“Universal Background Checks”

If it wasn’t for the fact that this is being proposed as a federal law the so-called Universal Backgroung check law would be silly and pointless, the very opposite of “common sense”

The bill that is being discussed S. 649 (find the whole text here) is draconian in its scope and will have ZERO impact on violent crime. Check this out.

Here is the text in a nutshell:

SEC. 121. PURPOSE.

The purpose of this subtitle is to extend the Brady Law background check procedures to all sales and transfers of firearms.

How could anyone with a straight face propose THAT as common sense?

Note the word “transfers.” If you and I go shooting and I hand you a gun to shoot and then you hand it back to me, that is a transfer.

That is silly.

We already have instant background checks to purchase firearms. This would require that there be a background check every time a person other than the owner was in constructive possession of the gun. That sounds like a law written by an incompetent or someone with no interest in actually reducing crime.

Please, someone tell me how this is common sense.

One thought on ““Universal Background Checks”

  1. Parker Dutro

    We must keep in mind that at the core of these ideas is the belief that peole are not fit to rule themselves. Central planning is the only way to correct the evils of the free market, and that the proper function of government is to intervene as a method of behavioral control, or to “protect us from ourselves and each other”. They can do anything in good conscience and under the banner of common sense if it’s “for
    our own good”. If something is undesirable, legislate and regulate the use and function of that thing intil the desired outcome is achieved.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>