Massad Ayoob on the Ramifications of Universal Background Checks — SHOT Show 2016

Send to Kindle

One of my favorite things to do at SHOT Show 2016 is to catch up with friends, and the people I look up to. Well, I’m not sure if I know firearms and self-defense expert Massad Ayoob well enough to call him a friend (interviewer Jon Hodoway certainly does), but I definitely admire Mas. His positive impact on the firearms community cannot be overstated. And every time he speaks I learn something new.

Jon got the opportunity to ask Mas several timely and important questions on where the gun-grabbers are making progress to restrict Second Amendment rights, on the ramifications of universal background checks and on the best way to vet presidential candidates.

“The big change we’re seeing recently is the attack moving to the state level, the grassroots level,” noted Mas, while responding to Jon’s first question. “The other side knows that’s where we have been most successful at getting our rights back, pretty much the same way they were taken away from us one piece at a time.”

“They’re pushing now at the state level for the universal background checks, and the reason they’re finding that so sailable is they can say that it’s simple, common sense, you should have a background check and know who you’re selling a gun to,” continued Mas.

Public support for background checks remains high, and Everytown for Gun Safety, among other gun-control organizations, have had success pushing universal background check legislation, recently in Washington and Oregon.

“Nine-hundred ninety-nine out of 1000 voters are just going to hear background check, and think that makes sense to me, and not realize that the way these laws are written, you lend your rifle to your brother to go deer hunting for the weekend and the two of you have just become criminals,” said Mas.

Mas gave one startling example of how universal background checks can backfire when it comes to helping individuals with suicidal ideations.

“One of the things that the universal background check is going to prevent is programs like the one in New Hampshire, implemented by the New Hampshire Firearms Safety Council, which is essentially public service announcements that say, ‘If you have a friend who is depressed, expressing self-destruction ideations, offer to keep his guns for awhile until he’s feeling better.’ That would not be possible.”

Mas’s point is that one is going to be reluctant to give a friend his guns if he has to go through a background check, thus publicly admitting he is struggling with mental health issues.

As far as knowing how to tell a pro-Constitution candidate versus one who is simply paying lip-service to the constituency, Mas had a very insightful remark.

“People like us in the pro-gun movement are seen as one-issue voters and supposedly that’s a sign of shallow intellect,” said Mas. “I call it litmus test voters. None of us can be experts on everything from oil shale to global warming to crime control. But every one of us is familiar with at least one major issue and that’s our test to see whether that candidate triggers our bullshit alert.”

Mas goes on to say that if one is being disingenuous on one issue, chances are one is being disingenuous on other issues as well. Makes sense, right? If a candidate doesn’t respect the right to keep and bear arms, then that candidate doesn’t respect our other Constitutional rights.

***

Big thanks to Mas for taking the time to talk with us at SHOT Show 2016. It’s always a pleasure. You can check out our interview from last year’s SHOT Show.

 

{ 40 comments… add one }
  • dean July 20, 2016, 10:06 pm

    the constitution and loyalty to the way it is written is a basic requirement of citizenship in the states.
    amendments were clearly intended only to allow for freedoms that the founding fathers may have missed (such as slavery), though the liberties are intended for CITIZENS not foreigners or unlanded aliens.
    another important distinction missed by many is the fact that federal voting was only supposed to be for citizens who owned land, as it was recognized that the underclasses who do as little as possible to get by will vote for themselves monies they never earned from people who did work for it.
    as for the right to bear arms-it does suggest that some level of grass roots organization needs to be in place in order for the populace to be effective as a deterrent against federal malfeasance. this actually is supposed to be the closest thing to an american army allowed under constitution while the navy and marines where created by the founders when threatened externally by islamic pirates who attacked american merchant ships. in today’s scene presumably the fathers would create the air force too. it was for good reason that rome forbade the roman army from entering it’s own cities.
    the national guard doesn’t count as a militia because it’s controlled centrally by feds and has been deployed in foreign ventures.
    so military assault rifles and the like DO belong in the hands of organized,trained citizen/soldiers-reducing the debate down to how much control and organization of these local militias is to be implemented , at most at the state level.
    perhaps mandated gun club/range membership with attendant proficiency tests should be required for assault rifle owners.
    the funding can be stripped from the us army,who doesn’t exist legally anyway and who’s assets and best candidates should be assumed by the marines.

