The issue of universal background checks never goes away, and the collectivists never give up.
AS I WRITE this, there hasn’t been a mass shooting in weeks.
I’ll use the lull to shoot off my mouth about guns, divorced from the debate that usually follows a massacre in which both sides dance on victims’ graves for PR gain.
When President Obama tried early this year to get gun restrictions passed – including background checks identical to Pennsylvania’s current system – the vast majority of Americans wanted what he wanted. His most important goal was broadened criminal-background checks at the point of sale for guns. Despite overwhelming public approval, Congress chickened out, mainly because of opposition from the National Rifle Association that purports to represent gun owners (like me), gun sellers and gun manufacturers.
I am not a member – the NRA doesn’t represent me or most of my pistol-packing pals. Some of my NRA friends say it doesn’t represent them, either, on background checks.
A poll by Frank Luntz, who usually works for Republicans, reported that a majority of current and former NRA members favor background checks. “Majority” understates the case – it was 74 percent.
That’s an amazing statistic, but I have one (allow me to invent a word) that’s amazinger.
The Violence Prevention Research Program at the University of California, Davis, polled licensed dealers who sell more than 50 guns annually. It reported that 55.4 percent of the surveyed gun dealers support background checks.
I never believed those polls that say Americans want to go down to their local FFL and have to go through a background check to gift a 10/22 to their grandson under the Christmas tree. And I don’t believe them now. And of course FFLs favor more control – it increases their revenue by another transfer fee every time somebody comes in to transfer a weapon. What’s hard to understand about that?
Let me turn my attention to the issue of debates and disagreements over the interwebz among gun bloggers that occur from time to time. I don’t do that scene. To me it comes off like church members who agree that they must all agree on paragraph 5.3.6(c), subpart 22.214.171.124 of Section 86 of the book of church order blah blah blah, or else they must separate and cause schism. Again, I don’t do that scene. I don’t have to agree with everyone all of the time.
But on this issue I’ve made up my mind. Universal background checks would do nothing for crime fighting, but everything for the totalitarians. Universal background checks aren’t about crime. They’re about state control, and the state does indeed want to control you – every aspect of your life.
So let’s put this in context. Let’s say that gun rights writer, advocate and reliable journalist and friend David Codrea wrote me and said, “I’ve decided that I am going to support universal background checks, and I think I can talk everyone else of our ilk into the same idea.”
Well, David would still be my buddy, but I would speed up my loosely planned meetup at his place for liquor and cigars over a fire pit, where I would get him loosened up and then say, “So brother David, what gives, and can I persuade you to see it otherwise? Let’s talk.”
My belief system is what the philosophers call “incorrigible.” I cannot be changed. That means that I won’t ever change my mind. And that, dear reader, means that the NRA will never, never be alone in advocating for freedom and against tyranny, even if I’m the last one on earth who opposes universal background checks.
The commentator is wrong, and one of their favorite tactics is to make you think that, “Hey, everyone else thinks I’m an unsophisticated redneck, so maybe I am. Maybe I should reevaluate my positions.” They think that will suffice to persuade you to change your mind. Everyone else is doing it, so it must be okay.
I repeat. If I am the last person on earth to oppose universal background checks, I will never, ever, ever change my mind. To my liberty loving readers: you are not alone.
UPDATE: It looks like Kurt and I were thinking along the same lines last night (Although sometimes I have to wonder about Kurt and if he’s just doing all of this for the largesse - David has written before about the huge money and free beer that Kurt gets for writing for Examiner. Must have been a note, since I cannot find it in David’s posts).