Skip to main content
Report this ad

See also:

They clamor for 'universal background checks,' but really want universal denials

If the other side gets its way, this kind of peace of mind will itself be considered a disquialifying factor for gun ownership
Photo © Oleg Volk. All rights reserved. Used with permission.

Josh Horwitz, executive director of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, wrote in the Huffington Post yesterday that "Expanding Background Checks Necessary, But Not Enough." By that, he means that of course he remains fanatically on board with the forcible citizen disarmament lobby's obsessive longing for "universal background checks," but he also wants a vastly larger percentage of those background checks to come back with a "No gun for you!" answer.

That means, of course, that he's an enthusiastic cheerleader for Obama's newly announced intention to simply do an end run around the cumbersome process of dealing with legislators for writing new law--and that Obama will impose the new restrictions by executive fiat:

Gun violence prevention efforts got off to a great start in 2014 when the Obama administration announced two new executive actions on January 3 that will help keep firearms out of the hands of people at an elevated risk of being a danger to themselves and/or others.

This is good, Horwitz tells us, because background checks are so spectacularly failing to be the panacea the gun prohibitionists have promised them to be:

In the wake of a series of gruesome mass shootings perpetrated by individuals who legally purchased their murder weapons it is becoming abundantly obvious that merely expanding background checks is not enough.

National Gun Rights Examiner David Codrea, by the way, reports on the proposals by the Health and Human Services Department and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, to implement the executive orders. Those agencies are accepting public comment now, so be sure to read the article.

To cover their embarrassment over the fact that every high profile shooting carried out by someone who passed the vaunted background check system drives another nail into the coffin of the credibility of the claim that "universal background checks" are the key to stopping "gun violence," Horwitz and friends respond with the only argument left to them--not nearly enough background checks result in the violation of the checked person's Constitutionally guaranteed, fundamental human right of the individual to keep and bear arms.

So he and the other anti-gun jihadists of the group "Consortium of Risk-Based Firearm Policy" have drawn up a long list of factors that should result in a once-free individual being robbed of this palladium of liberty. This "Consortium," by the way, includes a Dr. Daniel Webster, who has been arguing for a vastly expanded "prohibited persons" list for years (the group also includes rabidly anti-gun Dr. Garen Wintemute--no agenda here, obviously). Now one need not commit a felony, or be committed to a mental hospital, in order to be stripped of one's right to effective self-defense. Now, misdemeanors are to be enough to render one's life unworthy of protecting.

This particular proposal is an interesting one:

  • Alcohol abuse and illegal use of controlled substances increase the risk of violence toward self and others.

Alcohol abuse, in other words, is to be considered a risk factor for "gun violence," and so one of the "Consortium's" recommendations is a gun ban for anyone with two or more DUI convictions within the past five years. But, say--guess what one major risk factor for alcohol abuse is:

Alcohol abuse represents an important issue in police work. Estimates show that alcohol abuse among police officers in the United States is approximately double that of the general population where 1 in 10 adults abuses alcohol.

Are Horwitz and pals proposing that we disarm the "Only Ones" (or at least one in five of them)?

To the anti-gun zealots, the only thing wrong with "universal background checks" is that as things stand now, many Americans can pass them. That, clearly, is not acceptable to them.

Report this ad