News

GOA Executive Director Takes on Background Checks—A Must Read

Beyond some of the most ardent supporters of the Second Amendment, Shooter’s Log readers have often shown their support for Gun Owners of America (GOA). Recently, GOA Executive Director Larry Pratt has been making news that all supporters of the Second Amendment should hear.

During an interview with Breitbart News, the subject of background checks for gun purchases came up. Pratt was not shy in his answer, “GOA opposed them when they were first introduced under President Bill Clinton and that GOA believes they should be abolished now.” Pratt continued by stating the database tied to background checks should be destroyed as well.

GOA-Logo The discussion was focused on recent events. In particular, they were discussing the recent public shooting of the news crew Alison Parker and Adam Ward in Virginia. The fact that the gunman was able to legally purchase the handgun demonstrated the impotency of background.

Pratt correctly pointed out that public attackers are not the only ones background checks fail to stop. He said, “During the last year of record, although the government has done millions upon millions of background checks, they [only] brought 14 prosecutions to court for trial–hardly a crime-fighting tool.” He said some people respond to this by pointing out that there were people who were “denied getting a gun at the point of sale,” but these people fail to note that criminals get guns in ways that completely circumvent the checks.

Pratt could not be more correct. In fact, a University of Chicago Crime Lab study focused on inmates in the Cook County jail (Chicago, IL) and asked how they obtained the guns used in crimes. The inmates often avoided gun shows, Internet sales and gun stores. Instead, they preferred to buy their guns on the street through “personal connections.” The inmates went so far as to admit their goal was to circumvent law enforcement oversight of the purchase.

I am sure this is nothing new to you or me. In fact, it isn’t news to any gun owner or someone applying even a modicum of common sense. The inmates own words serves little more than to attest to the fact that background checks are nothing more than a control against the law abiding and have little to no effect on criminals.

“Many mass murders have gotten their hands on guns by passing a background check, while other criminals are resourceful. They are evil, but they are resourceful, as well, and they get their hands on guns. The idea that somehow we’re safe if we do a background check is simply not true.”

During the interview, Pratt addressed what he termed “a further danger.” The NSA has admitted to data collection and monitoring of certain communications. Do you really believe that running your personal information through a background check would be off limits for collection? I must admit, Pratt brings up a point worthy of thought.

On the subject of background checks and record keeping, Pratt was asked about what should happen next. “We should get rid of background checks, and we should destroy the databases that have been used to run those background checks and the databases holding names of gun owners that have, for certain, been created illegally.” Pratt said he hopes getting rid of background checks will help destroy “the illusion that government can protect us,” and that the elimination of background checks can be followed by the elimination of gun-free zones, where mass murderers ply their trade. He said that “would be a huge step in reducing what dirt bags can do when they decide to go out on a murder spree.” The Shooter’s Log has never had readers who were shy about expressing their opinions and I am sure this topic will not be any different, so we will open it up to you. How do you feel about background checks and what should be done? Has the government been collecting records?

Share your thoughts and opinions in the comment section.

[dave]

The Mission of Cheaper Than Dirt!'s blog, The Shooter's Log, is to provide information—not opinions—to our customers and the shooting community. We want you, our readers, to be able to make informed decisions. The information provided here does not represent the views of Cheaper Than Dirt!

Comments (73)

  1. Yes I agree that the back round checks need to be abolished. The data base as well, it’s just another reason of big brother-ism. It’s like the assault weapon ban, it proved that it didn’t stop the killings. It needs to go, NOW.

  2. The right to keep and BEAR arms “shall” not be infringed. Shall in legal terms means carved in stone. Yet the 2nd amend is infringed on by the feds, the state, the counties, and the cities. Why would we LET the same group (govt) that we may have to defend ourselves against decide which weapons we can have and where we can have them? ALL gun laws are illegal and are akin to the slow cooking of the frog or death by a thousand little cuts. They’ve been incrementally subverting our rights for a long time and just because they haven’t shown up and attempted total confiscation as they did at Concorde & Lexington, doesn’t mean they will stop before they relieve us of our ability to resist, thus making our will to resist evaporate. See the NRA Katrina Gun Grab videos if you’d like to see what confiscation looks like. Good Americans that have broken no law are physically deprived of their lawful property at the say of some minor politician and police chief all the while having machine guns pointed at them. Keep in mind that the little boy next door who used to mow your grass is now the local cop, deputy, or nat. guardsman and for those of you that say they can have my guns when they pry my dead cold fingers from around them-THEY WILL DO THAT FOR YOU!!!

