In the wake of the Las Vegas massacre, the anti-gun fanatics have finally dropped all pretense of wanting only “common sense” gun “safety” regulations. Democrat House Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi, when asked whether banning “bump stocks” would lead to a “slippery slope,” enthusiastically replied, “I certainly hope so!”
A number of talking-heads absurdly claimed that “states with tougher gun laws have fewer gun deaths.” They don’t, of course. After all, if they did, Chicago would be the safest city in America. Then came the demands to ban “high-capacity” magazines and “assault weapons.” Some wanted to limit the number of guns you can own. But scariest of all were the calls to actually abolish the 2nd Amendment.
Several anti-gun spokespeople falsely claimed that mass murders “are a uniquely American problem” — apparently, they forgot the Ariana Grande concert bombing in Manchester, England. And laws in France didn’t stop terrorists from using a truck to mow down hundreds in Nice, killing almost twice as many people as died in the Las Vegas attack.
Then there were the bogus talking points repeated endlessly, such as that “universal background checks are favored by 90% of Americans” without identifying the source of this “statistic.” A number of years ago, when I still lived in Minnesota, I investigated a similar claim made by one of our local “news” organizations. Turns out that the question on their “unbiased” survey was:
“Do you believe that anyone who purchases a firearm should have to pass a criminal background check?”
In polling circles, this is what is called a “push” question, which means the very wording is designed to slant participants toward a “yes” response. They know that most normal people would agree that anyone buying a gun should pass a background check.
But the real issue is can such a scheme actually be implemented successfully? And the answer to that question is clearly a resounding “NO!” The Las Vegas shooter is a perfect example. He had multiple background checks, but since he had a clean record, he passed them all.
Even if background checks were required on private sales, gun shows, etc., no rational person would believe that a gang member, a terrorist or even a someone out to cause harm is going to submit to one. Besides, he or she can simply have a confederate with a clean record buy it for him or her (just as the Columbine shooters did). Sure, buying a firearm for a prohibited person is already a felony, but such cases are seldom prosecuted, and sentences are often pitifully light.
Besides, FBI and local law enforcement records show that an astonishing 98% of guns recovered from violent offenders were NOT bought legally at all — they were bought illegally off the street (or stolen). Interestingly, contrary to claims of a mythical “gun show loophole,” virtually NONE are bought from gun shows.
What none of the media types are talking about is that the underlying — and more insidious — long-term goal of the “universal background check” is to create a national database listing every gun you own, paving the way for future bans of any gun “they” don’t find acceptable … followed, inevitably, by confiscation.
Attention gun owners, this is not a drill.
