It is the Second Amendment, Not the “Gun Lobby” That Must Be Satisfied on Gun Control

Below is my column in The Hill on the call for bans and limits on guns like the AR-15 since the massacre in Texas.  Both President Joe Biden and former President Barack Obama have blamed the gun lobby for the violence in calling for new major gun controls. However, the barrier to banning weapons like the AR-15 rests more with the Second Amendment than the gun lobby. Any effort to reach some “commonsense” solutions will depend on the willingness to end the sweeping rhetoric and deal with the realities of the constitutional limits on gun control.

Here is the column:

As the nation mourns another massacre of children, we again try to make sense of the senseless. It is unimaginable and yet all too familiar. Within minutes of the killing of 19 children and two teachers at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas, a familiar cycle has emerged — grief coupled with angry demands for gun reforms.

President Biden used his initial remarks to denounce the gun lobby and demand gun control. The president spoke passionately and movingly on this loss but, after roughly a dozen lines, he turned to the politics of gun control, asking: “When in God’s name are we going to stand up to the gun lobby? When in God’s name will we do what we all know in our gut needs to be done?”

It is a virtual mantra after massacres, as politicians pledge to stop gun violence while denouncing their opponents as facilitating the carnage.

The gun lobby, backed by millions of gun owners, is indeed a powerful political force. But it is not the gun lobby but the Constitution that is the greatest obstacle to some of these calls for gun bans or limits. If we want to get something done, we will need to be honest and nonpartisan, a challenge that previously has proven too much for our leaders. There is a limited range of movement for legislation, given the constitutional right to bear arms and controlling constitutional precedent.

In discussing “common sense gun laws,” the president once again denounced the availability of what he collectively called “assault weapons,” a common reference to such popular models as the AR-15. “What in God’s name do you need an assault weapon for, except to kill someone?” the president asked. “Deer aren’t running through the forest with Kevlar vests on, for God’s sake. It’s just sick.”

The call for “common sense” responses to this plague of violence is welcomed, but common sense also requires a common understanding of the realities of gun ownership and gun control.

Take the AR-15. Efforts to ban this model already have failed in the courts on constitutional grounds, though litigation is continuing on that issue. In 2008, the Supreme Court handed down a landmark ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller, recognizing the Second Amendment as encompassing an individual right to bear arms. Clearly many have good-faith disagreements with the constitutional interpretations behind Heller. However, that is currently the controlling precedent.

The AR-15 is the most popular gun in America and the number is continuing to rise rapidly, with one AR-15 purchased in every five new firearms sales. These AR-15s clearly are not being purchased for armored deer. Many are purchased for personal and home protection; it also is popular for target shooting and hunting. Many gun owners like the AR-15 because it is modular; depending on the model, you can swap out barrels, bolts and high-capacity magazines, or add a variety of accessories. While it does more damage than a typical handgun, it is not the most powerful gun sold in terms of caliber; many guns have equal or greater calibre.

That is why laws to ban or curtail sales of the AR-15 run into constitutional barriers. Most recently, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit struck down a California ban on adults under 21 purchasing semi-automatic weapons like the AR-15. And the Supreme Court has a pending Second Amendment case, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen, that is likely to further strengthen gun rights this term.

After past tragedies, some of us have cautioned that there is a limited range of options for gun bans, given constitutional protections. There also are practical barriers, with an estimated 393 million guns in the United States and an estimated 72 million gun owners; three out of ten Americans say they have guns. Indeed, gun ownership rose during the pandemic. When former Texas congressman and U.S. Senate candidate Beto O’Rourke declared, “Hell yes, we are going to take your AR-15,” he was widely celebrated on the left. However, even seizing that one type of gun would require confiscation of as many as 15 million weapons.

If the president truly wants a “common sense” response to this tragedy, it needs to be based on reality, not rhetoric. In the past, massacres have been weaponized for political purposes, with measures that are either clearly unconstitutional or largely ineffectual.

When advocates call for banning gun sales, their challenge is not “the gun lobby” but the Second Amendment. Notably, after this latest massacre, film director and leftist activist Michael Moore went on MSNBC to call for the repeal of the Second Amendment. Moore said he does not want “to nickel-and-dime this … we need some really drastic action here.” He insisted we need to accept that “we are a violent people, to begin with. This country was birthed in violence, with genocide of the native people at the barrel of a gun.” Putting aside the hyperbolic language, Moore at least is being honest about what this would take — though a repeal is highly unlikely to garner the needed 38 states to ratify such an amendment.