    1. “THEY WILL DO THAT FOR YOU” Only if they are READY to forfeit many of their own lives because that’s what will happen if they tried it here

  3. You are right on all counts.criminals do and will continue to buy guns illegally while we are subjected to unlawful persecution for obtaining weapons to protect our families. All background checks and lists of legal gun owners should be destroyed before the federal government leads us all to the showers.

  4. I am a firm believer that background checks do little to prevent criminal activity simply because criminals aren`t getting background checks in the first place. That being said, the only people affected by gun laws are the law abiding citizens that obey them and those people by and large are not the problem. This is a simple fact that is lost in the mind of a democrat politician and just about all gun grabbers out there.
    Now, if I were in charge, I would pass a gun law that says if you have a current concealed carry license, no background check needs to be done on you because you have already had a more extensive check done on your background to get your license than the simple NICS check. We CCW licensees should just be able to show the license and purchase our gun and walk out the door, quick and simple.

    1. Move to Kentucky, that is the law of the land here.

      Also, state law is supreme. No city or county can have gun laws more restrictive than the states.

      Most of the guns laws here are more common sense and dictate things how to transport and use. Mostly related to hunting.

    2. Yeah Chris I live in Ohio and our gun laws are pretty much common sense here too. Nothing like the folks in Illinois, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Washington, California, Connecticut and DC have to put up with. That is what happens when you vote people into office that have no idea what they are doing, but believe they know what is best for you. The time has come for us law abiding gun owners to get out and VOTE and make sure you know who you are voting for.

  5. Patrick, you are absolutely correct. My problem was that the shooter had been to therapy. They should focus on that and what went wrong. I don’t want to go to the hospital one day for a headache and have someone check the wrong box then I have to waste my time and tax payers dollars trying to prove there is nothing wrong with me, while they confiscate my weapons for nothing. And as far as the police, I will never need their help, someone broke into my house stole 1400.00 worth of stuff, I told them what it was and who did it, they told me it was a civil matter. My grandfathers funeral someone broke into my house and stole my guns, police said they knew who it was and where the guns were, but Id never see them again. When I was young the cops would confiscate drugs in the east side and sell them on the west side. In my area if you carry a certain amount of cash, the police can take it and they’ll tell you, you wont get all of it back. If you have less than 2.00 in your pocket you can get arrested for vagrancy. I don’t believe to serve and protect doesn’t pertain to one individual Ive seen police protect just one. I would like to thank all the people on the website. I try to read all the comments and Ive learned a lot and I hope others have learned from me. Im going to take the classes that are going city to city to teach people how to lobby for what you believe in because I want to put my money where my mouth is. I will be getting on hear for advice on situations, and I know you people have no problems with helping me. So thanks again.

  6. Patrick very true on all of it. The main problem is we have an administrator, who would like to make the people dependent on the government/police for protection. The police do not want that responsibility, because it is impossible. It is we the people who are caught in the middle.

  7. Checks are a facade. They only serve to create one more step toward disarmament. A background check promotes the lie criminals are stopped or slowed down by them.

  8. I understand that the question posed here is about background checks and record keeping done by the ‘government’ in regards to weapons purchases and how that affects you and I in regards to the 2nd Amendment as well as our ability to own weapons in the defense of ourselves and/or others.

    I have a different take on this. Most of us say that the 2nd Amendment is there to protect the other rights we have, listed as protected in the Constitution or otherwise. I would agree with that assessment, but only as a final resort/solution. I believe what we really need to focus on, what we need to force our “elected officials” to comply with is the 1st Amendment… specifically; ‘ to petition the Government for a redress of grievances’.

