Congressman Dan Crenshaw sent out a Tweet about why he’s against universal background checks.

I generally don’t lend people my guns, but whatever.  Currently what he did is legal according to the laws of the State of Texas.

His point about not being able to let people borrow his guns with a UBC law has to deal with the fact that according to H.R. 8 any such transfer would require going to an FFL to do a NICS check and 4473, pay a transfer fee, and would essentially make the borrower the new owner of the gun.

That is an expensive hassle.

Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez jumped on Crenshaw, saying that he was breaking the law assuming that the people he lent his guns to were criminals, i.e., he was lending them guns because they couldn’t pass background checks.

If you go into Crenshaw’s Tweet, you will see that the same assumption is made by just about everyone commenting.

At this point, all is stupid.

Here is where it takes a turn for the worse.

Fine, valid point.  AOC’s response?

Assume that everyone is a domestic abuser.

One would think that Dan would know the friends he trusts well enough to lend guns to, to not be abusers.

If the abuse is that well hidden, then there is likely no conviction to get flagged by a background check anyway.

Furthermore, as we at this blog have covered before, the closure of the “boyfriend loophole” is a move that will guarantee abuse as bad as the worst Red Flag laws.

Gun rights are going to be flushed away by the abandonment of “innocent until proven guilty.”  The new standard will be “we don’t know, but we’re going to assume the worst.”

Just because you don’t have an arrest or a conviction doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t be a prohibited person, it just means that nobody has come forward to accuse you of something yet.

I can guarantee you that if the Presidential candidates that are calling for national gun licensing get their way, your national gun license will be as may issue as a New Jersey CCW permit.

Spread the love

By J. Kb

8 thoughts on “AOC let the truth about UBC out on Twitter”
  1. From what Joe Huffman has described in his blog, the WA version of UBC means, strictly speaking, that allowing the guy at the next position at the local range to pick up your gun and look at it is illegal, unless you run him through a background check first. Ditto taking your cousin to the range and having her use your gun there while you stand next to her.
    Realistically speaking no one pays any attention to that nonsense, but that doesn’t make the law any less evil.

  2. I am against UBC. There is a HUGE period at the end of that sentence.

    I also am one of those people that was fooled by somebody I called a friend. Said “friend” decided that he would marry a woman with two young girls. And when they got to the right age for him, around about 12, he decided that he would start having sex with them.

    And nobody knew. He scared the girls so badly that they were positively terrified of what he would do to their mother if they were to tell. The younger, at around 15, while sub-human toilet droppings, was in the local jail for check fraud (quote: Not his fault, they just didn’t follow the agreement he had with them), she told her mom.

    He was never released from jail and is now spending 23 hours a day in that special prison where they put the kiddie diddlers.

    I did not believe until I had heard her description of the events and when some of the evidence started to come out.

    Those monsters exist everywhere. We are not immune from their lies.

    And this toilet floater, he was not a prohibited person. Up until the time he was arrested for sexually abusing a minor, he would have and did pass the background checks, multiple times. He could have killed the mother, the two girls at anytime. Me “loaning” him a firearm would not have made that more or less easy.

  3. Those that are convinced that they are on the moral high ground (Remember, AOC stated that it is better to be morally right instead of factually correct.) are also convinced that their actions are morally correct as well.

    Thus, they can assume that people are in fact guilty until proven innocent. You are an abuser, because no one has proven otherwise.

    Yet, the opposite is not acceptable. No one can accuse those on the moral high ground of guilt because they are morally superior. If one were to claim that AOC is accepting bribes and has committed voter fraud, the outrage would be massive. How dare you accuse her of something without proof! And, why does she get this “privilege?” Because she is on the moral high ground, and you are not.

    It starts with “we need to protect the innocent” (not sure how you do that when you are assuming everyone is guilty, but I digress) and it ends up with death camps. And the people loading the undesirables onto the cattle cars will be convinced they are morally correct to do so.

    I abhor hypocrites like AOC. They cannot comprehend that perhaps they are hypocrites at all. “Prejudice is bad” cannot co-exist with “gun owners are all evil.” Yet, in their minds, it can and does. Because they believe they are morally superior, their prejudices are not bias, they are the result of demonstrable facts. (However, their definition of facts are tainted by the morally correct is more important belief.)

    1. It starts with “we need to protect the innocent” (not sure how you do that when you are assuming everyone is guilty, but I digress)…

      How you do that is right there in your comment — i.e., the “moral high ground”.

      AOC believes she has the moral high ground, and we don’t. Therefore she is innocent, while it’s safe to presume us guilty because, by the “moral high ground” definition, we are not.

      So when someone like her says “We need to protect the innocent,” what they really mean is, “We need to protect ourselves,” because in their minds, they are the only innocents.

      And all gun owners MUST be evil, because they have the means to overrule and override the innocents’ tyrants’ “protection”.

      … and it ends up with death camps.

      Yes, it does. As it must, because that’s the only way they’ll ever be rid of us government-hating violent insurrectionist freedom-loving, liberty-minded gun owners.

  4. If you can assume that all men are potential domestic abusers, I can assume that all women are gold digging whores. (Which, in case you don’t realize, is wrong. Just as wrong as her position.)

    AOC, your prejudice is showing.

  5. Funny thing, I didn’t see anywhere where Dan Crenshaw said he was the one who loaned that young lady the gun, as AOC is implying. Or that he has ever loaned anyone a gun.

    What he’s saying is that UBCs keep good people — who may be in immediate and dire need of protection — disarmed until they jump through a bunch of arbitrary and increasingly vindictive hoops, and those who are in immediate danger remain in immediate danger until the State deigns to grant a special exemption.

    “Gun control” laws in general, and UBCs in particular, are seriously one of the most racist, misogynistic, and EVIL public policies ever devised by scoundrels and tyrants. It’s OSHA for criminals.

    (See also: Carol Bowne, who was murdered in her driveway by her estranged husband, 43 days after submitting an application for a permit to own a pistol in New Jersey, which the state was still “processing”. She stated in the application that she needed the gun to protect herself from him.

    We keep hearing about how “gun control saves lives.” Yes, it does. It saved Carol Bowne’s husband’s life.)

    Besides which, I could respond to AOC, “You are a member of Congress. How did you get to where you are and not know what an in-sink garbage disposal is?”

    1. Being a NYer in recovery (I developed the wisdom to get the F out of there…) I can clarify on the in sink disposer issue. They are illegal in most of NY, especially the NYC Metro area. It is quite possible AOC had not ever seen one in her life.

      Although… I do not believe the same restriction applies in the Boston area, so it is quite possible she would have encountered an InSinkErator while in college. But, since it is clear she was not paying attention in class (at least in her economic classes), what are the odds she was paying attention anywhere else.

      1. Don’t forget that her gal-from-the-city thing is mostly an act. She’s the child of wealthy suburbanites.

Login or register to comment.