WE MIGHT SUPPORT BACKGROUND CHECKS IF ... Part 3
Children are convinced they know something the rest of us don’t. Take the new children’s marches for our lives — to them, it seems simple. They have demands, and they just know their demands will work. But look closely — they’re the same proposals as anti-rights adults and hoplophobes have been making for decades. Is it just coincidence? Are the kids just puppets and they don’t know it? That’s rhetorical; they are, and they don’t know. While a few defectors have wised up, most movement-children remain in lock-step.
This energetic Hogg child, for example, very self-righteous and full of himself, entertained the 87th conference of mayors in January, televised by C-SPAN, with factoids he has been spreading far and wide. Newer, better background checks are one of the panaceas he implores his flock to seek. He also insists he doesn’t want to take people’s guns away.
He poses the three following questions to the hard corps: “Are you a terrorist? No. Do you plan to kill yourself? No. Are you planning a mass murder? No. Then I don’t want to take your guns.” To which most of the mayors provide a standing ovation and he stoically struts off, stage left. His self-created, self-answered tautology is fabricated from nothing, yet goes unquestioned.
But Mr. Hogg, the people supporting you off stage do want to take everyone’s guns. He seems blithely unaware of this salient fact, and no one asks. The question of, “Have you read the actual bills you support?” has either never been put to him, he read them and didn’t understand what he read, or he knows the bills plan to ban most popular and decent guns in America and lies about it. Legal guns with detachable magazines and “a grip,” as Feinstein’s bill frames it, would be goners — but only for civilians.
If …
Why haven’t reporters questioned the children, or anyone, why they want background checks? It may seem self-evident, but it really isn’t. Look what happens in our test Q&A dialog, using the left’s clever approach:
Q: So, one of your goals is to have universal background checks on all gun transfers, correct?
A: Yes, absolutely.
Q: Why?
A: Why? Isn’t it obvious?
Q: Perhaps you should tell us.
A: So criminals can’t have guns, obviously.
Q: If that’s your goal — and you know so many criminals already have affect armed criminals?
A: What? I don’t understand the question. And how about high-capacity magazines?
Q: Good point. Let’s cover those next. How would background checks stop armed criminals?
A: Uhh, well, it would stop new criminals from getting new guns.
Q: New criminals? How many new criminals are there? Is there any proof of this, and wouldn’t they just get guns the way the other criminals got theirs?
A: This would be illegal, don’t you understand? And those would be illegal guns. This is getting us nowhere. (The mayor’s conference actually suggested passing laws making it illegal for criminals to have illegal guns — you read that right — after learning most criminals don’t get guns legally. Seriously.)
Q: You’re right. But isn’t the main idea really to stop schoolkids from slaughtering their classmates?
A: Now you get it!
Q: Good. How would background checks do this?
A: You’re not like the other reporters …
Q: The mass murderers in schools mostly used guns they already owned, got legally, or ones they stole, got illegally or obtained through murder or government mistakes. How did other reporters react to your answers?
A: They never asked bizarre questions like you. I don’t like you.
Q: Did you know for decades now, after a criminal is actually spotted by a background check in a gun store, with the FBI right there on the phone, the person is just sent away, cash in hand, and the dealer just hangs up? Did you know that?
A: You’re lying. This can’t be right. I never heard that. And I’ve been doing this a long time. Besides, what about Trump and Russian collusions?
And …
It’s perfectly true the children, and most Americans, including every legacy “news” reporter I’ve spoken with, are not aware criminals, once found trying to buy guns through the acclaimed check, are just sent away. We have their names, addresses, picture ID and their falsely signed affidavits (itself felony perjury), and we tell them to walk. Why? The official position of the White House, the FBI and the ATF when I asked, after the Brady Bill, was “The Brady law was neither designed nor intended to increase the number of federal prosecutions annually.” The enabling legislation for the background check was enacted back in 1994. Say what?
Brady checks are insufficient grounds for arrests. Dr. John Lott’s research shows well over 90 percent of those stopped can’t be prosecuted for anything, backed up by ATF and FBI figures — and actions. The useful idiots in the media and the public at the time were hoodwinked into believing it was really about five-day waiting periods — remember that now-abandoned canard? Stop crimes-of-passion and save the world?
The dialog listed before could go on for more ink than the editor will allow me, and I could start getting real sarcastic if it weren’t so outrageous. The children demanding background checks and other gun laws have no idea what they’re spending or doing. Our “news” media simply falls behind them in lock-step, like mindless robots, parroting and promoting their nonsense. Without knowing it, they’re both shifting the nation’s power from a freely armed people to a tyrannical monopoly of officials in business suits with a body-armored Praetorian Guard.
Alan Korwin’s website features plain-English books on state and federal gun laws for the public. Visit GunLaws.com