  • jack daugherty May 17, 2016, 8:55 pm

    We must secede. Our “leaders” are obviously destroying our country and making US pay for it! This has gone far enough.

  • Jerry February 1, 2016, 4:54 pm

    I ‘ve read many of the comments and still don’t know why people don’t know the government wants to ban guns of all types. the recent legislation submitted to Congress would ban almost all weapons rifles and shotguns. Feinstein of Ca wants to ban all type sof assualt weapons, any handgun/shotgun that accepts a detachable magazine and any rifle that has a a magazine that can hold mor ethan 10 rounds. That last part covers the .22 cal rifle that belonged to my father that he bought almost 40 years ago. Also the Ruger .22 cal thatI bought for my Mom over 20 years ago. Why? The rifle has a tubular magazine that holds 16 rounds; the Ruger a detachable Mag that holds 10 rounds.
    Don’t kid yourselves, the government wants all guns GONE! Anything that will shoot. They want the world to look like Great Britain and Australia. The only problem is that it never will. Chit, our govt. is one of the biggest arms traffickers in the world. All any group has to do is declare themselves to be a democracy and the door is open. If you don’t believe that read up on Congressman Charlie Wilson of the Afghanistan war. Not the most recent but the one the Russians fought and lost close to one million soldiers over 10 years. Wilson supplied the Muhajadene( I’m sure that is not spelled correctly but who cares. you know who I mean) with weapons that would be used to kill American soldiers in the most recent conflict.
    The reason the U.S. Govt wants to ban all weapons is so you (law abidding citizens) will have no one to defend you except the powers of the govt.; Fed., State, and local. The problem there is if any of you have ever been in a situation where some criminal has decided to kill you and you are not able to defend yourself, they will NEVER make it in time to save your life or that of your family. Just look at Columbine, Dr. William Petite, Virgina Tech and countless other active shootings. Many police officers are not willing to put themselves into a situation where they could be killed without having up to date intelligence. By that I mean they will not rush blindly into a dangerous situation and it’s hard to blame them. They want to go home to their families jsut like everyone else.
    The simply reality is this, if you value your right to bear arms as granted by the 2nd amendment, then this is the year you better make sure you get to the polls and vote. And I don’t mean for hillary or bernie. All it will take is one more Liberal justice on the SCOTUS to amend the meanign of the 2nd amendment. And remember this-they are appointed for life. Get out and vote if you beleive in Democracy and the United States Constitution.

  • Conrad Lingis January 31, 2016, 2:19 pm

    Damn Blann,
    You mined some GOLD at that Show this year…

    Great job!

    • S.H. Blannelberry January 31, 2016, 3:27 pm

      Thanks! It was a total team effort!

  • Steven Salerno January 31, 2016, 12:28 pm

    If all the “we have to do something, even if its wrong crowd” is actually concerned about gun safety, why can’t we pass a comprehensive national gun safety program, for anyone acquiring a gun!? The program could include the safe operation, storage and use of a firearm. The legalities of using a firearm in a self defense situation and all the consequences of such an action could be covered. We require our citizenry to do basically the same thing when it comes time to getting a drivers license. I shutter to think of the number of people who have in last 5 years, gone out and purchased a gun, and have little to no knowledge of the use, care and storage of a gun. As responsible gun owners, there is no reason why we can’t get behind this kind of legislation, and maybe we can get the anti-gunners off our backs and out of our business!

  • harry January 31, 2016, 12:27 pm

    QUESTION ok so they kill the 2nd amd they start showing up at doors to pick up all guns what happens next? do you think we will be able to do anything about it. SORRY but i do not there would never be a revolt we could not stop them YEA i would be dead end of story

  • J. Anderson January 29, 2016, 7:57 pm

    The Background check should be done upon transfer of ownership to a non-family member. After the background check, the info should be deleted, not stored. That is what Washington State does, they (the state government) keeps all the info on file so when the time comes the state will be able to come knocking on your door. You better come up with the firearm or off to jail you go for not doing a background check. Since Washington State is an anti-gun bunch for the most part, they would love to figure a way to make life suck for gun owners. If this state could take our guns they would.I have a hard time voting for POTUS since the electoral college mostly goes Democrat. Thank God for our founding fathers, who are currently rolling in their graves!

