Guns

How Universal Background Checks Put Me on an Island With Orrin Hatch

|

Last week Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) expressed opposition to the idea of requiring background checks for all gun transfers, saying:

That's the way reductions in liberty occur. When you start saying people all have to sign up for something, and they have a database where they know exactly who's who, and where government can persecute people because of the database, that alarms a lot of people in our country, and it flies in the face of liberty.

That remark was the starting point for a HuffPost Live discussion in which I participated today. Surprisingly, although there was some disagreement on the issue of background checks, all of the outside panelists—who included Rhinoden.com writer Greg Drobny, law professor Josh Blackman, and firearms instructor Matthew Mahoney—were defenders of a robust Second Amendment. The task of pushing for more gun control therefore fell mainly to Huffington Post congressional correspondent Michael McAuliff and host Abby Huntsman. You can probably surmise McAuliff's position on gun control from the way he reported Hatch's comments:

Pursuing even the most popular of measures to curb gun violence would be a step toward destroying Americans' liberty, Sen. Orrin Hatch argued Thursday.

According to a string of polls, most gun owners favor the idea of universal background checks for gun purchases, and such a system was considered the most likely response to the horrifying rampage at Sandy Hook Elementary School.

But for Hatch (R-Utah), even that is a move toward tyranny.

Huntsman, though amiable and unfailingly polite, offered clues to her own views with questions like these:

Are you guys paranoid that background checks might become universal? Does that scare you?

[To McAuliff:] Are they on an island by themselves?

We know it's a problem. We know there are simply too many guns. Maybe some of you would disagree with me, but I think the majority of Americans think there are too many guns out there. We need to make steps in the right direction so people are not getting killed, especially by those who are not mentally stable.

For my first question, I was asked to address this tweet from a viewer:

We have limits on our freedoms every day. They're called laws, and without them there isn't an organized society.

You can watch my response, along with the rest of the debate, here:

I outlined the problems with "universal background checks" in a recent column.

NEXT: House Group Close to Immigration Reform Deal

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Somalia!!!

    1. Where we drive, that is where the roadz are

  2. We know there are simply too many guns. … I think the majority of Americans think there are too many guns out there.

    Pretty sure she means “goons”.

    1. I was thinking “cunts.”

      1. You’re the reason there are no libertarian women.

          1. nicole just can’t even put up with other libertarian bitches

        1. Nicole isn’t a woman?

          Besides, I know more libertarian women than men.

          1. I am. It’s a long-running joke.

          2. You might be confused because you know more libertarians with boobs than without, but that doesn’t necessarily mean they’re women.

            1. Chuck Schumer is no libertarian.

          3. Besides, I know more libertarian women than men.

            That’s unpossible.

            1. I have met more black libertarians than white ones. Two to one.

              1. Well that’s due to Libertarianism’s strong representation in the hip-hop community. (Not talking about Big Boi).

      2. There are certainly too many gunts out there.

        1. Had to look that one up. Thanks Warty, I learned something today.

        2. What’s the difference between a gunt and bunt?

  3. Reason should have sent Gillespie so the gun-grabbers wouldn’t have been so outnumbered

  4. It’s bad enough that every time there is a tragedy like Newtown, we knee-jerk react and try to rush a “solution” through.

    It’s worse that the solutions we rush through have no relationship to the recent tragedy, and, were we able to turn back time and implement, would not have had stopped the tragedy from occurring. None of the proposals being considered, short of outright gun confiscation, could have prevented Lanza from doing what he did. And even taking all the guns won’t stop a determined killer. Rawanda anyone?

    1. Even gun confiscation wouldn’t have stopped him, and it would have been cheaper. Less than $50. All he needed was a garden sprayer, a gallon of gasoline and a lighter.

      1. This man is obviously a terrorist.

        SEND IN THE DRONES!!1!!

    2. the solutions we rush through have no relationship to the recent tragedy

      You never let a serious crisis tragedy go to waste.