    The full text of the 1st Amendment (as taken from http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html) reads:
    Amendment I

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

    Our Founding Fathers intended for you and I to have the ability to confront our government and its agents, in the event we believe they have transgressed against us. If our government violated our rights, or acted against one or all of us in an unlawful manner, we could bring suit against them to stop that activity, to bring them back into line as being the servant of the People, not the People’s master.
    This thought process was first penned in 1215 AD in the Magna Carta paragraph 61. Essentially, it states that there is NO sovereign immunity for any person or entity if that person or entity is violating another’s Rights. This was later reaffirmed in 1669, then again in 1689 in England in Chapter 5 of the ‘Bill of Rights’ (in England). Our Founding Fathers included the prohibition against our government from interfering with our ability to seek redress. It was further endorsed by our government when it signed the UN’s (and I hate using the UN to prove anything) ‘The Universal Declaration of Human Rights”, specifically Article 8: Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law and the UN’s ‘International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural RIghts, Part II, Article 2 – 5’. These are all items/ideas that our government was either founded or upon or are signatories to.

    So, what is your point you might ask? One can not seek redress when aggrieved if the person or entity has immunity from prosecution. Our Supreme Court has stated that our government can not be sued if it does not want to be as it has Sovereign Immunity. By extension, government agents have immunity as well (though this is not absolute, it effectively is). It has bestowed immunity upon the judiciary. Judges can not be prosecuted. States have said they have immunity from prosecution and by extension, its agents and judges too. If your government or its agents or judges violate the law or your rights, based on current law and or procedure, you essentially have to sit there and take it. There are exceptions, if you have a lot of money, you can afford lawyers who could work through the current morass to get you your day in court.
    If you try to do the work yourself, you are charged with crimes for trying to exercise your Right. Crimes such as; ‘Obstruction of Justice’, ‘Bank Fraud’, ‘Mail Fraud’, ‘Filing False Claim’, ‘Interfering in the Administration of Justice’, ‘Aiding and Abetting’, ‘Conspiracy to Commit’.
    If the government will not let you call them to task for their infringement/s against you, what is your recourse? Historically, in a civilised society, suit is used in place of assault of an individual. Against a government, suit is used in place of War. If the ability to sue is removed by the government (either directly or by affect), what is left? Those with any sense, do not want that, so the path is then that we shall compel our elected officials to reopen the suit path to ANY and ALL of the People.

    If this is done, all the other “problems” we have with our government would fall by the wayside. The servant is put back into compliance. Yes, that may seem fantastic, but we should NEVER forget that we, The People, are the Masters of the government and that the government, and its agents/judges/administrators, are our servants. They exist to serve us, not we to serve them. No matter what they tell you or try to get you to believe, you are the Master, they are the servant.
    You need to know what your Rights are (and they are NOT granted to you by the Constitution, the Constitution only puts a restrictions on the government in an effort to prevent the government from stepping out of line). You need to know you are a Sovereign, one of The People talked about in the Constitution of the united States of America. You have absolute power over the government and your power only ends where it infringes upon another Sovereign People (yes, People, not person. You need to know what a person is and it is not what most People think it is).
    Think. Learn. Educate. Speak. Know.

  9. I don’t any one is hitting the proverbial nail on this up coming dangers that we as Americans are facing today. Every one seems to be focused on the symptoms of the illness instead of the disease its self. We have a person in the whit house whom is doing every thing he has planned to do. He has
    His first goal was to show that any one can become president of the United States. Even a coke dealing gay illegal alien with no morals or ethics as long as he has the support of the MSM. and in doing so he has successfully diminished the importance dignity of the office. Second he has alienated all of our allies and secretly made himself the man our enemies love.
    Considering what he has allowed former KGB murderer and henchman of the communist party, to get away with I am forced to wonder exactly what it was he was discussing with Putins predeccessor Medvedov when he was mistakenly over heard by the “hot microphone during their meeting 4 years ago. Or more to the point what the subject matter of the comment that was overheard, for those of you whom may have missed the event it was this ” Tell Vladimr that I will have more lee way once I am re-elected”. Why is no one in any media asking that question.
    I would think, considering the volatile situation in Eastern Europe and The Mid East, as well as his destructive efforts to undermine the whole of our military that this would be a question on everyone’s mind.
    Not that we would be told in words the truth, no that would come from his body language and his anger towards the inquisitor.
    But if I was to write any thing about the symptoms of the sickness he has caused in our incredibly extraordinary nation I would write something like” this administration has the full intent to go house to house confiscation each and every firearm they and the United Nations scumbags that put them in power can find. And in the process they will murder any and every Patriot they hunt down. The NSA data collection efforts and those of any power company that has installed ” smart meters” on your homes. These devices have a infra red beacon that can only be seen with night vision equipment at night.
    When you figure that these devices transmit through microwaves everything thing they need to know about your electrical usage. They transmit folks, what the hell is the beacon for.
    I hope I have fed your curiosity enough to get you to further your quest for the truth.
    Shark

