1. […] And yup. […]

2. Background checks should be opposed at all levels, not fixed. In fact I can’t see how we can make a solid case against universal background checks if we keep pretending the concept of them at the retail level is anything but immoral and unconstitutional. This is simply a system designed to keep “the wrong people” from exercising a basic human Right that’s enumerated in at least one constitution. Most folks are genuinely surprised how easy it is to land on that list of wrong people.

   So yes, I feel ya on having the goal posts constantly moved, but it doesn’t hurt to remember that said goalposts are in our own endzone, and scoring runs up the total for the enemy, not us.

   1. Brady BG Checks will not be fixed because it will mean they have to air the clownish operation they’ve been running since its inception. How do you think people are gonna react when they realize that the “two million” people that were rejected were for the most part never prosecuted for different reasons?

      “You mean we had all the evidence for a prosecution and nothing was done?”
      “Nope.”
      “The WTF is this shit good for?”
      “Well, it stops bad guys from getting guns.”
      “Really? They fail the BG check and decided right there to give up a life of crime and become missionaries? Are you really that stupid?”
      “Er…I don’t know.”
      “You don’t know? They went on to be criminals and hurt people. People that could have been saved or unhurt if the assholes were in jail for violation of federal firearms law.”
      “But…but… But think of the children! You are racist and it is Bush’s fault!”

      1. 50 years from now, if the US is still a thing, the liberals will still be blaming everything on Bush.

         1. Well, Nixon was out of date.

   2. See now, that’s the trick, is that really, background checks can’t *be* fixed in any meaningful way that could possibly get passed. Not without getting rid of them.

3. I’m thinking they’d react a bit better than if they found out what got a lot of them on the prohibited persons list in the first place.

   “So, this background check #78922981567 – why didn’t you prosecute him or her?”
   ‘Well we could but it’d make for real bad publicity”
   “How is it bad publicity to prosecute someone that’s so dangerous and socially defective that they can’t be trusted with a device as mechanically and morally simple as a firearm?”
   “Well, because she snuck into a movie theater. In Ohio.”
   “Wait – she snuck into a movie theater to avoid prosecution for trying to illegally buy a gun?”
   “Um, no, she got caught sneaking into a movie theater in Ohio and that’s why it’s illegal for her to buy a gun”
   “So the only reason she can’t buy a gun is that she snuck into a movie theater?”
   “In Ohio. Right.”
   “And if you prosecutor her…?”
   “Well, it’d get out how nonsensical the prohibited person category is and they might do away with the whole thing once they realize that just upping the maximum possible penalty to 1 year in federal jail or 2 years in state jail could land them on the list for minor things they did when they were young even though they served no jail time at all”
   “And you want to keep the background check system to keep us safe?”
   “Right”
   “From vicious Ohio movie sneaker-inners?”
   “Right”

4. The antis have no interest in really fixing the background check system. Its failure any time makes them happier than we can ever know. That’s because the solution to that is confiscation, and that’s the endgame.

   1. Just like they’re thrilled every time there’s a mass shooting. The higher the body count and more sympathetic the victims, the better.

5. The correct answer, of course, is as follows:
   “Gun Control Whackjobs:”We always supported fixing of Background checks. SHUT UP!”

   Gun People: “You said just last week {thus-and-so, with sources}, you Lying-A***d, Morally-Worthless, POSs!!!! ”

   Probably useless to call them out, but I’ll admit it’d be kind of satisfying….

Comments are closed.