Universal Background Checks: Why Not?

One of the recent responses to the school violence last year was the idea of making universal background checks a reality.  Many folks like the idea, as it would seem to do more to keep guns out of the hands of those who might misuse them; at least more than a simple hi-cap magazine ban, or so-called 'assault weapons' ban.

So why wouldn't the average Joe (that's my name, so I can say that) support universal background checks?  I can think of three reasons:

(1) Background checks are already the law in every case where they should be used.

It is ALREADY a federal felony to be engaged in the business of buying and selling firearms and ammunition without having federal firearm dealers license.

It is ALREADY a crime for a federally licensed dealer to sell a gun without doing a background check – that's all dealers, everywhere, including at retail stores, gun shows, flea markets or anywhere else.

Further, it is ALREADY a federal felony to sell, trade, give, lend,  rent or transfer a gun to a person you know or should have known is not legally allowed to own, purchase or possess a firearm.

The penalty for selling a gun to a person who is a criminal, mentally ill, mentally incompetent, or an alcohol or drug abuser is a 10-year federal felony.  That's now, today, with no changes to the law.

It is even a federal felony to submit false information on a background check form for the purpose of purchasing a firearm.

We need to enforce the laws we already have; laws that both gun owners, the NRA, and the left agree on. Yet according to a 2012 report to the Department of Justice, more than 72,000 people were turned down on a gun purchase in 2010 because they didn't pass the background check.  Yet, only 44 of those cases were prosecuted.  Why, when criminals are caught in act of lying on the form to illegally  purchase a firearm, are they not prosecuted? On Thursday, January 10, 2013, in the White House meeting of President Obama's Gun Agenda Task Force, Vice President Joe Biden answered that question, telling NRA's Director of Federal Affairs, James Baker, that the Obama administration didn't have time to prosecute people for lying on the federal background check form.

So the answer, according to Biden is, 'We don't have time to prosecute criminals who break the law, so we need more laws.'

Now there's government efficiency for you!

(2) Universal background checks will turn normal conduct into a criminal offense.

Universal background checks are background checks on EVERY transfer, sale, purchase, trade, gift, rental, and loan of a firearm between any and all individuals.

Imagine a grandfather who wants to give a family shotgun to his 12-year-old grandson having to do a background check on his grandson before giving him the shotgun.

Or a friend having to do a background check on his lifetime best buddy before lending him a hunting rifle.

Or, if your mother had a prowler at her home, having to do a background check on your own mom before you could give her one of your guns for protection.



The so-called 'gun show loophole' is a myth; a straw man built for political purposes.  Every gun sold at a gun show by any of the attendees must go through that respective state's NICS (Federal) background check system.  If you don't believe me, go to a gun show near you, walk up to a table, and ask to buy a gun with no paperwork.  The nice man behind the table will at best laugh at you.  He'll probably call security over.  No one selling guns at a gun show wants one of his guns to end up being used in a crime. 


(3) It tramples on the rights of the law-abiding citizens while doing little to hamper the efforts of criminals.  The one analogy I've seen lately that best describes this is:

Using gun control to prevent violent crime is like trying to prevent drunk driving by making it more difficult for sober people to buy cars.

This agenda focuses on peaceable citizens, not violent criminals who obtain guns on the black market to carry out unspeakable crimes already prohibited under federal and state laws.  Instead of stopping crime and eliminating criminal conduct, they are creating more criminals--they are targeting you.

Gun control has never been about the guns, it is about control.  The left knows they can never quash our constitutional republic as long as we, the people, can defend ourselves.  We'd best not give up that right, especially in small chunks like this universal background checks idea.



-----
Stats cited above came from: http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/articles/2013/1/universal-background-checks-%E2%80%93-absolutely-not.aspx

Time for a New Bumper Sticker

At what point, pastorally speaking, should we stop praying for God to bless American and start asking for God to judge America?  I'm not being facetious, I'm being deadly serious.

It's not often I post a video from the other side, but this one is so bad, it's good.  It is the flaunting of evil, besides being racist and all those other things the blogosphere has decried.



Don't watch it unless you are prepared to answer my first question, above.

God, judge America.

You Load 16 Trill, Whaddaya Get?

Running Commentary on Obama's Gun Violence Proposals

Running Commentary on Obama's Proposals...may be modified later...this is off the top of my head...some of these intellectual's best stuff sure doesn't require much thought to refute.

(I'll be editing this and adding more information as I have time to think about what's been said and what is intended.)


1. Issue a presidential memorandum to require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background check system.

This is already law. It does nothing except force agencies to comply with  the law. And Obama has no say over state agencies.


2. Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background check system.

Changes to HIPAA are probably needed, and making legitimate connections between the mentally ill and the NICS check system isn't onerous.  The problem is, who gets to say what 'mentally ill' means?  In the minds of some in charge, anyone who might want to own a firearm is 'mentally ill'.  As it stands such a practice is a blank check for government supression of freedom.


3. Improve incentives for states to share information with the background check system.

Nothing onerous here, but why do states need incentives if the background check system works as it should?