  10. Mr. Pratt is 100% correct.

    It is asinine to assume that a database of lawful gunowners does anything other than open up the possibility of confiscation and a myriad of other forms of abuse of the law-abiding while leaving criminals unchecked

  11. Confiscation is the goal, slowly they are chipping away at the 2nd every chance they get, most have missed the fact that 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1-9) was changed from anyone convicted of a felony to “a person convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment exceeding one year”
    In a lot of jurisdictions one can get convicted of a misdemeanor punishable by more than one year for littering or any small drug offense. I agree background check and all data base should be abolished.

  12. 2nd Amendment is the ONLY GUN LAW LEGALLY MADE! I want suppressors, belt fed M-60 like I carried in Vietnam at 17 when I enlisted into the US Army Infantry with great pride! I lost 3/4 of my hearing & I want to preserve what is left, suppressors would go along way to help! No more permission, tax, paper work to own, carry & use! GOD BLESS AMERICA! Now let us COUP the foreign crack smoking queer muslim terrorist in our Whitehouse!

    1. In most other countries a suppressor is mandatory. This country has some of the dumbest Politicians on the planet. They believe that a suppressor on a 308 is as quiet as shown in hollywood. The silver screen has perpetrated more BS than anything else. Our Politicians base their thoughts on what they see in the movies. I agree with you. Most of my hearing is gone because of shooting military weapons, listening to nineties being fired. The service did nothing to abate the noise levels that we had to endure.

    2. People like you who use divisive words are a hurt to the “cause”. The current president is not a crack smoking Muslim and I seriously doubt he is a queer. The Muslim and queer tags shouldn’t matter when it comes to criteria for that position anyway. As far as being a foreigner, please that horse has been beaten way beyond death. The cause to rescue the 2nd amendment doesn’t need the paranoid, asinine garbage like you posted above. It needs people who can intelligently express thought. Please do us a favor and keep the unnecessary rhetoric to yourself while the rest of us fight the right fight without the hate spewing disrespect.

    3. Wouldn’t want to be in a movie theater w/you.Perfect “profile”,repressed anger,”my way,or the highway”,overly defensive,&who’s paranoid???Go check the perimiter!!!”Cause?,&effect”!!

    4. I am in total agreement with chickenhawk. He is absolutely correct in his views of what the true intention of the Second Amendment meant when it was written!! It plainly states “A well regulated militia,” which means that the people, “You and I,” which are the true militia, are entitled to own, keep and or carry any weapons that are used by any of the best militaries in the world, which would include our own, “being necessary to the security of a free state,” which means for us to protect ourselves from any and all tyrannical governments including our own, “shall not be infringed,” means that no overreaching laws enacted would be considered legal in at all period. It is truly as simple as that!!!

  13. I totally agree with GOA. Fourteen prosecutions out of over one million checks is a waste of time and effort. The lack of transparency in this administration, combined with a leader who prefers Muslim countries over his own has translated into himself as being the best firearm salesmen in history.

