinking crap from their eyes and blowing scum from their throats, still stunned, while waking from the deep sleep of koolaid drinkers who just barely fought it off, and are swimming back up from the depths, to reality,

    to say – “uh, yeah, thats bogus now that I think about it…”,

    So, “Mock Them”. “Punch Back Twice as Hard” ( with the Truth About Guns), because thats whats working as shifting public perception PROVEs, with the power of the innertubez,

    and the proof is the declining viewership, ad revenue, and subscriptions that continue to fall off the cliff at places like MSNBC, and the record number of lefty blogs now long gone (LGF? DU? KOS?) or about to be irrelevant soon (HuffPo?), at the same time Fox rocks and TalkRadio keeps expanding-

    it all proves the “customers”- independent thinking middle is figuring it out, especially the young who didnt know better in 2008, but are savvy enough to compare the spin to their own reality…

    and these are the source of a lot of new gun owners, and future buyers, including the honored vets returning to civilian life in big numbers, and re-entering community life, and for some politics, with a wholely different set of old-school honor and moral standards honed in fire and blood sacrifice. (Tom Cotton, for ex).

    I dont know for sure, but my gut smells desperation in the air, and that is not to suggest complacency, but great danger- because the truly fascist heart of the statist left proglodytes does NOT have any problem throwing you, me, and anyone else under the bus to get their way, and keep the power they have worked so patiently to get the last 40 years,
    and this is the moment- really – the Senate in 2014, where they HAVE to double down, or watch 40 years of liberal tide wash back out taking the side-stepping beach creatures with it…

    So, yeah- +1 to the comment above that said- use the vote. DONT EVEN THINK to talk armed anything as thats the excuse they’d be looking to use.

    Yes. We are in a counter-revolution, and the TeaParty is but a signal of a deeper current, a sea change, and it isnt going to be an easy change, when you see the abuse of power we have seen by those in the Dem controlled Exec and Senate. BUT it will happen, and the vast silent majority is waking up, and will vote once motivated- and what better motivation than the pocket book…why do you suppose we are reading nothing but Bridgegate, or Miley whats her name, vs the bloody gut sho elephant in the room that is the economy and job market…

    So Stand Down, Marine, my brother. Keep your Oath by doing what works- imperfectly but inevitably- Go walk the district. Give money. Make phone calls.

    You have a lot of credibility and honor to offer and thats how you use it for there”s a LOT of people who appreciate your service and sacrifice, and they aren’t buying the BS anymore either, no matter their skin color.

  25. For the benefit of those not yet aware:

    Congress of the United States
    begun and held at the City of New-York, on
    Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.
    “THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.”…
    *********
    Further declaratory and restrictive clause added in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers as follows:
    Amendment II
    “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.”
    source: http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html

    Given the information provided, consider as you may be so inclined as to whether or not such powers as would be necessary for the proposed laws to have any Constitutional legitimacy / legality have been granted to any person or persons on the ‘federal’ level.

  26. A thought experiment: if 51% of people mildly oppose something, but the 49% of people who support it are willing to die for it, supporting which side does the greatest amount of good for the greatest amount of people? Not the majority, but the minority. Simple numbers don’t tell the whole story or the strength of feeling behind each position. Slightly more Americans are anti-gun than pro-gun, but when you take into account the strength of conviction on the pro-gun side I think one must conclude that the right to keep and bear arms is firmly the will of the people. That there are slightly more people who are completely urbanized and have no experience with guns beyond vague ignorant feelings of “guns are bad” stemming from television and demagoguery does not count for more than the extremely strong support of people who have experience and knowledge and know what they’re talking about.

    • An imperial presidency is bad for the country. Whether the politician in question has a D or R after his name is irrelevant. If your argument is essentially, “Well, Bush did it first” I’d ask you to examine that logic.

  28. As for backgroung checks…my lgs was told to wait for the police and stall the buyer. So yeah i do not want a criminal to be able to walk into any lgs to purchase a firearm. Because eventually the lgs would be sued for selling a gun to a criminal and then be closed and when it happens to one…it will continue.

  29. “I was listening to Al Sharpton on msnbc.com”

    So you’re one of the 7 people that watch that channel 🙂

  30. 90%…??? Yeah, I don’t think so Tim…

    Figures often beguile me, particularly when I have the arranging of them myself; in which case the remark attributed to Disraeli would often apply with justice and force: “There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics.”

    Mark Twain

  31. Has anyone mentioned to Al Sharpton that a poll in 1847 would have shown that at least 50% of the people supported slavery? Did that make it OK? Just wondering, Al.