  5. So I mentioned on PM links that I was listening to some drivel from the superintendent of police here in Chicago about this. On NPR this afternoon he called for, among other things, a federal requirement that lost or stolen firearms be reported lost or stolen. Why? Because if they’re not, and a gun is recovered at a crime scene, and its last recorded owner was an 85-year-old grandmother in Mississippi, well we just don’t know whose fault it really was that it got into the wrong hands. That is to say, we need to record all transfers so we can always make sure we know who owns any given gun. But Orrin Hatch is TOTALLY PARANOID AND CRAZY.

    Seriously, if you had told me 10 years ago I would ever agree with him about anything beyond the color of the sky or the sum of 2 and 2, I would have laughed in your face. And yet here we are.

    1. “Seriously, if you had told me 10 years ago I would ever agree with him about anything beyond the color of the sky or the sum of 2 and 2, I would have laughed in your face. And yet here we are.”

      I suspect many of us here are thinking that while looking befuddled and saying ‘huh?’. I know I am.

    2. That is to say, we need to record all transfers so we can always make sure we know who owns any given gun.

      That’s not necessarily what he’s talking about. Right now, BATFE in theory does not have any information abut who possesses which guns; only which FFLs have processed sales and transfers of the guns. They can however trace a gun that is used in a crime by going to the last FFL and looking at their books to find who it was last transfered to. None of this requires a registry. The information is scattered about in the log books of the thousands of FFLs across the country (assuming BATFE is actually following the law and deleting NICS records after 72h).

      But the weak link is private sales that don’t go through FFLs. The only way to trace those is to pay an unpleasant visit to the last known transferee and start connecting dots, and if the last transferee says it was stolen but never reported, or sold to someone whose name they’ve forgotten, that’s trouble.

      I would hope that responsible gun owners would acknowledge that it’s important to get a handle on illegal sales, straw purchases, and thefts. The current system actually makes that difficult.

      1. But the weak link is private sales that don’t go through FFLs.

        That was my point. If he wants to be able to trace any gun used in a crime, he needs more than just reports of guns that are lost or stolen, but also a record of all legitimate transfers.

        I’m not sure, though, about your last paragraph. Why does not requiring all transfers to be recorded make it more difficult to get a handle on loss or theft? Illegal sales and straw purchases, yes, but I’m going to guess those people aren’t going to suddenly start registering their guns/transfers regardless. It’s not like you currently can’t report a gun lost or stolen.

        1. Someone who made an illegal private sale can just claim it was stolen when BATFE comes knocking.

          1. or they can claim it was sold but they don’t remember who the buyer was.

        2. And I thought you were implying that the police chief was pushing for de facto registration.

          I mean, he probably does support that, but that’s not what universal NICS entails.

          1. No, my point was that in this particular interview he wasn’t even pushing for universal NICS, but only “a federal requirement that lost or stolen firearms be reported lost or stolen,” as if that would accomplish his stated goal of being able to trace guns used in crimes. He would need at least universal NICS to do that.

            1. That would remove the option of illegal sellers/straw purchasers claiming their gun was stolen when the feds come knocking. Because the next stop for them would be Leavenworth.

              1. So all they have to claim is they sold it to someone without a background check. They sold it to a dead friend or relative who isn’t around anymore to contradict them. I’m not saying it doesn’t make it more of a pain in the ass, there’s just still a big “loophole” there.

                1. Yep…. a loophole that would be closed by universal NICS.

                  1. Did you read my 9:07 above? Stop fake-arguing with me!

      2. I would hope that responsible gun owners would acknowledge that it’s important to get a handle on illegal sales, straw purchases, and thefts. The current system actually makes that difficult.

        You, as a responsible gun owner, can register your guns. The rest of us say ‘no thanks’.

        1. I’m not talking about registration…

          1. The problem is, your system doesn’t work without it. And if you think the BATFU isn’t keeping records of every NICS check, you’re a fucking moron. They’ve flouted the law before and been caught, and I seriously doubt they aren’t still doing it.

            1. Yup.

              Like I said, tupla. You fuddy-duddy milquetoast gun owners can go register all day long. The rest of us will laugh when they swat team your law-abiding asses.