    Also we should all drop the nonsensical term “gun violence”, which is the coarsest attempt to label criminality as being part of the make up of a firearm, as a bunch of malicious manipulators can get; take heed MSM for complicity has a price = low viewer ratings and loss of paper circulation.
    This does not include lack of ethics, responsibility, credibility, which have already been reduced so as to make those concepts mere speed bumps in lieu of hurtles intended to create a necessary pause to reflect on the greater purpose of journalism.

    What Amendment is next? The first is already going with Political Correctness. I’ll take bets on the 4th as we approach a Police State under the guise of Homeland Security and all its agencies.

    Any takers?

    1. The tenth amendment was pretty much nullified by the Civil War but all the rest of the Bill of Rights is also under attack. The Second is a key amendment, because once the people are disarmed, the government can do whatever they want. An armed man is a citizen; a disarmed man is a slave.

  14. How about this? Empty the data bases of all Law abiding citizens then put in all the felons, mentally ill and others not fit to have firearms, and prosecute them harshly when caught. At that point make the information available to all so citizens could decide whether or not to sell, give or trade to individuals.

    If you think it can’t be done, remember it is already done with huge local to nationwide data bases in the cases of child molesters. While we are at it, take vehicles away and harshly prosecute individuals who kill over 16.000 innocent victims every year.

    It comes down to holding individuals responsible for their actions

  15. the right to bear arms shall not be infringed ,the simple fact that if there is any gun control is anti constitutional. Without rewrite and ratification of the 2nd amendment there cant be any control of any kind. As it is we are telling many people that they are not citizens of this country, if this is true where do we deport these non-citizen persons.

  16. Even if the government confiscated all guns, criminals would still have them. Removing background checks wouldn’t cause criminals to all of a sudden start going to gun shows and retail stores and paying full price. They will always get them how they always get them; theft, trade for “services” or drugs, etc. They are criminals. Get it? Laws only apply to the lawful.

  17. For many years after I took the CC course in my state, I refused to send in my paperwork because of this very reason. I didn’t want the state government, let alone the Feds knowing about my legal activities. It’s none of their business. They cannot keep me safe. Police are reactive in most cases. The more the government knows about me and my actions and behaviors the worse. GOA is absolutely right but I sadly believe that we are beyond the days where we are able to restore rights to Americans. We are at the place of losing only and not gaining.

  18. If it’s not outlined in the 2nd Amendment, it shouldn’t be needed to buy a firearm. The laws concerning the misuse (criminal) of firearms need to be enforced fully instead of making intrusive rules concerning buying them.
    Go after the criminals and leave us law abiding citizens alone!

  19. Most socially passive people, 1/3 of this nation are afraid of everything but the Government. Most socially active people, 1/3 of this nation don’t know what to fear. Then the other 1/3, reveres and fears a jealous Father in Heaven and understands the evils of the other 2/3. When citizens want government to give everything, all citizens loose the freedoms won by the sacrifices of the few. In the past, a few tried to change the masses, it didn’t happen with out the few becoming outlawed by the masses. A County sheriff, with citizen grand juries and the love for God, country and family is a way to turn the hearts/minds of the 1/3 that does not know what to fear.

    1. @toney

      You are describing the difference between the sheep and the wolves and the sheepdogs. There are a very few of us willing and ready and capable to stand between the pathetic and the evil.

      Prepare, be humble, pray, and be prepared to sacrifice for the sake of your loved ones.

      That’s all there is. Nothing more.

  20. Background checks are nothing more than harassment PERIOD. The reason you have to go through one is so the Federal Government has YOUR NAME and the TYPE of weapon YOU PURCHASED along with your name they also get your address, social security number, date of birth and sex AND race. Why do they need this info you might ask…SO THEY KNOW WHO THEY ARE LOOKING FOR WHEN CONFISCATION BEGINS!

  21. What most fail to realize is that ANY law or regulation the restricts a person from owning and bearing a weapon or arms is unconstitutional. The constitution uses the words “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED”. To infringe means to restrict or to go against. Consequently the constitution itself says NO law, NO regulation, NO infringement of any kind is to be done. Also, consequently, any law, any regulation, any ordinance that restricts or goes against the right to own and bear arms is unconstitutional – PERIOD.