  32. First of all, I don’t see how requiring universal background checks would be a constitutional violation. Second, while I don’t know anything about the veracity of the “90% of Americans support this” statistic, if that were true AND people felt strongly about it AND it happened to actually be unconstitutional, then the ultimate outcome would be that the constitution would be amended to reflect the will of the governed. 90% support would eventually filter through to representatives for enough votes for a constitutional amendment. It’s a mutable document. If 99.9% of the population supports something, as some comments have said, any form of government that doesn’t allow that to be reflected in law is completely broken.

    • 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.

      It is clearly unconstitutional both under the plain language of the Constitution and the spirit of the contract. If there is enough support for a constitutional amendment then that is the proper route for the anti-gunners and the faux 2A supporters (I believe in the RKBA but… crowd) to take. Anyone claiming that it is okay for government to violate the Constitution because the numbers are there for a constitutional amendment anyway are disingenuous. If the numbers are there then do it! Otherwise, stop encouraging and supporting government usurpation of power; felonious and treasonous theft by government.

      (** This comment is not directed at you, Daniel Watstein. It’s directed at such behavior and statements made by those supporting any government background checks or other infringements.)

      • Have SCOTUS ever recently and specifically dealt with the definition of ‘free’ or ‘freedom’ as it were in relation to the 2A? Assuming that ‘free’ applies to the whole population, doesn’t that mean that the (presumably fit for duty) whole of the population IS the militia?

        It seems like if they used the founder’s obvious and highly deliberate choices of built in protections against tyranny and ideals of specifically limited government as a guideline, broadly stated there would be (and should be) essentially no limits on firearms available, simply because of the firepower disparity usually inherent and indeed prevalent between the governors and governed – with the people pretty much always getting the short end of the stick, all the way back through recorded history. Except Afghans. They’re the outliers in that data set

  33. Ok, I know this thread is stale from defending not only my position, but my honor and integrity for most of last night. My opinions are mostly unchanged. But for all of the “true” supporters of the second amendment (apparently I’m not deemed worthy), consider the following hypothetical:
    The second amendment is now considered legal in is full intent. No government involvement, no infringement whatsoever. All citizens, and non citizens (remember, no checks), can walk into their favorite store of choice and buy a (some) firearms. Hey look! They even have boxes of .22LR. On sale! (Hypothetical, remember)? Ok so everybody, anybody, any age (remember, no infringement) can purchase firearms. Cool, that was easy. Now, about carrying them, just tear up your CPL, that’s government infringement, too. Constitutional carry across the board! Sweeet. Ok, so now the big moment comes, you’ve got your wad of cash, and you’re in the best LGS in town. I’ve always wanted an AR-15 you think to yourself, but wait! Shall not be infringed! AR-15s are for weenies, I’ll take that M-4, I want to go full auto like a rock star! Hold on a minute, what’s that? An M240? Damn straight, I’ll take 7.62 over 5.56 any day of the week! Now that there’s no government involvement, capitalism has taken over and ammo prices are rock bottom. In light of that it looks like your wad of cash is still pretty fat. Why not one of the grenade launchers, you’ve always wanted a 203 anyway. Plenty of loads for that here, too. It’s just like a 40mm shotgun, anyway. But wait looky here, it that for real? They’ve even got a good ‘ol ma deuce! On clearance. Dang, I’ll just mount it in the bed of my truck. Just for looks, though, that good ‘ol second amendment doesn’t mention where I can discharge my new toys. Stupid founding fathers, you’d think they would have thought of that. Well, at least I can keep and bear whatever I want. Everybody’s doing it. EVERYBODY. The good, the bad, the ugly, (h/t). So on your way home, you pass your neighbor who had the same pickup bed mount idea, only he went with the rocket launcher he picked up surplus. And look at that! He punched out his windshield and mounted dual MK 17s on the hood. Sunny beach. I can do better than that, you think, and back to the store you go. Coming home, your neighbor looks on in envy at your new M777. A howitzer’s just a bigger gun, right, Keep and bear arms. I’m sure glad that the Government got out of the business of regulating the rules that created itself. As you’re backing into your driveway, you notice your other neighbor excavating a large, deep hole. For his new ICBM…

    Ok, now wipe the drool off your faces and change your undies. Just hypothetical.
    My point is, there is, and always will be some form of regulation necessary. Just enough to pass the “reasonable person” test. I do support and practice the right to keep and bear arms. What is needed is an efficient, logical, political process which establishes whatever limits that “We the People” are subjected to.
    As I’ve experienced it, the current limits in my state regarding firearms have for the most part worked for me (Except for the issue at my school). I have my firearms, I legally carry to defend myself, I just wish I could get some ammo for my .22…
    I understand the fears of excessive regulation, and I encourage all those in states where the status quo has been severely upset to act accordingly, politically, and hopefully it will be in accordance with what the majority of your fellow citizens feel is reasonable. If not, maybe there’s a location more aligned with your views.

