Quote of the day—Emily Miller

The only way a mandatory check would work would be if the government could track every one of the 300 million firearms in the United States. And then the criminals would ask permission before buying them.

Emily Miller
Emily Gets Her Gun: …But Obama Wants to Take Yours
[300 million guns? We have computers that could do that, right? They built a computer system that signed people up for Obamacare so they should be able to do that for gun owners, right?*

These would be necessary, but not sufficient, conditions for “universal background check to work”.

They would also have to shut off the smugglers. You should assume this would work about as well as the War on Drugs has worked.

They would also have to prevent all the 3-D printers from making new guns. You should assume this would work about as well as the peeing into the wind.—Joe]


*In fact the Canadian gun registry (disbanded after costing 2 billion rather than 2 million) was built by the same people that wrote the Obamacare website.

8 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Emily Miller

  1. They’d need to be less concerned about 3D printers than about CNC machines. And they’d have to find a way to track any kind of tubing capable of withstanding high internal pressures. And they’d have to stop giving a free pass to cops who leave guns sitting around unsecured.

  2. You’d also have to get rid of http://www.thehomegunsmith.com — and all the knowledge described in there. And a lot of books published in the last half millennium. And knowledge of the properties of charcoal, sulphur, and potash. Or the effect of nitric acid on cotton. And so on.

  3. Then we can move on to banning knives and all other sharp objects and follow up with everyone get amputations of the hands and feet which are quite capable of killing, too. Then we can all live in isolated personal balls to avoid dangerous human contact. What a brave new world. Smells like nirvana. (end sarcasm).

  4. The point of “universal” background checks is NOT to follow gun ownership. As you pointed out, that is a ridiculous goal to achieve when criminals break laws on gun acquisition and ownership.

    The purpose of the proposed law is to chill the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms by the law-abiding, through difficulty of legally following the rules and potential for arbitrary and capricious (or even targeted) prosecution followed by severe punishments.

    If the author of a blog had to spend $20 per post (or $0.02 for that matter) and keep every post registered with the government, or face expensive defense against politically motivated prosecution and maybe years in prison for incorrect government-maintained paperwork, I doubt there would be many willing to take the time and risk to share their thoughts online. But graffiti artists would still practice their trade unhindered by the registration requirement.

    • You got it. It’s about showing us who’s in charge, who owns us, and it puts us in our place within the authoritarian chain of command. It’s psychological warfare, and we fall for it virtually every time.

  5. “You should assume this would work about as well as the War on Drugs has worked.”

    The war on drugs has worked, and is working, extremely well, but I suppose we’d have to discuss its primary purpose to make such a determination. I.e.; let’s not conflate the selling point with the product, otherwise we’ll have to conclude that Ted Bundy was a very nice, charming, and totally wonderful and sensitive guy.

    • True. In both cases, the actual intent is to empower criminals and the officials they corrupt. That’s a secret goal but it’s obvious if you think about the incentives. And indeed, gun ban laws in victim-disarmament states are working well, just as drug laws do. Just ask all the robbers in Massachusetts who have free reign there.

Comments are closed.