  22. back ground checks? my doughter is 25 and has a delayed status. she has never been arrested never comited any type of crime and yet she has been delayed why? becouse something about her information matches or is similar to her in there data base. now she needs to fill out more forms and send them with her fingerprints so this does not continue to keep happening. criminals don not care if there is or is not a back ground check

  23. The gun violence numbers are the same as any other statistical numbers in that they can and are manipulated to prove whatever is desired. When liberals quote the numbers everything is included- actual homicide, suicide, LE shootings, self protection of all types, and even accidental discharge resulting in injury or death. Air gun injuries are also included so as to inflate the figures as highly as possible. Anything goes to fulfill their agenda, just as it always has with them. Remember, The Weathermen considered themselves liberals. Back then we called them radical terrorists- now they are friends and supporters of our president and his henchmen( and women)

    1. @Martin . . . All too true.

      People like the Weathermen are considered heroes to the Libs. So is Che Guevara, even though he was nothing more than a mass murderer and one of Castro’s hatchet men. But Libs love to wear T-shirts with his picture, but vilify the Confederate flag? Give me a break.

      I actually saw a Che T being sold by an on-line, vet owned business that specialized in Patriotic Ts (I won’t say which one), and I contacted them and expressed that I thought that was out of line for a business claiming to be a Conservative and patriotic group to sell Ts glorifying a mad dog Leftist like Che.

      To their credit, they ran a reader’s survey on the Che shirts, and most people agreed with me. They pulled the shirt from their lineup.

      What’s my point?

      When you see something that is messed up . . stand and fight. Don’t give anyone an inch, because they WILL take a mile. And stand together. Let’s not fight among ourselves. That’s want they want.

  24. I agree that a background check is a pain and a criminal can obtain a firearm easier than I can as a law abiding citizen….BUT…. AS a law abiding citizen I have no issues with going through a background check for every firearms purchase. WHY YOU ASK??? Because I am a law abiding citizen and have nothing to fear. The only issue I have is the national database of legal firearms owner. When the background check is run, all information should be held at the point of sale. A national registry of firearms owners is Exactly what Hitler used to confiscate all privately owned firearms when he came to power. If you believe that cannot happen here you should not be a firearms owner because you are delusional.

    1. If they are going to run a BG check then it should be $25. That includes, They get you cash, you fail the $25 is theirs. You pass the $25 goes towards the price of the firearm. Now they get $25 regardless for doing something they have to do anyway.

      Background checks are only for law abiding citizens to give them the false sense as to the government is actually doing something. The criminals are going to get a gun regardless so they may as well get some taxes from it.

      BG checks are a f*n waste of time and money

    2. It does not now or would it matter anyway. The gun still has a recite and the gun stores still have cameras with the tax on the gun itself. Criminals do not want either and they do not want a new gun or one that will work for years to come. They want disposable guns.

    3. The criminal element will ALWAYS be armed no matter how many restrictions are in place so as the artical states BG checks only effect non criminals!!

    4. What part of SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED isn’t clear to you??? ANY usurpetive statute restricting ownership of firearms is ILLEGAL and constitutionally unenforcible!!!

      The reason we are subjected to these usurpations is because of APATHY and Political Correctness run amok. The use of Political Correctness to intimidate or demonize is a well known tactic of the one dimensional regressive lieberals

    5. Just how do your propose to hold the information at the point of sale? If MUST leave the point of sale in order for the background check to be run.

      Are you related to Bloomberg?

    6. Larry, you only THINK you have nothing to fear. Very few People do not understand that our government is getting more and more out of control, doing as it pleases, when it pleases and the agents/judges/administrators for the government are covered by immunity, so they have no repercussions in the event they get out of hand and decide to come after you, regardless of the fact that ‘you have done nothing wrong’. Think it can’t happen to you? You should read other than the local corporate produced rags and or watch and or listen to other than the corporate produced “news”.

  25. With background checks only producing 14 arrests means it is a nonproductive program. Minimal standard on a nation wide scale should be 500 arrest per month. This is a normal law enforcement standard to measure the productivity of one patrol officer. It is a program that can not meet production and should be viewed as a harassment tool. The real problem is ATF’s inability to stop street sales of firearms.