    I just needed to dump this out of my head so I can get to the other relevant aspects of my life. Like my wife, my dog, my property, all of which I’m allowed to protect under the Second Amendment. It’s interpretation isn’t perfect everywhere, but it’s working ok for me. Within limits.

    DTD

    • What a ass. You sound just like the politicians that want to disarm us. They always jump the shark and go right to the fully automatic weapons. Now you have one upped them with Howitzers and ICBMs.

      Guess what? Murder is still illegal. Very few people can afford a howitzer. Hell, i can’t even afford the ammo. And if someone had been successful enough in life to afford one it is unlikely they would risk everything to use it on someone. And guess what. Terrorist organizations could probably afford to buy one. But they are an impractical weapon for individuals to use. Not very concealable.

      Let’s be realistic. I would have no problem with full auto weapons being readily available. Because that means the good guys would also have them to defend themselves. Do you really believe that someone that is willing to commit murder is going to let the law stop them from obtaining automatic weapons? Right now the law only prevents law abiding citizens from owning automatic weapons. If the criminals really want one, they will find a way to get them.

      • Hey Timbo –

        Name calling and finger pointing are not conducive to a very intellectual discussion, that’s why I don’t do it here, or anywhere else. That’s exactly what the (anti) politicians and opposition groups do to us. Either I’m not presenting my opinion correctly, or your not understanding it correctly, or both. I’ll keep it shorter if you or anyone still cares to listen.
        IN MY OPINION, there needs to be (and are) certain reasonable limits, not only for one particular section of the Constitution, but I’ll stick to the Second Amendment.
        If the Citizens of the United States oppose any limits, or feel there needs to be more, there is a process to change things. It’s called the political process. In our society, that’s how it happens.
        Attacking my opinion does nothing but waste your time and mine, if you want change, GET INVOLVED IN THE PROCESS. That is what I have chosen to do, if even in my local area.
        In case you haven’t followed all of this or other threads, I have commented on my college’s weapons policy, ad infinitum. Their arbitrary weapons free policy is not only illegal under my state’s law (preemption clause and prohibited areas), but in direct violation of my second amendment rights by forcing me to disarm myself before I travel to, and as a result from school, through where I am legally licensed to carry my firearm.
        Last week I had a meeting with School’s President, as well as one of the Vice Presidents, in regards to changing the weapons rule. As expected, everything was discussed very politely, at great length, and I even presented a SOLUTION, not just my problem. Still a no-go, but next week, I am attending a meeting of the board of trustees, also to present my solution. After that denial, I’m off to the State Board of Community and Technical Colleges, to present the requisite petition for probably another denial. After that, the ball is in Governor’s court. The next step is litigation. All the way to this State Supreme Court. The process works.

        http://www.mountainstateslegal.org/cases/all-cases/students-for-concealed-carry-on-campus-v.-regents-of-the-university-of-colorado#.UutC-zK9KSM

        I know I said I’d keep it short, but hopefully conveyed a better feel what I’m about.
        “What an ass” Whatever. Politician? Not the kind you described, more of a (minor) political activist. What have you done to promote your beliefs besides name calling and finger pointing on blog threads?

        I say what I mean, and I mean what I say. DTD

    • Your posts are getting more and more absurd. You can’t hide the bullshit behind, “it’s just hypothetical.” You’re really trolling or something else…

      Your mannerisms are indistinguishable from the countless liberal bots I’ve read the droppings of all over the web for years now. Smile, giggle, feign outrage, whatever dude. Zero credibility with me.

      • John, your opinion. You’re entitled to it. I left some more “droppings” up above. If you’re not getting it by now, I probably can’t explain it to you.

        I’m out of this one, I’ll get back to my real life, my apologies to all the TTAGers I pissed off or didn’t get me.

        Maybe in the future we can discuss something easy like what’s the best personal defense round, or Pistol vs. Revolver.

      • ZERO credibility. Whatever, dude. I’m not mucking up my boots and wasting my time regardless of the topic.

  34. “I was listening to Al Sharpton on msnbc.com the day before the President’s State of the Union address.”
    OMG. He took two! Am I reading this right? RF took TWO for the team? Sharpton and SOTU?
    Let’s watch him for signs of PTSD.

Comments are closed.