Chris Cox has an editorial in USA Today. In the past, NRA has blacked out, but this response was pretty quick:
The terrorist in Orlando had been investigated multiple times by the FBI. He had a government-approved security guard license with a contractor for the Department of Homeland Security. Yet his former co-workers reported violent and racist comments. Unfortunately, the Obama administration’s political correctness prevented anything from being done about it.
I still stand by my earlier observation that because our political opponents came out all over the place, rather than staying on message, they once again sabotaged themselves. When you start talking gun bans, our people listen very carefully, and then get very angry and start melting the phone and e-mail systems of their local politicians. They don’t stop paying attention just because it takes the other side a while to get on message.
I think it’s important to point out this guy was a licensed security guard for DHS. This is the kind of guy even pretty extreme gun control folks agree should be allowed to have a gun, even if the rest of the proles are disarmed. Push that point.
Also iirc, Ft. Hood, the Boston bombers, and San Bernadino were at one time all ‘investigated’ and cleared by the FBI, the same organization that the NICS checks go through.
It’s also important to remember people can be investigated by the FBI due to anonymous tips which may be false.
I have been back ground checked, finger printed, and drug tested so many times I have lost count. It is still possible for me to become a drug addict or a violent criminal or terrorist tomorrow and they would have zero warning signs of my switch to the Dark Side.
This is why back ground checks are useless for deterrence.
From every commercial for an investment:
“Past Performance is Not Necessarily Indicative of Future Results”
Where is an “Upvote” button when you need it? :)
Background check are not meant for deterrence. Background checks are to check for past history of being law abiding. Reckless law breakers usually have a history and can be denied.
Even criminals have greater need for guns than the average law abiding It is a tool of their trade. Most criminals are deterred by the risks of getting shot from a homeowner or Concealed carrier.
Personally I think the number of concealed carriers in an area are a greater deterrence than anything else. I believe Texas has 10 % and that means among 100 people their is 10 people who are armed.
What’s even worse is the question of how many “felons” would actually cause harm once they are let out of prison, particularly since the term felony has been watered down so much over the years.
How many felons illegally carry guns, but do so with a good understanding of self defense law? How many carry for self defense, but cannot get the training they need, because they are felons? And how many *need* that weapon, because they snitched on their gang “buddies”, and are now trying to rebuild their life?
In general, I *really* think that the standard should be: if you’re deemed safe enough to walk around with peaceable citizens, then you should be considered safe enough to own weapons.
Cox’s column gave me flashbacks to the Good Ol’ Days when the NRA would rail against criminals and those who enabled them, in lieu of concerning itself with defending our gun rights. Fortunately for them, as that became a bit tired and transparent, along came “Radical Islam” to provide a fresh, deflecting boogeyman.
Cox could have made that a much more concise column by concentrating on how the Background Checks (“Instant” and otherwise) the NRA started pitching for more than thirty years ago haven’t accomplished anything important, and can’t. He could have done that even without confessing the NRA’s role in making them the reality they are. Instead he took the opportunity to pitch a column to salve a known political base, which expected it, and got exactly what it wanted. Has one American been swayed in their position on gun rights by that column?