Sunday, October 24, 2010

Avoiding The Hard Questions

Brady Campaign Board Member Joan Peterson, who believes you can buy grenades and RPG's at gun shows, admits she doesn't know very much about gun control laws. Yet she's in a leadership position on several gun control groups pushing to expand said laws.

She goes on and on about how the 'gun show loophole' (ie private sales) must be closed to stop criminals from obtaining guns. The only solution offered up by the BC is to force all sales to go through FFL dealers. Dealers who the BC also supports litigating/legislating out of existence using 3rd party lawsuits, zoning and licensing restrictions.

IOW, no FFL dealers....No legal transfers of firearms.

When asked for her opinion on a different method, opening up NICS to non-licensees (even though my similar question suffered 'reasoned discourse'), she replied:
This is not a matter of what I want or don't want. I assume there is a good reason why only those who are properly licensed have access to a sensitive data base. As of now, that is the law.
Interesting. So she just goes along w/ the pack? That is the law? Why does she want to expand it if it isn't a matter of what she wants?

On another note, "there is a good reason why only those who are properly licensed have access to a sensitive data base" is pretty close to the same argument our side uses to keep trace data restricted to only authorities conducting cases and not fishing expeditions by gun control groups and researchers.

Just more evidence that gun control has nothing to do w/ reducing crime and everything to do w/ control.

Unorganized Militia Gear

Follow TrailerDays on Twitter


Sevesteen said...

I didn't save my comment to that--but I said something like 'I thought we were talking about changes to the law for gun show sales, not existing law. Would you be OK with private sellers having access to NICS or similar to do our own background checks, or do you insist on all checks going through a licensed dealer...or something else?"

She's published most of my comments, and I can't see rhyme or reason to the ones she has rejected--it isn't even correlated with 'hard questions'.

Anonymous said...

Um...why doesn't she make the same sort of assumptions with respect to current law regarding private sales?

I assume there is a good reason why only those who are properly licensed [are required to run background checks on sales]. As of now, that is the law.

If her "logic" vis a vis allowing access to nics by the general public is valid, then the above identical logic applied in a differing area should be equally so, shouldn't it?

Yas said...

Heres some of those mexican grenade's from south america.