              “But, But, I did as Dear Leader said and registered! I’m law abiding.”

              1. Dude? If BATFE is in fact abusing NICS to build a DB, and you’ve ever gotten a gun via an FFL transfer, you’re in the database too, and you’ll be getting the same SWAT when/if confiscation comes. So get the chuckles out of the way now.

            2. No, the system could work the same way the current gun trace system works. So long as the information is scattered about the threat of it being used for confiscation is minimal, as it would be incredibly costly for ATF to visit every FFL in the country and seize their books, and impossible for them to do so clandestinely.

              The possibility that they’re not deleting records is troubling, and we should come up with a way to make sure they aren’t abusing NICS to build a data base. I’m a solutions guy, not a complaint guy.

              1. So, you’re for registration, you just want the gun shops to run the database. Gotcha.

                Look, I’m sympathetic to the idea that a non-FFL who wants to sell a gun should be able to run a check on the person he’s selling to, BUT:

                The system needs to record no information about the gun or the purpose for the check, and it needs to be open for any and all lawful purposes, such as checking to see if the babysitter you’re hiring has a record.

                That way, it would be impossible to use the system as a backdoor registration. Simply having your background checked does not mean you own a gun, because it could have been done by anyone for any reason.

                Oh, and it shouldn’t be mandatory.

                1. That actually might work. Any attempt to target people in such a database would be a manpower and resource pit.

                  But it should be mandatory for gun purchases.

                  1. How would you enforce it? The only way to enforce mandatory background checks for all gun purchases (albiet extremely non-perfectly) is universal registration. Take out the universal registration, and it’s impossible to know whether or not the gun was sold legally.

                    So, why bother trying to enforce that which is unenforceable?

                    Frankly, I’d rather they scrap the entire damn thing. If someone can’t be trusted with a gun, they can’t be trusted outside of a jail cell. There are too many ways to kill a person for background checks on gun purchases to be truly effective (besides the fact that felons generally have no problem getting guns anyway, via theft or the black market).

                    1. Well, the private seller would have to keep records. If they don’t want the responsibility, go to an FFL.

                      felons generally have no problem getting guns anyway, via theft or the black market

                      Yeah, this is supposed to take care of the black market part.

                      It’s kind of strange to see y’all fretting over how criminals will get guns via the black market and theft, and then refusing to accept any measures that will cut back on theft (secure storage requirements) or the black market (universal bkd checks).

                    2. Except universal background checks will do no such thing. It would actually INCREASE the number of felons who resort to theft or other illegal measures (such as straw purchasing) in order to get guns. The point is that background checks, universal or otherwise, are completely and utterly incapable of putting a dent in the problem they’re meant to solve, and as such are nothing but a needless imposition on the rights of law abiding citizens.

                    3. Also, RE: Secure storage requirements: Even the best safes can be cracked in an hour or two by someone who knows what they’re doing, and those costs thousands of dollars. A safe that’s affordable to most gun owners are quite easy to defeat. Safes can stop smash and grabs and casual thieves, but not much else.

        2. Uh, nope. I don’t give a shit if criminals have guns as long as I can have them, too. Liberty entails risk. I accept that risk.

          1. Do you purport to have the standing to accept that risk on behalf of everybody else?

            1. I do.

              1. Who gave you the right to force liberty on everyone else?

                Fuck off, emancipator!

                1. …Did Tulpa just turn into Tony?

  6. “We know it’s a problem.”

    If she left the turd out of her pocket, there wouldn’t be any “we”.

  7. OT, but AP is reporting the kid in Alabama is safe, the abductor dead.

    1. To you, Rich, and to the gentleman testifying:

      Thank you, sir, from the bottom of my heart.

    2. That is great. It should go viral.

    3. That guy is the man.

    4. Awesome.

    5. It’s satisfying for us to see, but way too angry and sarcastic for the general public to be swayed.

      He’s immediately going to be pigeonholed as someone with an axe to grind, whose kid wasn’t one of the victims anyway. The grabbers will deprecate the opinions of anyone who disagrees with them, but he’s making it easy for the fence sitters to do the same.

