Search






Jeff's Amazon.com Wish List

Archive Calendar

November 2024
M T W T F S S
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
252627282930  

Archives

Universal background checks are NOT a bad idea

Well, on gun ownership they are — a terrible idea, in fact — mostly because they represent an onerous imposition on moving legal private property between friends and family members, and because, pace what their cynical proponents claim to be hoping they do, they are a rather transparent step in a process that the left (and many statists in the GOP) hopes will yield a national gun registry, the forerunner to confiscation of semi-automatic weapons, which will happen incrementally, I predict, if we don’t resist the self-appointed “common sense” purveyors “anti-children slaughterers” at every step.

So, hells no! to universal background checks on that front.

But when it comes to those Mayors who are sipping out of the Bloomberg chalice of carpetbagging presumptuousness and rank nannystatism, taking money and selling out their constituencies for promises of campaign help and/or to support the national Democratic Party agenda on gun control, universal background checks certainly seem to be in order.

Because, while there’s no certainty we can screen out the mentally unfit or malignantly narcissistic legislative bullies,  statistically speaking — and I’m no mathematician, so a little help here — it seems to me that a member of Mayors Against Illegal Guns is,  by orders of magnitude, far more likely to commit a dangerous (or potentially dangerous) crime than is the average gun owner who just wants these meddling, power-hungry, narcissistic petty tyrants to leave them the fuck alone.

(h/t Pablo)

 

27 Replies to “Universal background checks are NOT a bad idea”

  1. Pablo says:

    Background checks for POTUS candidates would probably be a really good idea too. Retroactive, even.

  2. Imagine the damage that could be averted by requiring presidential candidates to be thoroughly vetted.

    FOR THE CHILDREN!!!!!1!!!

  3. Squid says:

    I’m thinking it might apply to elected officials across the board. Maybe kick the wife-beaters out of the police force while we’re at it.

  4. Pablo and I are already pushing the boundaries of good taste, Squid. Just how Visigothy are we willing to get, anyway?

  5. Squid says:

    In for a penny, in for a pound!

  6. dicentra says:

    OT: Ace correctly invokes linguistic principles:

    In that particular case, the Christian would, arguably at least, be learning (or at least being subject to) some kind of lesson that The Word is Not The Thing and The Symbol Is Not the Signified and also various Question Your Beliefs type kindergarten horsehshit.

    Not Intentionalism, granted, but he gets to the genuine core issue in the Jesus-stomping question. Great essay.

  7. Let’s add state and federal employees.

    College and university professors.

  8. Jeff G. says:

    That’s why he’s the best conservative blog, over and over again!

  9. Mike LaRoche says:

    I’ve quit reading Ace of Spades and Hot Air altogether. Just couldn’t take it anymore.

  10. dicentra says:

    Why yes, Ace is aces.

    Which is why I probably shouldn’t have noted it when he done good, it being the rule rather than the exception.

  11. leigh says:

    I never read either of them unless someone here linked them. The commenters are mouth-breathers and the writers have that moment of clarity and decent writing so rarely, it isn’t worth wading through the redundancy of topic and response.

  12. dicentra says:

    Via David Thompson, an amusing bit of “fake but accurate” sophistry.

  13. geoffb says:

    Harry “the gun owners friend” Reid (ANTI-NV) has introduced S. 649, and put it into the Senate’s hopper for action as soon as the Senate returns from Easter Recess. This bill contains Schumer’s Universal Background Checks, Boxers money for a show of school security, and Leahy’s reiteration of gun trafficking laws already in effect. In short, Reid’s bill is a vehicle to get Schumer’s universal gun registration bill enacted.

    Bill text at the link and here too.

  14. Di, “Veracity Bomb” is now officially the Best. Band. Name. Ever.

  15. bgbear says:

    help please. The way James Taranto criticized Universal checks made it sound like I had to check out the other guy if I wanted to sell a gun to him. When I heard of the call, I assumed it meant that all sales had to go through a FFL like we have to do here in California (sad but, true). The FFL does the check.

    I just want to make sure I know what exactly I am against. Anyone here know if the Feds know what they mean by Universal Background Checks procedure (wont be surprised if the Feds do not).

  16. Through an FFL would be logical, but this is Congress we’re talking about.

  17. sdferr says:

    Headline: “White House to Sheriffs: Follow the Law in Enforcing Gun Control Measures”

    Future Headline: “Sheriffs to White House: Bite Us”

  18. bgbear says:

    Yes, California already has tough gun laws, it is funny that they are talking more and trying to keep up with the Joneses.

    If the super-majority in Sacramento had any sense they would just declare that they have the time tested gun restrictions and declare victory while New York and Denver squirm with their rushed through laws.

  19. geoffb says:

    OFA and MAIG working together in Pennsylvania to get more gun control laws enacted there. Money and activists flowing like a river.

  20. If the super-majority in Sacramento had any sense

    …they’d be far, far away from California.

    Like me.

  21. SDN says:

    Law would fire sheriffs for defying gun control measures

    When I get back to the Dallas area at the end of April a personal visit would seem to be in order (even if she isn’t my representative).

  22. SBP says:

    I think Yvonne Davis’s sheriff needs to charge her under every law she breaks.

    Supposedly each one of us commits 2-3 unintentional crimes per day, right?

  23. Squid says:

    Supposedly each one of us commits 2-3 unintentional crimes per day, right?

    Unintentional? I’m not sure whether you’re insulting me or giving me too much credit!

Comments are closed.