Instead, we need a national dialogue, not another diatribe on guns.

There are some gun limits that could pass constitutional muster, but they will not materially reduce the number of guns in society or, necessarily, gun violence. There also are a variety of areas that could offer real benefits in reducing such shootings, from badly needed mental health program funding and greater school security to more effective “red flag” laws.

Many of us are prepared to respond to the president’s call to “to turn this pain into action.” However, when he says we can “do so much more,” we need to be honest with the American people on the range of movement allowed under the Constitution to restrict an individual constitutional right. Otherwise, we will continue this tragic cycle of mass shootings followed by familiar political maneuvering.

There are 19 children and two teachers who deserve more from all of us.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. Follow him on Twitter @JonathanTurley.

218 thoughts on “It is the Second Amendment, Not the “Gun Lobby” That Must Be Satisfied on Gun Control”

  1. We may find that if we address the perpetrators and their swift Punishment, criminal attacks in general may substantially decrease? As I mentioned yesterday the weapons don’t wake up, open their gun case, walk into a building and start indiscriminately discharging on their own.

  2. As the weaponry of the government becomes more awesome, then so must the people’s weaponry in proportion

  3. We should increase our nuclear arsenal ten-fold, from 5,000 to 50,000 nuclear warheads. It would make me very comfortable
    knowing that any would-be adversary would be blasted to Kingdom Come. I would sleep very soundly.

      1. It has to do with the 1st Amendment.

        Jonathan Turley’s Res ipsa loquitur – The thing itself speaks – supports the Constitution which provides the freedom of speech.

        Of note: Jonathan Turley’s Res ipsa loquitur is private property, per the 5th Amendment, and Professor Turley may selectively deny the freedom of speech and reward any commenter with a BAN-FOR-LIFE.

        Aninny is inordinately deserving, in that he would advocate making America ripe for enslavement and defenseless against the psychotic, power-hungry, despotic communists in Russia, China, North Korea, Venezuela, Cuba, Vietnam, etc.

  4. Biden uses every opportunity to speak of white supremacy. He didn’t happen to mention that the latest shooting was committed by a person named Salvador Ramos. You know, an old Irish name. Did Joe Biden talk about a black supremacist who shot up a New York subway. Joe’s motivation is only righteous when it can be used to keep his party in power. This man is a despicable human being.

    1. No mention of the Black Nation of Islam follower who rammed a barricade and hit two Capitol Hill police officers with his vehicle and then jumped out of his car brandishing a knife with a very large blade at the officers, killing one of them. Not a politically convenient narrative for Democrats or their media.

      No mention of the Black supremacist who drove his SUV into a Waukesha, Wisconsin Christmas parade killing six people, including children, while injuring sixty-two others. No consolation visit from Pres. Biden either. Again, not a politically convenient narrative for Democrats and their media.

      But wait….there’s more….

      Now let’s address Barack Obama’s grotesque tweet the day after Uvalde massacre where he included a reminder for the country to not forget about St. George Floyd and his grieving family. Truly despicable.

      1. Hard to know which was worse….Beto’s stunt at the press conference….or Barack Obama’s grotesque tweet invoking sympathy for George Floyd, a thug who resisted arrest, high on drugs and had a history of horrible crimes. Yes, Barack Hussein O, let us as a nation never forget to worship at your altar to St. George, while the 22 dead bodies at Uvalde are still warm. You sicko. Leftism is a mental disorder.

  5. I don’t have anything left to say about American leftists. All I hear is, ‘Blah, blah, blah, me, me. me, hate, hate, hate.’. I am not voting for a dem in this country ever again. And I used to. Obama’s second term made that a future impossibility; the rest is just confirmation of my choice.

  6. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe_Elementary_School_bombing

    When I was in 7th grade in Houston, Tx., a deranged parent went to the school playground, durng recess, at Edgar Allan Poe elementary, where I had attended. He tried to gather children around him and then detonated a bomb that he had in his briefcase. My second grade teacher, who was also a faithful member of our church, Mrs. Jennie Kolter, was among those killed.
    One of the first on the scene was her son Bill, (Dr. William Kolter). Bill, a close family friend, sang in our church choir and was Chief resident at Hermann hospital at that time.. He was the one who found his mother’s body. Because of this experience, Bill became one of the creators and instigators of Houston’s first EMS program (mobile hospitals). It was one of the first in the nation.
    My point is this: Crazy people who wish to do massive harm, don’t always use guns!