  26. I believe that BG Checks do enough good to offset the inconvenience. One thing is that they prevent those individuals who could not pass a BG Check from buying a gun through normal channels. If there were no BG Check criminals and misfits would buy from legal sources, there is no way to know how much of this is avoided. I’m all for destruction of the data base on BG checks. BATF is illegally tracking gun ownership. BG Checks also support FFL holders who have the discretion to refuse to sell to certain individuals. BG Checks are not a ‘crime fighting tool’, they are a ‘crime prevention tool’. Only the most stupid of criminals would attempt to buy a gun legally and undergo a background check.

  27. Mikial you are spot on. I would add-Liberals and co. are not concerned for our safety they are solely motivated by political theater.Clinton,Bloomberg ,Soros would never give up Their armed bodyguards.They are typical of Socialist/Liberal polilticians-do as I say not as I do.Sure I want the crazies to not have guns,but I do not want Gov. officials selling guns to Cartel thugs in Mexico either.I will give up my guns when Obama gives up his bodyguards.F-em.

    1. Just so you know….
      They don’t want to give up their armed guards and don’t want crazies to have guns… To them the citizens are the crazies.

      Remember what the Constitution 2A says. We have the right to bear arms to defend ourselves against tyranny and the government.

      In the AWB in 2012 or 13, after Wayne la Pierre quoted that, Diane Fienstien was the first to say that she does not want to get shot and she’s sure the other people on the panel feel the same.

  28. The shooting of the reporter may have been prevented if the news station I believe it was 2 years ago would have made the murderer go to therapy. They knew he was a problem and fired him. Escorted out of the building by police. My opinion I hold the news station responsible for all 3 deaths. NOT THE WEAPON.

    1. @Vector16

      Good point. Having worked as a probation officer I saw way too many people who went through therapy and even in-patient treatment, and then went out and committed crimes after they were released.

      I remember meeting one guy on the street one afternoon who had recently been released from in-patient mental health treatment and asking how he was doing. He said great, and the next morning he went into a seminary and stabbed one of the religion teachers 67 times.

      The guy who shot those reporters was a racist and a psycho and should have been off the streets. But he wasn’t because our system does not protect the public.

    2. So what we are seeing is not just a lack of care for those needing mental health care, but an actual FAILURE of the care that is supposedly delivered.

      What Mikhail is telling us is that there are delusional people on both sides of the desk: those who think they can change the way someone thinks and those who have no intention of being changed.

    3. @Bill

      You pretty well summed it up perfectly. The idea that someone with a sociopathic mental illness can be “rehabilitated” and safely released into society is absolutely ludicrous.

      No, I’m not saying that we should be running around locking people up because they “might” be a danger, not everyone with an emotional disorder is dangerous, but there are very clear indicators in many cases of those who are.

      But, rather than address the actual problem behind these active shooters, the Libs instead choose to attack legitimate gun owners and anyone in the industry. Just like the completely illegitimate lawsuit against Lucky Gunner the the Brady bunch manipulated the parents of one of the Sandy Hook victims to initiate.

    4. Dubya, the reporter, camera man and woman being interviewed who were shot in Virginia, might have produced a different outcome IF:
      They had been aware of their surroundings.
      They had been in possession of tools for defense.
      They had been trained in the above.
      They had implemented the above.

      As one of The People, you are responsible for your own safety. You can choose to delegate that responsibility to others, but why would you? Who has a greater vested interest in your protection/survival? You or another human? The police say they have no duty to provide YOU protection, just the public in general.

  29. A perfect example of the absolute stupidity of thinking background checks reduce crime is the shooting in New York City yesterday. Two people are caught in the crossfire between two gangs and one is killed and another wounded; one of the victims is Governor Cuomo’s aid. So naturally the first thing he does is scream for national gun control. Let’s look at the facts :

    1. They were shot by gangers who I feel safe to say didn’t get the guns legally.
    2. It’s unlikely that any of the gangers could legally buy a gun under gun laws already in force.
    3. ,Universal background checks would have had no effect on the gangers having guns.
    4. It all happened in NYC which has some of the strictest gun control laws in the US.

