Dave Hardy looks at some history on this background check issue. Here is the gun control logic in a nutshell, imagined as a conversation between gun control advocates and policymakers:
Circa 1968:
Gun control advocate: “Well, you see, we have this problem, and the problem is that that all these gun transfers are private and largely unregulated, and we need a way to regulate and scrutinize these things.”
Policymaker: “Here is a Gun Control Act, which is the solution! We will license them!”
And the gun control advocates did thus rejoice.
Circa 1993:
Gun control advocate: “The problem is that too many people are complying with your previous solution and getting too many licenses, so now we need a solution to the problem caused by the first solution.”
Policymaker: “Well, OK then, we’ll make it expensive and difficult to get an FFL, and add all kinds of new requirements!”
And the gun control advocates did thus rejoice.
Circa Right Now:
Gun control advocate: “Well, we a problem with all these private, unregulated sales, so we need a solution to the problem caused by the solution to the problem caused by our first solution.”
Policymaker: “It sounds like the problem caused by the solution to the problem caused by the first solution is an awful lot like the original problem we passed the first solution for in the first place.”
Gun control advocate: “Well, do you want to talk about a solution for the problem of there being gun owners yet?”
Exactly. I feel like in their impatience, they’ve overplayed their hand. In placed like NY and MA, maybe they can talk about that, but there’s thing thing called the internet that makes what they say there get heard elsewhere. Their only success comes from being able to convince the public that they’re reasonable. When they go about trying to ban pump shotguns and such, they’re going to lose big.
And in a few years, they’ll be talking about the inheritance loophole…
They’ve already dealt with that. Inheritance tax, anyone?
“Why, that’s a privately owned firearm! We place its value at $250,000! You owe $125,000, or can just let us take it.”
“If it ain’t broke, we’ll fix it until it is.”
– Federal government
Love this! May I use this?
The solution to gun-control failure is more gun control!
it’s a shame but often that catastrophes prompt such dramatic actions in the attempt to believe such atrocities won’t happen again. this furor most often is directed at the simply tangible object of harm. what i recall is that in order to become any form of legal law enforcement officer or agent, one must pass a psychological profile. these tests are extremely difficult to fool. they reflect who one is as it relates to society.
i believe that all students entering High School must take a profile test. that test should be taken again when beginning their Junior year.
my point is: its the mind that determines what is a dangerous weapon. when Lizzie Borden killed her parents with an ax, they didn’t outlaw the possession of an ax. i do believe any one buying a gun must submit to taking a psychological profile test. these tests can be filled out on such a format that a computer can process it and render a result without bias. the answer would be final with the option ,if one failed, to be retested in three years.
people who want to kill will do so. if not a gun, then a bomb or knives etc.
Can you name me any other constitutional right that you have to pass a psychological test to exercise? No?
No dice. My constitutional rights don’t depend on the outcome of any fucking test, especially a test processed by a computer. That’s not negotiable.
For people who are legitimately dangerously insane, we have a legal process in place to commit or adjudicate them, after which they may not purchase or possess firearms. You want to talk about that, I’m open to discussion.
But we don’t deny life, liberty or property in this country without due process of law.
Assuming we have the numbers in the Senate, they could refuse passage of any amendment unless the originally poorly written bill is repealed or the offending parts removed.