  7. We should go to war with Russia and China once and for all so that we don’t have to keep deterring them perpetually forever and ever. Perpetual deterrence could be more costly in the long-run. It’s like putting ointment on a thorn every day, year after year, when all you have to do is to remove the thorn.

    1. Anonymous, before you are so anxious to go to war you should listen to this song by John Gary.

  8. Everyone does not agree, Turley, that the Second Amendment created an unfettered right for individuals to own guns. The Second Amendment speaks to a “well regulated militia”. If a state’s “militia” can be not just “regulated” but “well regulated”, then why can’t non-militia guns and gun owners be regulated? Former SCOTUS Chief Justice Warren Burger blamed the NRA and called its position on an unfettered right to own guns “fraud”. There are a lot of us who agree. We all know you are paid not to contradict your employer, Fox, but did it ever occur to you that the next mass killing might be someone you care about? Arming teachers isn’t the answer either, Raphael Cruz. This gunman got past several school resource officers, and the cops were afraid to confront him, too. Consider that the #1 cause of death for children in this country is gun violence. This is not true in any other country on this planet, and yet, Turley claims that because of the Second Amendment we are powerless to do anything about it. Of course, you had to get in a few licks of criticism of Democrats and others alt-right news hate, but have nothing to say about the stupid and insensitive comments by Cruz and Abbott, plus the NRA proceeding with its convention 300 miles away.

      1. I’m no expert, but I think before we make proposals we all need to agree that the Second Amendment does not prohibit taking action. That’s where we’re stuck right now. Of course, all of these perpetrators of mass murder have serious mental health issues. In fact, I believe that but for a very few people who are truly evil, most people who commit crimes have some version of insufficiently treated mental health problems, often exacerbated by substance abuse and a dysfunctional family. They are often friendless and have never felt loved by anyone. Some have been neglected and/or abused by people who should care for them, too many have been bullied, ridiculed, belittled or emasculated, some have lived in poverty and hunger and will steal, sell drugs or commit fraud to avoid being homeless and living meal to meal, and when they act out, their pent up rage is taken out on the innocent. This incident clearly shows pent up rage: the bodies of these babies were so riddled with bullets that they had to resort to DNA for positive identification–that’s the very definition of rage. We need to understand how someone gets to the point of mutilating children before there is any hope of intervening or preventing this from happening again. Too often the perpetrators are killed by police or commit suicide, and trying to piece together what could have motivated them is impossible. I’m not saying that people who commit crimes should get a free pass or even sympathy because of their mental illness, but if we want to discover why people do the unthinkable we need to figure out why. Only then is there any hope of intervening to prevent it from happening in the future. Then, there’s the fact that this doesn’t happen anywhere other than in America. Ready accessibility to guns has to play a role, but we can’t even agree that there is a means to control this. I agree with Turley that there’s so many assault rifles out there that banning them would probably be futile at this point, but I’m pretty sure that the framers of the Constitution never had a scenario like Ross Elementary in mind when they drafted the Constitution.

        1. Natacha,

          I agree, the second amendment does not prevent us from taking action to address the problem of substance abuse and mental illness amongst our youth. .

    1. I cannot comment on the former chief justice’s legal thinking because your comment is not sourced. What I CAN say is that In the United States, the Supreme Court has been opposed to efforts that attempt to make legal ownership of a gun more odious. Gun ownership has been recognized by the Supreme Court to be an individual/personal right for those who have not been legally stripped of their right to own one. An example of this in the law includes District of Columbia v. Heller (554 U.S. 570 (2008)). In McDonald v. City of Chicago (561 U.S. 742 (2010)) the Court ruled this right applied against the states. Interestingly, in October of 2021, the Court turned down a challenge to a Wisconsin law that imposed a lifetime ban on gun ownership for former felons, including cases involving nonviolent crimes. In 2017, the Supreme Court reversed a lower court decision and held that the 2nd Amendment is not confined to firearms “in existence at the time of the founding” but to “all instruments that constitute bearable arms” including, in that specific case, stun guns. [see: https://jonathanturley.org/2019/08/09/screaming-into-the-void-why-gun-control-is-so-hard-to-enact/#more-146742%5D Both the Heller and McDonald cases were decided long after Burger’s death in 1995.

    2. The 2nd Amendment consists of two separate and distinct clauses, neither, necessarily, bearing on the other.

      The 2nd Amendment does not establish any form of requirement of membership in a militia in order to keep and bear arms.

      The merely informational statement as a subordinate clause, “a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,” does not bear on the main clause which provides a constitutional right, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

      One obtains two facts from this sentence: Free states must be protected through kinetic action, and Americans have the absolute right to keep and bear arms.