    Bottom line . . . Liberal Democrat gun grabbers are among the stupidest and most useless people on the face of the earth. All they care about is their own agenda and everyone else be damned.

  30. I am not sure how other states conduct background checks but here in Kakafornia.”The People’s Republic” we all have to undergo background checks to purchase a firearm….I think they need to do more to keep weapons out of the hands of those who cannot legally purchase one..

    1. There is nothing that anyone can do to keep the guns out of the hands of people that can not legally own a firearm. I live in CA too. The BG check and the waiting period is stupid. The only way to stop these people from getting and using a firearm to kill or mame others un provoked is to capture and kill them.

      In CA right now, if you are caught with a loaded and stolen firearm you are prosecuted for a misdemeanor.

      In CA right now, if you are in possession on a legal firearm that belongs to you in public w/o a permit it is a felony.

      Constitutional carry is the way to go for all states and eliminate gun free zones. CA is a gun free zone.

      If you have ever seen news or live gang banger use a gun its tragic. they just point in the general direction and start shooting. If more people that were trained in the use of firearms were out there with firearms there would be a lot more dead thugs on the street.

      The only way to stop this insanity is to make illegal possession of a firearm that does not belong to the person in possession of it punishable by death. Sooner or later all the Thugs and dumb sh$@s’ would either wise up or die.

    2. It can be called Commifornia, Confinsacteifornia, Hell, land of the lame, government without constituents etc.. its all about politicians and pleasing the minority and getting the dead vote. I know for a fact on that one.

      In order to get a sample ballot in the mail you have to have voted in the last election. My Grandfather has been getting them every election since 92′. He’s been dead since 1990.

    3. @ Maccabee

      I refer to CA as the PCRM “Peoples’ Republic of Commie/Mexico the land of fruits and nuts populated by LUNATICS

      When I was younger I purchased my first handgun at a hardware store for $30.00 and my first surplus rifle 03-A3 Springfield for $25.00

      All the legislation in the world has yet to save one life but has turned the law abiding into criminals and filled the coffers of the states by enforcing fees and permits which I see as the government removing your constitutional rights then selling them back to you !!

      I have since left the PCRM for a more citizen friendly location!!

    4. @Force Recon Marine

      Smart man. I lived in CA for about 18 months after getting out of the army, and i couldn’t get out of there fast enough.

  31. Background checks are lame. The people that should not have a gun know they should not have a gun but they get them anyway. Meanwhile, like in CA, not only do you need a BG check but then you need to wait 10 days too. That even applies to people that already own guns. But the gang banger that just got out of prison and wants to go kill the guy that turned him in can get a gun in minutes….

    1. All the channels available to criminals to buy guns without a BGC are also available to you too. Criminals don’t have special access that is not available to John Q. Public. The argument that thugs have better access is illogical. Anyone can go buy a gun of the street in a personal private transaction just as a thug can.

  32. 94 Federal Prosecutions Office’s in the United States and Territories, Approximately 4.5-Million Violent Gun Deaths per Year, equals ~47,900 Cases per Office per Year. Divided by 365 Days in a Year, equals ~131 Cases per Day per Office. You Right Dave, not possible.

    1. I believe 4.5 million is the number of guns sold on average each year. The number of gun related deaths is around 30,000.

    2. Mikial,

      According to the FBI there are less than 9000 murders committed with guns in the US per year according to the most recent numbers (from 2013) the 30,000 statistic is fluffed up with Suicide which is extremely misleading.

    3. @Sean

      Agreed. It is simply listed as gun related, so that would include everything from criminal homicides, legal self defense, suicide and accidental deaths.

Leave a Reply to Sharkey57 Cancel reply

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

Time limit exceeded. Please click the reload button and complete the captcha once again.

Your discussions, feedback and comments are welcome here as long as they are relevant and insightful. Please be respectful of others. We reserve the right to edit as appropriate, delete profane, harassing, abusive and spam comments or posts, and block repeat offenders. All comments are held for moderation and will appear after approval.