    6. Some fucking Democrats heckled him at 2:09.

  8. I just hope he doesn’t sing

    I would be more concerned about the inevitable.

  9. McAuliff thinks that restricting legal access to something makes it impossibly hard to get it because it drives it to the black market? Good thing people can’t get pot and coke anymore!

    1. Was that your comment at the HuffPostLive site?

  10. Abby Hunstman: So, Jacob et al, just how batshit crazy are you gunfuckers?

    1. Buncha gunbagging tearatters.

  11. Put Me on an Island With Orrin Hatch

    Ew. Seriously? SO gross.

    1. Nothing happened, okay? Nothing. Don’t believe the malicious rumors floating around DC because it wasn’t like that. Those wistful looks across the room from Hatch to Sullum are just the result of two guys who went through a harrowing experience together. Sure the windblown nights on that island were cold. And the accommodations were a little cramped. And the way the Southern stars reflected in Hatch’s eyes were more incredible than anything Sullum ever experienced with his mainland wife.

      But nothing happened. Jacob’s all man.

    2. Put Me on an Island With Orrin Hatch

      Ew. Seriously? SO gross.


      As distasteful as it sounds, it would probably be less eventful than being on an island ( like?say,.. the island of Hispaniola/Dominican Republic) with a pedophile senator like Menendez.

  12. anybody buy a $20 ticket to the 30-guns-in-30-minutes raffle that New Hampshire hunting club is throwing? i couldn’t figure out how to buy a ticket online – not sure you can.

  13. Here’s how I am thinking of explaining this to anti-gun friends. AIDS kills roughly as many people as guns, so shouldn’t we have a national registry of everyone who has HIV? So that prospective partners can do background checks? And if not, why is having a deadly contagious disease deserving of more privacy than owning a gun?

    1. Because,

      Homophobe!

      1. And RACIST!

        1. I did recall that idea, but I think my hypothetical works better because “registration” is what is being proposed (by some) for gun owners.

      1. To be fair, back then AIDS was a lot scarier, because there really wasn’t much of a treatment.

    2. well clearly you hate gays, which is politically unacceptable, whereas people who own guns are ignorant rednecks who have no say in whats best for them

    3. “AIDS kills roughly as many people as guns, so shouldn’t we have a national registry of everyone who has HIV? So that prospective partners can do background checks?”

      Actually, if you want to compare this to what they’re proposing regarding registering gun owners, then you’re not going far enough.

      What they’re proposing is registering gun owners–who haven’t committed a crime yet. So in your analogy, you shouldn’t be proposing registering people with HIV–you should propose registering people who MIGHT get HIV.

      So, you’d register all intravenous drug users, all hemophiliacs, and all gay men and put them in federal database.

      And if they don’t have HIV, then they have nothing to be afraid of! Why be paranoid about what the federal government might do with such a database?

      1. And register anyone who has sex with an HIV+, and anyone who has sex with a child of an HIV+.

        Gotta be safe.

        1. Am I the only one who took PapayaSF’s proposal in a Swiftean vein?

          1. I hope not.

        2. Amazon Women on the Moon was ahead of its time.

    4. Not a good analogy since an HIV+ person cannot infect you with HIV unless you have sex with them or share needles, while someone who possesses a gun can shoot you much more easily without your consent.

      1. I dunno, I don’t love it but I think rape makes it work. After all, guns don’t kill people, etc.

        1. Rape is hard.

          1. Are you trying to say we’re not all oppressed by rape culture? It’s still doable, not to mention the fact you can lie about your HIV status pretty easily.

            1. Not if you and your paramour have to go through a NICS system before doing the deed.

              Just require a shot causing impotence and frigidity at two years of age, temporarily reversible by medication that only Federal Copulation License holders are permitted to buy or possess. For the children.

              1. So are you now on board with the analogy?

                Will there be Concealed and Open Copulation Licenses?