      One is not compelled by law to join a militia, and one may keep and bear arms.

      One may join the militia of his choice, if he is prepared by the right to keep and bear arms.

      You may create a militia, NUTCHACHACHA, and you may keep and bear arms, if you are an American citizen and demonstrably not an illegal alien or the descendant of an illegal alien – crime does not pay – certainly one may not benefit from a crime, surely you agree.

      One word for you: Emigrate.
      _______________________

      2nd Amendment

      A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

    3. “We the People” are the Militia.

      Word salad games won’t play.

      NO ONE IS GIVING UP GUNS!!!

      700 million guns in circulation and over 100 million guns owners with billions of rounds of ammo, if we were the problem you would know.

      Your Marxists Utopia dream isn’t going to happen but you might get a hot civil war.

      The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to guard against Tyrannical Government.

    4. Natcha, why didn’t you use Burgers quote today? You used it yesterday, and I dismantled the idiocy. You wont even attempt to defend the quote.

      There is no downside to arming teachers. But as facts trickle out, teachers might be the reason doors that are supposed to be locked were propped open. Too early to point fingers. The Govt wont have answers for a month….if then. Starting to feel like a two man team of Comey and Roberts are filtering all the facts, to push some agenda.
      Still dont know who leaked Alito’s draft opinion.

      1. Good catch. From the link:

        With regard to race or ethnic group, mortality was higher among blacks (38.2 per 100,000; 95% CI, 37.1 to 39.3) and American Indians or Alaska Natives (28.0 per 100,000; 95% CI, 25.4 to 30.9) than among whites (24.2 per 100,000; 95% CI, 23.8 to 24.6) and Asians or Pacific Islanders (15.9 per 100,000; 95% CI, 14.8 to 17.0). Disparities for black youth resulted from higher mortality for both injury-related causes (i.e., firearms, drowning, and fire or burns) and medical causes (i.e., heart disease and respiratory disease). The disparities were most pronounced for deaths related to firearms, which were the leading cause of death among black youth and occurred at a rate 3.7 times as high as the rate among white youth.

    5. “. . . an unfettered right for individuals to own guns.”

      There is no such thing as a “fettered” right. Either you have an unconditional right to take an action, or you are compelled to get the government’s permission. And a permission is the antithesis of a right.

  9. Weapon shipments should not be announced because you don’t want the Russians to make preparations. Announcements of the kinds of weapons Ukraine will receive only dampen the effect that the weapons will have, if the Russians are given a “heads up” about what they will be up against. It’s irrational to give the enemy a heads up. You want it to be a surprise. It should be done in secret.

  10. For the national dialog that Prof Turley is calling for, I would suggest having a cause/effect fishbone diagram identifying all the factors that contributed to this tragedy and those that if we could change would actually make a difference. Clearly, access to weapons and ammunition would be one branch of the fishbone diagram. But I suspect that the other branches might be more fruitful. I look forward to the completion of the investigation to perhaps identify other factors contributing in this tragedy – some insight into doing some societal good.

    1. Clearly, access to weapons and ammunition would be one branch of the fishbone diagram.
      That would be redacted by the constitution. You should read the Prof’s post first, then comment.

      Implement stop and frisk? Maybe just an overheard conversation in the park, gets a no knock raid. If we toss aside the constitution, there is no limit to the amount of “saftey” the government has the power to force onto YOU.

  11. I have two suggestions:
    1. When a weapon capable of fully automatic firing is sold, install an inhibitor to prevent fully automatic. Introduce a delay of a month or two months when the owner can come back and have the inhibitor removed.
    2. Define “assault weapon” in a way that both sides can agree to. Currently, the term “assault weapon” is simply a slogan.

    1. Bernie….you do not know much about automatic firearms.

      Fully Automatic firearms are heavily regulated….and a delay of a month or two would shorten the process by many months.

      You are correct about “Assault Weapon” definitions needing to be understood by the gun banners.

  12. Number 1 priority now is to get Illegitimate Biden Regime to DROP immediately the Emergency Powers Executive Order that is in place …

    Why are we still under state of emergency in this country? There is no “emergency.”

    Wake up and pay very close attention to what the government is doing.

    Now is a very good time to be an armed and responsible gun owner.

  13. We have had 600,000 + deaths by abortion each year since 1973 with some years topping 1 1/2 million deaths. Those are all children also. So now the democrats are concerned about the needless death of innocents? Really! I guess it’s all in your perspective or lack thereof.

