— Angelica (@CoachAlopez) March 25, 2013
Teh Stupid! They Are All Around Us!
But let's not just concern ourselves with ad hominem attacks and acutally educate poor Coach Alopez on why Universal Background Checks are actually a bad thing.
Universal Background Checks Defined
Right now, there are already criminal background checks when you go buy a gun from a licensed retail store. It is federal law.
Universal Background Checks will force person-to-person sale (or gifting) of a gun to get a background check of the person getting the gun.
Expanding, Or Enforcing, Current Backgroud Checks
Sadly, even current background checks would not have stop the Sandy Hook shooter or any of the mass shooters in resent memory. Even if Adam Lanza bought the guns himself, he still would not have been stop from getting a gun. He had no criminal record. Ok, from our current laws:
Let's say we put in a new restriction from mental health w/o Universal Background Checks: Same result.
Let's say we put in a new restriction from mental health for you and your family, w/o Universal Background Checks: Same result.
Let's say we put in a new restriction from mental health for you and your family, w/ Universal Background Checks: Same result.
So, we have a criminal/mental health restriction and Universal Background Checks, nothing would have changed. Adam Lanza would have still killed his mother and stolen the guns.
Nothing short of a complete ban on rifles and handguns would keep crazy people, who have never been arrested or institutionalized, from getting guns and causing mayhem. Even then, crazy people will find a way to kill people.
Wholesale Attack On Private Property Rights
Universal Background Checks will just make criminals of those of us who otherwise are lawful. This is because private property will quite frankly be a thing of the past. Private Property is definied as meeting all of these criteria:
- Ability To Dispose
Currently, licensed retail stores have the resourses and the time to run a criminal background check on people. It does not limit their ability to dispose, through sale, of a gun.
Let's push guns aside and let's focus on other items:
Cars. Cars are dangerous, no? In the hands of someone under the influence, they can kill people. Let's place a Universal Background Checks on the sale of cars. *boom* Now you have a car and you want to sale it to buy a new car or you need fast cash. Guess what, you are now responsable for if that person you sold it to kills anyone. Sale it to a dearlership or junkyard, forget it. Corporations are people and you still have get a background check on them. Your ability to dispose of your car is now infringed upon. Your car is now public property.
This can apply to any item. Books, iPhone, land, anything and everything. Any time one of those four private property criteria is infringed upon, it stops being yours.
The Fifth Amendment, Self-Incrimination, And Gun Registration
The only way to make Universal Background Checks workable, is a national gun registration. And guess what, that has already been declared unconstitutional... Under The Fifth Amendment:
We hold that a proper claim of the constitutional privilege against self-incrimination provides a full defense to prosecutions either for failure to register a firearm under sec.5841 or for possession of an unregistered firearm under sec.5851
Read that whole article. Good stuff there. And also ObamaCare also forbids such registration:
It seems that in their haste to cram socialized medicine down the throats of the American people, then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Barack Obama overlooked Senate amendment 3276, Sec. 2716, part c.
According to reports, that amendment says the government cannot use doctors to collect "any information relating to the lawful ownership or possession of a firearm or ammunition."
CNN is calling it "a gift to the nation's powerful gun lobby."
Ops! Guess we had to pass it to find out what was in it, no?
Greg Sargent is mentioned because he wrote an article wondering why anybody would be against universal background checks: I'm not entirely certain that Sargent realizes that the system he wants would more or less guarantee that people would end up using it to do evil, right out of the gate – and, more importantly, they'd be using it to do evil in unexpected (and unintended, for given value of 'unintended') ways. Or that mischievous or malicious people could do it to people like Greg Sargent; that, in fact, they will do it to people like Greg Sargent, simply because they can.
But then again, if Sargent's done nothing wrong then of course he has nothing to fear...
Coach Alopez is also unworried, as well made the "nothing to fear" ad nauseum argument. All right, then Angelica Alopez won't mind if I do a background check on her if this thing passes. It will be easy enough to find out if there was ever a Fresno State coach under that name, if it was a public school (it is). Then she might not mind if I publish the results here.
She doesn't mind. She doesn't care. She clearly has nothing to fear.
For The Children
Most people who want gun control, want to do it #ForTheChildren. OK:
If #GunControl Is #ForTheChildren, Why Is #Abortion Ok? #tcot #p2 #waronunborn #2ndamendment
The above quote, is 92 characters long. That gives you 48 characters to plugin whatever else you want to include in there on Twitter. No one has yet answer me. I'd like to see this answered by a liberal.
The "For The Children" argument for gun control is a false argument, because they have no problem with the wholesale slaghter of 55 million unborn children since Roe v Wade. To turn around to make this dumb argument is infuriating. They don't care about children, when they don't care about the unborn.
Coach Alopez is not stupid, not by a long shot. If we tweet this enough times, maybe she'll read this and learn something.