4. Direct the attorney general to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks.

The categories of individuals who are prohibited from having a gun are, for the most part, well-designed.  There are some issues, such as where a woman can claim domestic violence has occurred when it has not, and her male significant other can be restrained from possession of a firearm, sometimes for months or years, even when he is guilty of no crime or intent to commit a crime. The problem is in the details: how will an AG review of the categories keep individuals like Adam Lanza from slipping through a crack (whatever that means)?

No one, not the NRA, not the average gun owner, and certainly not any person with any common sense wants felons, neurotics, or chronically violent people to have a gun. But expanding the categories and definitions to law-abiding citizens won't prevent crime.  Enforcing the laws we have, and occasionally shooting the criminally violent perpetrators, will.


5. Propose rule-making to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun.

To the best of my knowledge, this already happens in most jurisdictions.  The meaning of 'full background check' is unclear; most jurisdictions run a check in their state database, although many would also use the FBI's database.  Not sure what this really does except add paperwork to the local law enforcement officer's load.


6. Publish a letter from ATF to federally licensed gun dealers providing guidance on how to run background checks for private sellers.

This is actually a good idea on the one hand; those who have doubts about an individual who wants to buy a firearm have been prevented from having access to the NICS check system in the past.  C&R FFL holders are instructed NOT to use the NICS system. They should have that option.  So should any private individual at (for example) a gun show.  Currently, we don't.

Where the problem lies is in FORCING private citizens to do background checks.  I should have the right to transfer (give) a firearm to my son when he goes off to college, and I shouldn't have to run a NICS check on him to do so.  How will this be enforced? 


7. Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign.

Been there, done that, got nothin' for it.  The feds can't even do a national nonsmoking campaign right.

The NRA has run national gun safety campaigns for years, and nobody does it better than they do.  Ask just about any child in America to finish this instruction: "Stop! Don't touch! ... "  The Feds can't manage anything even close to this effectiveness.


8. Review safety standards for gun locks and gun safes (Consumer Product Safety Commission).

Nuts.  Is he saying that none of the gun locks (already required by law to be distributed with a new firearm) are no good now? Were all the safes made of plastic? (Chinese, I bet!)


9. Issue a presidential memorandum to require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations.

And this isn't already done?  The only time I can think of that it wasn't was when Obama's people were running illegal machine guns to Mexican drug lords.  But try suggesting that anyone enforce the law in THAT case. The responsible people are running away from that as FAST and FURIOUS as they can.

10. Release a Department of Justice report analyzing information on lost and stolen guns and make it widely available to law enforcement.

Again, three words:  FAST AND FURIOUS.


11. Nominate a new director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

Hmm.  Why do I think it might be Feinstein, or Schumer? Or worse?


12. Provide law enforcement, first-responders, and school officials with proper training for active shooter situations.

Proper training without armed intervention is really simple:  Sit down and wait your turn to die.  

Anyone who is REALLY serious about protecting kids in schools will make sure there are GUNS in every school, in the hands of trained personnel who aren't afraid to use them to protect the lives of the kids.  Otherwise, the schools (since Columbine) already have instituted huge changes in emergency procedures, come up with new security plans, and trained staff for emergency events.  If that's all he means, this is another non-sequitur.

And really...is there a law enforcement agency in the entire US that hasn't had active-shooter training since 9/11?


13. Maximize enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime.

I can nail jello to a wall easier than I can define what that sentence says.  As one blogger recently said, Obama might as well just say, 'nyuk nyuk nyuk'; it means about the same thing.  But there's one little detail in that which WON'T happen...the prosecution of gun crime...you see, too much of it is committed by Democrats with connections (look at Bill Clinton's list of pardons when he left office for a quick summary).

Ask any second-week cadet at the local police academy if there's a difference between 'enforcement' and 'prevention'...but the POTUS seems to think they are synonymous.


14. Issue a presidential memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to research the causes and prevention of gun violence.

OK, we'll throw some money at research.  We might even learn something.  One thing I know will happen: if we learn that having more guns in circulation cuts down on violent crime, this research will be radically altered before it gets published.  And since we already have that data, and already know it is true that more guns equals less crime, I wonder what all that tax money will really accomplish?


15. Direct the attorney general to issue a report on the availability and most effective use of new gun-safety technologies and challenge the private sector to develop innovative technologies.

Read this one: micro-stamping.  It is useless, but it is going to be forced on us anyway.  We could put a cop in every elementary school in America for less than this will cost, and it won't likely help solve a SINGLE crime, and does absolutely NOTHING to prevent violent crime.

16. Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors from asking their patients about guns in their homes.

In other words, you local doctor is now an arm of the Obama administration.  Funny, my family doc is a big-time shotgunner (competitive and upland game bird hunter).  I wonder how he'll take this? But I feel sorry for the single mom who has a handgun to protect herself and her children when her crusading anti-gun physician decides she's a danger to herself and her kids.


17. Release a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement authorities.

Wow.  Does anyone out there think, even with FERPA or HIPAA, that you can't call the cops when someone threatens to harm you?  Really?  And remember, when every second counts, the cops are only minutes away.