    1. Aren’t guns the leading cause of those under 18?

      How many abortions were to save the life of the mother?

    2. Pro-aborts do not care about life. Their pagan practice of sacrificing life, similar to the Aztecs and Incas, has infected Americans much like a plague. Americans today in large numbers do not consider life sacred

      Bari Weiss stated succinctly:

      https://bariweiss.substack.com/p/american-madness

      The social rot that’s come over America, the nihilism and hatred of each other, is part of the cause here. The dissolution of our social ties—and with them the accountability and responsibility that an actual community demands—has allowed insanity to fester unnoticed.

      Nihilism is a distinctly atheistic trait, synonymous with Friedrich “God is dead” Nietzsche.

  14. In the case of the AR-15 the AR stands for Armalite Rifle, originally designed and produced by the Armalite company. There are now several companies that now manufacture and market the AR-15. Even though many have noted this in conversation of gun control. Yet those who desire gun control fail to accept that fact and continue to call the weapon an Assault Rifle.

    Now consider that almost anything can be a weapon of assault. A wife killing her husband with a frying pan makes the pan an assault weapon. Likewise, a husband hitting the wife and killing her with a hammer, means the hammer is an assault weapon. It is possible to kill someone with a pen or pencil, if properly trained. More people die from complications of over eating, so is a fork a weapon.

    Far more people die from illegal gun possession. Does anyone seriously believe that all of the guns in possession of gangs and cartels are registered or will be surrendered to the police for the benefit of the community?

    What is needed is a rational discussion on the best way to control gun violence, What is not needed is hysteria or the insensitivity of of those who hijack the the grief over these mass killings to push an agenda.

  15. based on 2016 data. Interesting take on the numbers at the least

    From the Thomas Sowell Foundation

    There are 30,000 gun related deaths per year by firearms, and this number is not disputed. The U.S. population is 324,059,091 as of June 22, 2016. Do the math: 0.0009% of the population dies from gun related actions each year. Statistically speaking, this is insignificant! What is never told, however, is a breakdown of those 30,000 deaths, to put them in perspective as compared to other causes of death:

    • 65% of those deaths are by suicide, which would never be prevented by gun laws.

    • 15% are by law enforcement in the line of duty and justified.

    • 17% are through criminal activity, gang and drug related or mentally ill persons – better known as gun violence.

    • 3% are accidental discharge deaths.

    So technically, “gun violence” is not 30,000 annually, but drops to 5,100. Still too many? Now lets look at how those deaths spanned across the nation.

    • 480 homicides (9.4%) were in Chicago

    • 344 homicides (6.7%) were in Baltimore

    • 333 homicides (6.5%) were in Detroit

    • 119 homicides (2.3%) were in Washington D.C. (a 54% increase over prior years)

    So basically, 25% of all gun crime happens in just 4 cities. All 4 of those cities have strict gun laws, so it is not the lack of law that is the root cause.

    This basically leaves 3,825 for the entire rest of the nation, or about 75 deaths per state. That is an average because some States have much higher rates than others. For example, California had 1,169 and Alabama had 1.

    Now, who has the strictest gun laws by far? California, of course, but understand, it is not guns causing this. It is a crime rate spawned by the number of criminal persons residing in those cities and states. So if all cities and states are not created equal, then there must be something other than the tool causing the gun deaths.

    Are 5,100 deaths per year horrific? How about in comparison to other deaths? All death is sad and especially so when it is in the commission of a crime but that is the nature of crime. Robbery, death, rape, assault are all done by criminals. It is ludicrous to think that criminals will obey laws. That is why they are called criminals.

    But what about other deaths each year?

    • 40,000+ die from a drug overdose–THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR THAT!

    • 36,000 people die per year from the flu, far exceeding the criminal gun deaths.

    • 34,000 people die per year in traffic fatalities(exceeding gun deaths even if you include suicide).

    Now it gets good:

    • 200,000+ people die each year (and growing) from preventable medical errors. You are safer walking in the worst areas of Chicago than you are when you are in a hospital!

    • 710,000 people die per year from heart disease.

    It’s time to stop sugar & carbs!! So what is the point? If the anti-gun movement focused their attention on heart disease, even a 10% decrease in cardiac deaths would save twice the number of lives annually of all gun-related deaths (including suicide, law enforcement, etc.). A 10% reduction in medical errors would be 66% of the total number of gun deaths or 4 times the number of criminal homicides ……………. Simple, easily preventable 10% reductions!