  • Max Hoyle January 29, 2016, 12:58 pm

    Thanks for this interview, Massad Ayood is a truly great man!

    • Joe McHugh January 29, 2016, 7:59 pm

      Max Hoyle, Not so fast with the accolades for Mr. Massad Ayoob! He wrote the book “In The Gravest Extreme”, which for the most part, is an excellent source for examining the role of firearms for personal protection.

      Now “for the most part” explanation about his book. Mr. Ayoob declares, at several places in his book, that firearm ownership is a privilege, not a right. Call me crazy but I’m pretty sure that private ownership of guns is described as being a right in the Bill of Rights.

      If Ayoob is alluding to the possibility that the Second Amendment could be made irrelevant by another amendment, he should have written so in his book. Otherwise, he is somewhat confused about firearm ownership by private individuals.

  • LKK January 29, 2016, 12:02 pm

    The only sure way to be certain that back ground checks are done on all private sales, is to know who has and where all private gun are. The only way to know where they are is to register all guns. Once all guns are registered…well you know what happens next.

    • Bob January 29, 2016, 1:20 pm

      I have been crowing that for several years, since the day this latest push for “universal background checks” started rolling forward, but too many people just don’t seem to grasp it.

      • Joe McHugh January 29, 2016, 8:18 pm

        Bob, what is your problem for universal background checks? What is wrong with requiring a government entity, such as the NICS Center in Clarksburg, West Virginia, to determine if a person is responsible enough to own a firearm? No one wants a person with a violent felony record, or a person who has been adjudged to be a dangerous psychotic, to have access to firearms.

        Let me hazard a guess about your trepidation in this matter, Bob. You don’t trust the government with information about who owns what guns, right? Solution? The Congress should draft a bill that requires a background check but not require the recording of ANY information about the firearm being purchased.

        Question for any of the anti-gun readers: Why is the government interested in the serial number of a firearm that a competent, law-abiding citizen wants to purchase? I can think of one reason but I want a liberal anti-gun person to give his or her own reason for capturing the details of the guns being purchased. Come on liberals, be honest enough to defend your position on this matter. Hint: “crime fighting” is what the crapweasels in government cite as being the justification for this devious behavior. As if the criminals would obey gun buying regulations to acquire something to rob banks with!

    • Fake Nicety Alcala Zamora y Torre January 29, 2016, 7:09 pm

      Such a ‘registry’ would require unlimited, warrantless, no notice searches of anywhere a firearm owner might have access to. Not only would you be throwing your 2nd amendment rights away, but you’d be throwing away the fourth amendment right against unwarranted search and surgery for yourself, but, without their knowing it, the 4th amendment rights of others whom the cops will imagine you have an contact with.

      This, alone would chill the acquisition or transfer of any new or used firearms. And you know the cops will use the excuse of ‘checking’ on your firearm to show up on your doorstep at 0300 on fishing expeditions and attempts to coerce/intimidate you.

      At one fell swoop, the 2nd, 4th and 5th amendments would be gone.

  • Stevie January 29, 2016, 11:09 am

    I know I’ll get beaten up here, but I still think background checks for all gun PURCHASES are a good idea. But prohibiting someone from purchasing a gun because of mental illness will never work. There are hundreds of thousands of mentally ill people out there, and who can predict which ones will resort to gun violence? But if you have a documented criminal history, you should not be able to buy a gun. Not from a gun shop, not from your friend, not from your brother, etc. So a background check for all purchases would leave stealing guns as the only option for a convicted criminal. If you want to loan your gun to a friend, no background check needed – just be prepared to pay the consequences if that friend misuses your gun. When we stonewall any and all gun legislation because of any number of doomsday scenarios, we look like a bunch of nut jobs to the non-gunners. It seems to me that background checks for all PURCHASES of firearms would not impede our freedoms, and might even stop or delay a criminal from getting a gun.

