And your point is?

ATF says E. Washington source of Mexico guns:

Agent Steve Foreman told a forum Thursday in Yakima that gun shows in Eastern Washington are the main problem because unlicensed dealers avoid making background checks on the buyers.

Foreman said the investigation into one drug cartel shootout in Tijuana traced 15 pistols and rifles back to the Tri-Cities.

Notice they didn’t say the 15 guns were sold at gun shows. But they worded it in such a way that it leads one to believe that.

And 15 guns? What’s your point? Most of the gun owners I know have more guns than that. I know a guy in the Tri-Cities that had that many guns stolen from his home.

Are they attempting to justify a law that will interfere with a specific enumerated right exercised by millions of people yet can be circumvented by stealing the guns found in just one home?

Go away and come back again when someone finds your brain for you.

Update: The complete story is here. I see nothing in the story to change my opinion stated above.

7 thoughts on “And your point is?

  1. I don’t see what the problem is with background checks before purchasing a gun — unless you can’t pass the background check. Background checks really are “common sense” gun control and most people, including a lot of gun owners, support them! That is, unless they think it’s perfectly okay to supply criminals with guns.

    “Are they attempting to justify a law that will interfere with a specific enumerated right exercised by millions of people yet can be circumvented by stealing the guns found in just one home?”

    I could take this statement the way I know you meant it, or I could ask: “So? You think we should limit the number of guns a person can own? GOOD IDEA!!!” 🙂

    You make it sound like it interferes with the people’s rights to buy milk at Wal-Mart if they have to stand in a line to buy it. Let the milk buyers go to the front!!! Let the milk buyers free!!!!!

    Yeah, those background checks are so hard on legal gun buyers that we should do away with them forever! Let the nutcases and the criminals buy guns! It’s not right to make us stand in line!

    Oh brother!

  2. The problems with background checks are:

    1) They are expensive and raise the price of exercising your specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms.
    2) They can delay your exercise of a specific enumerated right. A right delayed is a right denied.
    3) They create a defacto gun owner (if not gun) registration.
    4) If the background checks are widely available they are likely to be misused.
    5) They increase the profit in the black market for guns.

    Do you think requiring background checks for the sale of illegal recreational drugs would cut down on the abuse of them? They are already illegal. You are only making them “more illegal”. And so it is with sale of firearms to people who cannot pass a background check.

  3. ubu52; you can keep throwing pitches, and we’ll keep knocking them out of the park, but it gets boring after a while;
    So, with guns having been near totally illegal in WA DC, how safe were the residents after many years? With guns near totally illegal in the UK, violent crime is on the rise. Internationally and throughout history, weapon restrictions have preceded mass genocide.

    Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof. Claiming that infringing on a right will make us safer is pretty extraordinary, most especially because the purpose of the second amendment was to make us safer as a free nation. Surely you can back up your claims with extraordinary proof, else you wouldn’t be making them. Your emotions, and what you may envision in your fever dreams, aren’t admissible. Answer Just One Question. A person with a rational argument would show us the beef, or concede.

  4. This is part and parcel of the coordinated national effort by MAIG to track all private sales and do away (in states that have it) with state pre emption. Not to make us “safer”, not to lower crime, but to enforce the malleable mindset that helps ween what little sense of self reliant individualism is still in the population into a “village”. The folks for whom freedom matters need to get active in this kind of thing now. We need to join the political process so the elections stop going to the folks handing money (from one of their pockets back to the)people.

  5. And while I was at the gym I thought of better reasons. I’m not a morning person so takes a while for the brain start working at full capacity.

    6) It has a chilling effect on the exercise of a fundamental right. Just as requiring background checks for free speech or as a condition of joining a church or before you would let a black person date your white child.
    7) Background checks appear to nearly everyone to be a good idea. It’s obvious that it should make the world a safer place. The problem is it doesn’t work. It is like the belief in a flat earth of 600 years ago. I do not believe you will be able to find any data to support the claim that people are safer because of background checks (Just One Question, remember?). You will find data on how many people were stopped from purchasing a firearm. But that is not the same as making people safer. Adding more cost, in both time and money, to interfere with a specific enumerated right must have some justification. If proponents can’t claim to make a measurable difference in public safety then just what is the justification? And think about this for a moment–If someone cannot be trusted in public with a gun what makes you think they can be trusted in public with a can of gasoline and book of matches? And public possession of gasoline and matches are not a specific enumerated right.

  6. While I am NOT a fan of background checks for private transfers (nor of the BATF overall), I have a question that typically shuts down the oppostion.

    When they start comparing guns to cars and licensing of both, I simply point out my automobile drivers license is good in all 50 states with few restrictions (even good on military bases if you can get on) so why not follow through with the comparison and let me carry in all 50 states with the same level of sideline restrictions. Usually stops ’em dead in their tracks as that blows a large hole in their pitch and opens large doors against the bans they are trying to acheive.

    So, I’ll consider volunteering for yet another background check if I can carry essentially everywhere. No serial numbers, type restrictions, or other such restrictions tied to the license……..just univeral carry. Not just concealed carry, but open or concealed carry at my will. No mental health checks, just that I have no record or wants/warrants. Innocent until proven guilt and done essentially instantly – like when you leave the DMV with your new license in hand.

    Back the main topic, what about the guns which the US gave their military which are now in the hands of the drug lords? Or the 85+ of the guns in Mexico which have NO serial numbers? Those did not originate in ANY legal US market! The numbers being quoted were selected to fit an agenda, one which is unConstitutional.

    And what about the fact Yakima has a HUGE number of illegals and at least was a central drug distribtion point for the US?

Comments are closed.