    So you have to ask yourself, in the grand scheme of things, why the focus on guns? It’s pretty simple:

    Taking away guns gives control to governments. The founders of this nation knew that regardless of the form of government, those in power may become corrupt and seek to rule as the British did by trying to disarm the populace of the colonies. It is not difficult to understand that a disarmed populace is a controlled populace.

    Thus, the second amendment was proudly and boldly included in the U.S. Constitution. It must be preserved at all costs. So the next time someone tries to tell you that gun control is about saving lives, look at these facts and remember these words from Noah Webster: “Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed.”

    1. In our zeal to prevent mass shootings and suicides, so-called “red flag laws” have been adopted in certain jurisdictions that empower law enforcement to seize the weapon(s) of anyone upon application to a court by any other person who believes the owner of the weapon might be about to commit or is predisposed to commit, a firearm-related offense. It is not hard to see how such laws could be abused by anyone with an axe to grind with the owner of that firearm; nonetheless, there are jurisdictions in the US where an innocent gun-owning citizen could have his/her weapon seized for no legitimate reason. It then requires an expensive legal fight to get the weapon back, and even if the report is determined to not be well-founded, s/he still faces the possibility that the matter will remain in police and court databases — most of which (if not expunged) are open to the public.

  16. The left wants two things in regards to gun control. They want to appear to be doing something so they can use that to raise money.

  17. Oh, and the Left doesn’t want your guns; they want your freedom. And it’s easier to get if you’re “safe” from the firearms around your house. Only a sucker gives up his gun voluntarily during a confrontation. As BLM and ANTIFA shoed they aren’t afraid of a confrontation with the unarmed.

  18. The NRA and gun rights advocates actually are keeping background checks from being implemented which would reduce killings. The public is overwhelmingly in favor of background checks but the laws can’t get passed.
    On another note, the Heller case that established guns as an individual right has been in effect far less time than Roe v. Wade so maybe it isn’t settled law based on this Supreme Court’s thinking?

      1. Mespo,, over the past 10 years I’ve won 3 guns in raffles. I did not walk out with a firearm. I had to pick it up at a federally lisenced dealer and go through a background check.

    1. in effect far less time than Roe v. Wade so maybe it isn’t settled law based on this Supreme Court’s thinking?

      Sure. Except if fails on the 5 point test used by Alito.

        1. SCOTUS has created dozens of tests to uniformly guide the constitutional deliberations.

          Overturning Roe would join a long list of stare deciss overturns. Dredd Scott, comes to mind. Not sure if you are arguing a point to law, or just tossing out random non sequiturs.

    2. I would give support only to a delayed background check. If clicking on a button and being able to get an immediate response, like being at an ATM Machine and interacting with your Bank Accounts, were so speedy as that for background checks; now we’re talking!

    3. Uvalde shooter passed a background check and legally purchased his guns from a FFL dealer.

    4. “The NRA and gun rights advocates actually are keeping background checks from being implemented which would reduce killings.”

      Show the data that supports these claims. Otherwise this is Democrat propaganda bullsh*t per usual.

    5. The NRA and gun rights advocates are not keeping background checks from being implemented.
      Every single time I have purchased a firearm, I filled out a ATF-4473, and had a background check.
      The Uvalde school shooting purchased the firearm legally. Meaning he too passed a background check.

      Unfortunately, we do not have a process in place where people under the age of 18, if they have a mental health issue that then is entered into the NICS due to privacy laws.
      This young man, based on reporting he cut on himself, clearly had a mental health issue and needed help.

      1. I stand corrected in that some background checks exist in some locations, though the loopholes are gaping wide and most anyone unable to buy a gun legally. The NRA has kept wider and universal background checks from being passed, they have kept the loopholes open, and support legislators in Texas, Florida and elsewhere that are passing laws allowing people to carry guns with no background check, education, or training.
        In Florida, I had to have a certain amount of training before being allowed to fire a gun on a range. I had no problem with that. Texas has now passed a law allowing open carry with no permit or training, Florida is working on the same thing, even law enforcement objects, how does that make sense?

        https://www.cnn.com/2021/09/01/us/texas-open-carry-laws/index.html

    6. “Gun rights advocates…”

      The American Founders, Framers and loyal actual American citizens.

      That would exclude any and all who engage in “…fundamentally transforming the United States of America.”

      The Israelite slaves, who decided that they really disagreed with and did not like Egypt, were out of Egypt before the ink was dry on their release papers, but then, they possessed the gumption, capacity and acumen sufficient to the task.

Leave a Reply to Mark Cancel reply