    • Bob January 29, 2016, 1:21 pm

      There can be no universal background check system without universal registration. No more compromising away our freedoms.

    • Russ January 29, 2016, 1:26 pm

      Strongly Disagree! Anyone who has had a clean record for 30 yrs, and the one time was NOT a violent crime, then they should be allowed to do the time, be forgiven, and allowed an opportunity to once again to regain their constitutional rights.

    • Joe McHugh January 29, 2016, 1:53 pm

      Stevie, you asked the question ” …who can predict which ones will resort to gun violence?” The short answer is no one.
      However, people who are so severely unstable that they have been committed for psychiatric evaluation, and then brought to court for a decision about their sanity, can be adjudged as being dangerous to themselves or others. Such people should be committed to a facility where people can provide the appropriate care.

      Now let’s return to the real world. In the 1970’s the A.C.L.U. and other liberal groups brought a case to the Supreme Court of the United States. They argued that unbalanced people have the same rights as normal people to live their lives outside of asylums. That court agreed and compelled the release of all but the most obvious of the criminally insane.

      Who can be trusted with firearms? Any competent, law-abiding American adult citizen has all of the inherent rights inscribed in the Bill of Rights, including the right inferred by the Second Amendment. Looking for a guarantee of future good behavior?
      Don’t hold your breath. Who is to say that you, dear reader, won’t suddenly lash out with a deadly weapon, such as a carving knife, and kill or injure everybody in your vicinity? The word safety is used by many as being an assumed right. This is a naive idea. Any citizen could be shot, run over by a truck, knifed, be pushed into the path of a subway train, etc, etc, at any time. You are responsible for your own safety. Want to go sky diving? That’s your prerogative, but staying on the ground is “safer”.

      Background checks? Absolutely, but no record of the firearm’s serial number should be captured and available for government scrutiny. Why would the government be interested in the serial number of a firearm purchased or owned by a competent, law-abiding citizen?

    • Mahatma Muhjesbude January 29, 2016, 7:31 pm

      Well, Stevie boy, if you think ‘background’ checks are fine and dandy, then you must approve of Gun Registration? Because that’s exactly what background checks of any kind ARE, and always have been!
      And Anybody who is so cognitively decedent as to ruminate in dispute of that, Just go ahead and GIT YO Disposable betting bucks out on the table and i’ll wager anything your wife will allow that i can go into any state you live and if you give me your name, etc., .i’ll go in my car and come back in fifteen minutes and know how many background checks you’ve had, and which gun stores did them! Then I’ll go to the gun store that sold you the guns, and they’ll immediately let me see all your 4473s so i could see .tell me exactly what you bought!

      After taking your money I’ll donate it to Wounded Warriors which will be a better place for it than you spending it another gun that you gave the Totalitarian regime the tacit permission to confiscate by your own abject igno-imbecility.

    • Paul Gille January 30, 2016, 12:39 am

      Compromise is the start of capitulation. The gun control folks will not stop until all guns are confiscated. Why should I care if people such as this think me a nut job?

    • BUURGA January 30, 2016, 3:25 am

      The problem that appears very quickly is what is done with the information AFTER the background check. Who and what keeps this information and for how long? Don’t worry about the nut job impression. Merely owning a firearm makes you one in the minds of many.

      • Mahatma Muhjesbude January 30, 2016, 12:08 pm

        Burga, every time an FFL dealer calls in a background check on a customer it goes through the FBI monitored system and the name of the person whose background is being ‘checked’ REMAINS on their data base and links into the ATF cloud and is ‘available’ FOREVER to virtually any other police or G-agent’s ‘inquiry in the future’. This includes the dealer’s phone number and FFL licence info he gives them when he makes the check. By the way, FFL holders cannot run random background checks on their friends/enemies or anybody NOT buying a gun from them.

        Yeah, yeah, i know they ‘say’ they don’t keep a ‘permanent’ record of gun sales anywhere as that could be ‘mistaken’ for a gun registry which is ‘supposed’ to be illegal based on a bill passed in 1986 (which was really only allowed to ‘pass’ because it included the Machine Gun Ban to all civilians! But of course there was the caveat, that Law enforcement agencies could still be allowed to learn who purchased guns as part of their police work.)

