Why They Oppose Background Checks

http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/2011/06/why-they-oppose-background-checks.html

 

The background check requirement only applies to Federal Firearms License holders. Private sellers are not required to screen their buyers in any way.

Usually the question of background checks comes up in reference to gun shows. So common is this association that "The Gun Show Loophole" has become synonymous with requiring background checks on all gun sales. This is obviously not the case for the simple reason that not all private gun sales take place at gun shows.

So, legislation requiring background checks at all sales that take place at gun shows is only a partial solution to a very wide-spread problem. I would imagine proponents of this type of legislation expect to expand it eventually to include all private sales, otherwise it wouldn't accomplish what it's supposed to.

The opposition is fierce, primarily by the NRA and by the more extreme gun-rights advocates. Some surveys have shown that they are in the minority, but they are extremely vocal and well financed. Most people feel they're winning.

My question is why, why such powerful and costly opposition? I've identified two reasons which should cover those making up this unreasonable group.

1. Some people actually believe the bizarre suggestion that gun control steps like these would lead to a tyrannical government which will eventually ban all gun ownership and confiscate the ones already owned. Part of this fantasy is that civilian gun ownership is what keeps the government in check. They actually say "the 2nd Amendment preserves the 1st Amendment," and other such nonsense. This is a type of grandiosity mixed with paranoia. To these folks there's no discussing the obvious benefits of proper gun control; they cannot see beyond the glorious struggle for "rights" and "freedom" they fancy themselves involved in.

2. Some people recognize the foolishness of the first group, but they'll never admit it because they both want the same thing. These folks realize very well that making it more difficult for criminals and mentally ill people to get guns is a moral imperative, one which would save many lives, but they don't care. A self-centered, me-first philosophy drives them to resist anything that would result in increased inconvenience and expense. The claims that the inconvenience and increased expense would be minimal, doesn't phase them. They are as stubborn as the first group and are happy to support them in their mutual cause.

To sum up, you've got paranoid lunatics and self-centered people who together make up the background-check resistance. Becuase of their successful opposition, at least so far, I blame them for the baleful results.

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.

 

 

Surrendering Weapons in Domestic Abuse Cases

 

 

 

Big Federal Government is Bad, Big State Government is Good

Indy Star reports

 

This new law has been eerily and accurately titled: "Preemption of local firearm regulation." This unnecessary law, pushed by Republicans but endorsed by many Democrats, tells cities and towns across the state that the General Assembly and the National Rifle Association know what is best for them. It also tells the state's urban centers that they must adhere to the wishes of lawmakers who in most cases don't live in those cities.


The idea is not that a city like Indianapolis doesn't know what's best for itself and the state of Indiana does, it's simply a matter on not inconveniencing gun owners. Let's say there's a guy from Gary Indiana who carries a gun everywhere he goes, you know, just in case. If Indianapolis is allowed to prohibit guns in its parks, that poor guy from Gary would be faced with a terrible dilemma if he had some reason to go to the Indianapolis park. He'd either have have to decline to go, that's bad, or leave his gun in the glove compartment of the car, that's really bad, or LEAVE IT HOME IN THE GUNSAFE WHERE IT BELONGS. Naturally, we can't expect gun owners to have to face such choices so we depend on the State to govern.

Of course, the gun enthusiasts in Indiana, and everywhere else for that matter, have no proplem with Federal laws that support their cause too.

(cross posted at Mikeb302000)

What's your opinion?  Please leave a comment.

 

 

Big Federal Government is Bad, Big State Government is Good

Indy Star reports

 

This new law has been eerily and accurately titled: "Preemption of local firearm regulation." This unnecessary law, pushed by Republicans but endorsed by many Democrats, tells cities and towns across the state that the General Assembly and the National Rifle Association know what is best for them. It also tells the state's urban centers that they must adhere to the wishes of lawmakers who in most cases don't live in those cities.


The idea is not that a city like Indianapolis doesn't know what's best for itself and the state of Indiana does, it's simply a matter on not inconveniencing gun owners. Let's say there's a guy from Gary Indiana who carries a gun everywhere he goes, you know, just in case. If Indianapolis is allowed to prohibit guns in its parks, that poor guy from Gary would be faced with a terrible dilemma if he had some reason to go to the Indianapolis park. He'd either have have to decline to go, that's bad, or leave his gun in the glove compartment of the car, that's really bad, or LEAVE IT HOME IN THE GUNSAFE WHERE IT BELONGS. Naturally, we can't expect gun owners to have to face such choices so we depend on the State to govern.

Of course, the gun enthusiasts in Indiana, and everywhere else for that matter, have no proplem with Federal laws that support their cause too.

(cross posted at Mikeb302000)

What's your opinion?  Please leave a comment.

 

 

Diaries

Advertise Blogads