18. Provide incentives for schools to hire school-resource officers.

Hey, this one makes sense (at least, everything but tying the SRO jobs to federal money).  This is basically what the NRA said needs to happen.  I wonder if Obama will give the NRA credit for this one?  Putting armed officers in schools will, unlike almost everything on this list, actually prevent the deaths of school children.


19. Develop model emergency response plans for schools, houses of worship and institutions of higher education.

Almost all schools and universities have already done this.  Between Columbine and Virginia Tech, those folks got the message.  I'm not saying all the plans are good ones, but then, the federal plans won't be any good either unless they include putting guns in those facilities. "The only thing that will stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun." - Wayne LaPierre.  Houses of worship?  Some states are foolish enough to make it illegal to carry a concealed weapon in a church.  That makes the churches in those states prime targets for any nut (or terrorist) who wants a high body count.  Here in Texas, you can carry in church unless the church says no.  That law makes more sense. 


20. Release a letter to state health officials clarifying the scope of mental health services that Medicaid plans must cover.

There's a lot that could be said about this from a financial perspective, but it really will do nothing to prevent a lunatic from becomming an active shooter if he or she chooses to do so.


21. Finalize regulations clarifying essential health benefits and parity requirements within ACA exchanges.

Same as the previous one. What this will do, over time, as more and more people become more and more dependent on Obama-care, is make it easier to control their behavior (like gun ownership) or risk losing their health care. That kind of thinking is what a values-neutral education will get you.

22. Commit to finalizing mental-health parity regulations.

I'm not even sure what this means, other than it gives a politician, rather than a doctor, final say in what's crazy and what's not.


23. Launch a national dialogue led by Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and Education Secretary Arne Duncan on mental health.

The idea of Kathleen Sebelius moderating a dialog regarding the safety of children, when she's on record as supporting partial-birth abortion on demand, is so ironically foolish, it might qualify her to be the first person barred from gun ownership on the basis of mental instability. If there ever was a woman who delighted any more in the death of (unborn) children than Sebelius, I've yet to hear of her.  And what does the Secretary of Education know about mental health?  Can we get Charlie Sheen instead? At least he's had an anger management class.



Now here's some icing on the really stinky cake:  Obama has asked for $25 million for state-based strategies that support “young people ages 16 to 25 with mental health or substance abuse issues.”

This is the same president who's ordered the Federal government to NOT enforce federal laws on marijuana use pretending to care about substance abuse. Wow.

Selling My Logos v. 4 Manuals

I've moved on to Logos v. 5, so I'm selling my Morris Proctor L4 manuals.  $10 shipped. They are used, but in very good condition (no underlining or highlighting).  Includes both volume 1 and volume 2.

If you want them, please leave a comment with an email where I can contact you. Use this format to avoid spambots (using mine as example): jbboren (at) gmail (dot) com.

First reply with 'I'll take them!' and an email gets them.

Isn't It Ironic?

America's direct involvement in Vietnam ended in 1973. The favorite epithet of the obnoxious liberal to cast upon our returning soldiers was "baby killer."

This same group of liberals has seen to the slaughter of over fifty million babies since.......1973.

Paedophilia as a Sexual Orientation

I've been reading about certain pressures by certain groups to classify paedophilia (pedophilia) as a sexual orientation, separate from heterosexual, homosexual, etc. This story in The Guardian is the latest.

There are several positives and several negatives to doing this. First, the homosexual community desperately wants this to happen. Whenever an major event of paedophilia happens, like the Penn State incidents, those in the homosexual community feel (rightly or wrongly) like their sexual orientation is to blame for the crimes against children, when in fact there's good evidence such an orientation is not to blame. The perpetrator in the Penn State case was a married man. So how are we to classify his sexual orientation?

Second, some on the far left are very concerned that this not happen.  After all, California just this winter passed a law making it illegal to use reparative therapy to try to change the sexual orientation of minors from homosexual to heterosexual.  If paedophilia was reclassified as a sexual orientation, there's no logical reason that paedophiles should not be protected from evil mental health experts who want to help them change in the same way that homosexuals are now protected. (A judge has put the law on hold for now for medical reasons...but the outcome is pretty well assured.)

So the homosexual community is left in a catch-22 situation where opposite outcomes are both equally harmful.

What isn't being factored into the equation by most at this point is this: we have already passed the point of no return on slippery sexual-moral issues. Thus, without some major intervention in culture, the normalization of paedophilia is already a guaranteed outcome. Woe is us!

So my prediction is this:  look for the homosexual community to begin to distance itself from the idea that got it to legalized gay marriage- that sexual orientation is innate and cannot be changed; and move toward the idea that sexual orientation is a choice, and a valid moral one based on the idea of what is desirable carrying the greatest moral weight in such a decision.  It is this position that will allow that community to continue to lobby for its interests without interfering in the interests of the paedophilia community, or harming itself by being associated with them.  Only after a period of time, when paedophilia is as accepted as any other sexual orientation will they allow any association between the two groups.