        So, It’s technically against the law to have a ‘registry’ of private firearms unless the police need one! BWAAhahahahahah! I know they deny this, and we all trust and believe them. After all, even though it is completely denied by any police department for many years, in use verified by government/municipal purchase records, that Stingray cell phone listening devices are not used to randomly spy on all private phone calls in a target area, It is still going on today!

        Here’s another way to ‘catch them’ at their lies. If you found a gun somewhere and assumed that someone lost it and gave it to your local cop to find the owner, He’ll make a call to the ATF, they’ll run a serial number check from their ‘government’ data base, and tell the cop who was the last (‘registered’) owner based on the most recent 4473 on the gun, and backwards form there. It’ll get murkier and slightly more complicated to do this before background checks came into effect. (pre Brady, and then pre 1968 GCA). But if it was sold to an individual on FFL paperwork, they’ll eventually find who ‘owned it’.

        But how could they do that if there wasn’t ‘supposed’ to be a registration type data base on gun purchases by private citizens? (Laugh My ASS OFF!)

        Are we the people fucking Stupid, or What?!

        Hope we start taking some ‘Whoop Ass’ wake up vitamins and make sure we take down this totalitarian regime this next election cycle? And don’t forget the Legislative seats either. Only Five turncoat Senate Seats will shift the Senate back into Mein Fuher Bloomburg’s pocket. Make sure your Reps completely comprehend the subtle distinctions of the Real Clear absolutely unqualified meaning of “…Shall Not Be Inringed”!

  • CaptainBob January 29, 2016, 9:30 am

    A simple summation: “No gun law ever prevented a crime.”

    • Joe McHugh January 29, 2016, 11:42 am

      Captain Bob, you are correct but the vast majority of gun laws are not really written to prevent crime. Even the dullest anti-gun liberal knows that the stated “crime fighting” element of all proposed anti-gun legislation is really meant to disguise the true purpose of these laws, namely to make it ever more difficult for the law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms. The hope is that the individual will give up on his or her right to own a firearm.

      Most gun laws address the easily concealed hand guns but the latest efforts include long guns, described as “assault rifles”. New York State Governor Andrew Cuomo is now including shotguns that look “dangerous”. His S.A.F.E. gun law requires that all pump action shotguns with large-capacity tubular magazines, be registered just like the dreaded handguns. And a rifle that has a bayonet lug is particularly “menacing” in Cuomo’s eyes. Perhaps his mother was scared by a duck hunter when she was carrying fetus Andy.

      Pssst! According to the F.B.I. data records, how many bank robbers used a rifle with a bayonet attached? Hint, the word “zero” come to mind. OK, how about gang wars? Again the number zero describes the number of gang members who employed bayonets on rifles in gang disputes.

      What is it about the presence of a “pistol grip” on a rifle or shotgun that absolutely terrifies Democrat legislators? The rifle and shotguns lacking such pistol grips can be used to kill just as quickly and just as easily as the “fearsome” pistol gripped ones.

      Let’s cut to the chase here. All recent gun legislation qualifies as being infringements against the law-abiding individual’s right to enforce his or her Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. Such laws also qualify as being government attempts to control the people. The last time I checked the Constitution, the government is not supposed to control the people, the people are supposed to control the government through the voting procedure. But hey, I still regard the Constitution as being the law of the land, go figure.

      • Rick P January 30, 2016, 12:13 am

        I agree Joe, your last paragraph is a paraphrase of a quotation of Thomas Jefferson’s while commenting on the Bill of Rights 2nd Amendment which basically goes The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed upon, going on to say “When people fear the government, there is tyranny. When the government fears the people, there is liberty.”
        (Just wondering, while at NWDD, circa 1990’s I worked with a Sergeant Joe McHugh assigned to 35th District..?.)

        • Joe McHugh January 30, 2016, 11:14 pm

          Rick P, no, not the same person.
          By the way, the name McHugh is fairly common in the United States. In Ireland the name McHugh is as common as the name Smith is in America.

          Story time: In the 1980’s I worked at a job in Syracuse, New York, a job that required me to visit lots of customer locations. Apparently my schedule was too busy for the local Sheriff department. A deputy showed up at my employer’s office with a warrant for my arrest. Fortunately a relative worked for the Under Sheriff, and interceded on my behalf. Wrong person, the name on the warrant even showed a different middle initial. A deputy was later able to reach me by phone and he apologized for the mix up. Then he wondered aloud who I was connected with in the county, because the department for controlling warrants was severely reprimanded for the mistake. When I told him my relative’s name, he understood why all of the commotion occurred.

          It’s not always a bad thing to have a connection to a person who works in local government.

  • Thomas January 29, 2016, 8:31 am

    Just posted a link on facebook to this story- GEEZ- who makes up these links? They are so long it took forever to post and to check to make sure it was correct. Copying these links doesn’t work on facebook as they are treated as a photograph and then don’t appear. They must be done manually. Have mercy, lol

  • lilbear68 January 29, 2016, 8:28 am

    its been a long time coming but doesn’t anyone think it odd that the ‘shot show’ is held in a state that the rabid anti gunner and delusional Harry Reid is a senator? same question id ask the NRA about their annual meeting before I would ever consider a membership.

  • Chief January 29, 2016, 5:41 am

    ” If a candidate doesn’t respect the right to keep and bear arms, then that candidate doesn’t respect our other Constitutional rights.”
    That quote lays out barry and all of the other dems in a nut shell . They believe we should have rights they deem fit and the Constitution gets in their way . These politicians take the oath to uphold and protect this most sacred document and without hesitation try to destroy it as soon as they are in office . It is in my opinion an act of blatant treason they should be prosecuted for.

  • Pat Bryan January 29, 2016, 3:44 am

    I do not think that Massad’s two illustrations of objections are valid. Oh they could happen, but I think they are examples of what Scotty shows as poorly written legislation.
    Firearms deaths are just about to surpass automobile deaths in America. Automobile deaths were reduced ONLY by legislation, even though the right to freely travel is a basic Constitutional Right. If sensible gun owner want to sit petulantly back and let their nutjob NRA mouthpieces fight any gun legislation at all, they will find themselves to be the victims of bad gun legislation that Massad describes. If they want to help their legislators write well-written and fair laws, then that is what they will get.
    Another good side effect of this is that there are a LOT of lazy good-for-nothing Congressman who do nothing but kiss billionaires’ butts and tell you “Ah’m gonna keep the gubmunt fum takin yore guns away!” Well, that jerk isn’t doing anything to earn his pay, and the government is not going to take your guns away; the Supreme Court already said so. Once you realize that, you can vote the do-nothing jerk out of office.

    • Joe McHugh January 29, 2016, 7:11 am

      Pat Bryan, Really? You mentioned helping the legislators write “well written and fair laws”. Well I have a suggestion for all legislators in writing gun legislation laws.

      First scrap ALL Federal and State gun laws on their respective code books. Second introduce bills that state the following requirements. “It is illegal to threaten, injure or kill any competent, law-abiding citizen with a firearm. An additional sub-clause would state, “It is illegal to sell, give, or otherwise transfer a firearm into the hands of a person with a history of dangerous mental illness, or a person that was convicted of a violent crime.”

      ALL other gun laws, regulations and restrictions should be considered to be what they are, infringements on the individual’s right inscribed in the Bill of Rights. Pat Byran, I’m almost sure that you would agree that this law with its sub-text, would be “well written and fair”. I mean, what other gun legislation would be needed?

    • Thomas January 29, 2016, 8:41 am

      That’s totally false. For starters, 80% of gun homicides take place in inner-cities and are committed by drug dealing gangs of 14-20 year olds, already barred from owning handguns under a plethora of laws, including the stringent laws in those inner-cities. The statistic is courtesy of the CDC&P. The remaining 20% of gun homicides include JUSTIFIABLE HOMICIDES by law officers and private citizens in defense of their persons/homes/businesses against ARMED FELONS who were in the process of committing a crime or crimes. Mayor Mike ‘The Nanny’ Bloomberg and his LARGELY one-man-show operations count people like Tamerlan Tsarnaev, (the dead Boston Bomber) and Christopher Dorner (ex-LAPD cop turned murderer) as “victims of crime”. You come to your figure by including SUICIDES. Japan has 1/3 of our population yet THEY EXCEED the USA’s homicide RATE AND NUMBER OF SUICIDES year in and year out. If people choose to kill themselves ‘WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE” how they kill themselves. Last year, 2015, there were 47,000 PEOPLE KILLED from drug overdoses, FOUR (4) TIMES the amount of those feloniously killed with guns- but YOU LEFT WING LEMMINGS don’t mind THOSE. You keep bleating about the (DECLINING) gun homicides as if THAT were the leading cause of death in the USA- it DOESN’T EVEN PLACE in the top 10. The USA is No. 1 in rate of gun ownership, but no. 86 in the world in terms of gun homicide rates. Countries that don’t allow guns in the hand of their “citizens” like Cuba, North Korea, and Venezuela ALL have MUCH HIGHER rates of gun homicides. The only thing is, since THEY DON’T HAVE 325,000,000 populations, their numbers don’t APPEAR as impressive as the USA’s numbers. It’s the RATE, not the number. You people LIE at every turn. Not only in things like this, but in the definition of Mass Shooting, Assault Weapon, etc. You folks are DANGEROUS not only because you are such LIARS, but because you are actively working at eroding the 2nd and the 1st Amendment and routinely express the thought that it’s too bad politicians like President Obama can’t run for President an unlimited number of times. In short, you folks are FASCISTS who don’t trust The People, when it was the Founders who established this government on the basis of NOT TRUSTING the LARGE CENTRALIZED GOVERNMENT.

      • Pat Bryan January 29, 2016, 1:42 pm

        So after all the rationalization, self-justification, denial, and blaming others, veiled racism and paranoid fantasism, why do you keep voting for the same jerks who keep promising you small government, protect your Second Amendment rights and fiscal responsibility; and then do absolutely NOTHING?

    • Ro Gal January 29, 2016, 8:56 am

      YOU SIR are either a liar or misinformed. Check the FBI website, and you’ll see that in 2014 there were 8,124 firearms related deaths. In 2014, automobile deaths were 32, 675. So please get your facts straight or stop lying, whichever applies!

      • Pat Bryan January 29, 2016, 1:49 pm

        “Nationwide, the number of motor vehicle deaths still exceeded gun deaths: 35,543 to 32,351.” – New York Times.
        You Sir have been misinformed by liars.

    • lilbear68 January 29, 2016, 9:30 am

      not to put to fine a point on it but a review of the enumerated powers granted to the fed by the constitution no where is the fed given the power to enact gun laws, again States Rights at issue here, or for that matter it owns NO property and is only allowed to be a caretaker of the national parks and reserves

  • Russ Newkirk January 29, 2016, 3:40 am

    Just more of the “laws” headed up the coast from the Socialist Republik of Kalifornia, to Oregun and now Washington. Papering ALL transactions of the guns you are “allowed” to dispose of? It’s unhealthy to be a rancher, God forbid, you exercise your 2nd Amendment RIGHT, the FEDS execute them here, now. Google Gun Show Bandit to see what Washington is like

  • Scotty January 28, 2016, 3:14 am

    The most effective way I’ve found to combat poorly written legislation is to read any proposed or passed legislation, research that bill and any other similar bills, then contact my elected representatives immediately with my concerns. All pending legislation, state and federal, is just a few mouse clicks away for you to read. I was able to convince one of my liberal democrat state representatives in North Dakota to support an NRA-sponsored bill seven years ago. If I hadn’t made a good case to him he wouldn’t have supported it. Of my district’s legislators, two democrats and one republican, the vote went 2-1, with the no vote coming from the republican representative. Both democrats supported the bill. Invest a small amount of time and effort and respectfully show your representatives you know what’s going on and you may be surprised at how they vote, really.

  • SuperG January 27, 2016, 12:06 pm

    Bloomberg bribed our state senators here in Oregon, Riley and Prozansky, now we are criminals if we loan a hunting rifle to a friend. The only thing you can take away from this illegally passed bill is that we have the best politicians that money can buy.

Leave a Comment

Send this to a friend