                1. I’m operating on a whole other level of statism from y’all.

                  Behold me and despair.

                2. No copulation outside the place of business of an FCL. And any fake orgasms in the presence of an FCL will be considered federal felony.

      2. Not a good analogy…

        Of course it’s not a perfect analogy, duh, but I think it works well enough to make my point (which is to get gun-controllers to scream “privacy!” and neutralize the “but guns are special because they kill people!” argument).

        Note that a registry of HIV+ people would mean that everyone (if they used it) could protect themselves from AIDS (except in cases of rape). On the other hand, a gun registry does not protect anyone from being shot.

  14. We know it’s a problem. We know there are simply too many guns.

    “We” don’t know any such thing.

    I don’t really think there’s anything new to say on this whole mess. Sure, none of their proposals would have prevented Sandy Hook. Sure, Columbine happened right in the middle of the last AW/magazine ban.

    Its not going to come down to arguments and facts. Its going to come down to pure political muscle. Unless the legislators are more afraid of us than they are of them, we will lose.

    So make ’em afraid. I’m taking the tack with mine that I don’t really care how they vote, if any new gun control legislation passes, any at all, I will support their primary opponent. Period. If they can’t stop gun control, just what fucking use are they, anyway? You better die on that hill, because if you don’t hold it, you won’t make it out of the next primary alive.

    1. If they can’t stop gun control, just what fucking use are they, anyway?

      Well, they might reform the tax code.

      /sarc

    2. “Its not going to come down to arguments and facts. Its going to come down to pure political muscle.”

      A lot of people are easily controlled. Never let a good crisis go to waste! Spectacular images of crisis in the media + good ol’ fashioned noble lies = an easily controlled populace.

      But it’s always been like that. I think there are still important political points to score with people–as Sullum in this exchange just showed. The people asking those questions may never have even considered that freedom really is important to people on principle.

      Some people are hopeless, but not everybody. Tell people that freedom is more important to you than whatever risk firearms present to children, and they get mad. They used to get mad when I told them I’d rather suffer another 9/11 than give up our right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure–or our right not be forced to testify against ourselves.

      It makes them mad to hear that we value or freedom more than we fear whatever they’re afraid of, but it also makes them think. They’re really not used to hearing people say stuff like we do out loud. It’s a shock more than anything, and shocking them out of their autopilot stupor is a good thing. So, don’t give up on the marketing plan yet.

  15. Does anybody take what other people consider common sense and expose it as the stupidity it is–better than Sullum?

    I don’t think so!

    Some people spend so much time in their echo chambers, it’s hard for them to believe real advocates for freedom really exist–and then Sullum shows up and destroys their Stupid.

    I bet the guy that asked that question still can’t believe Sullum doesn’t agree that restricting our freedom is the solution to our problems.

  16. Are you guys paranoid that background checks might become universal?

    I see what she did there.

    Paranoid:

    of, like, or suffering from paranoia.

    Paranoia:

    Psychiatry. a mental disorder characterized by systematized delusions and the projection of personal conflicts, which are ascribed to the supposed hostility of others, sometimes progressing to disturbances of consciousness and aggressive acts believed to be performed in self-defense or as a mission.

    http://dictionary.reference.co…..ranoia?s=t

  17. Are you guys paranoid that background checks might become universal?

    Am I missing something? Have I misread this?

    “MIGHT” become universal? That is specifically what these fuckers want.

    And then, when somebody slips through the net of universal background checks, it will be universal permits and registration. And when that doesn’t work…

    1. But the slippery slope argument is a fallacy! It’s a fallacy!

  18. We have limits on our freedoms every day. They’re called laws, and without them there isn’t an organized society.

    Abortion… damn, I was going to come up with more examples, but that’s the only freedom liberals care about anymore.

    Such a pity, there was a time when I could have listed at least three more.

    1. We have limits on our freedoms every day. They’re called laws, and without them there isn’t an organized society.

      Try it in the original German, sweetie.

    2. We have limits on our freedoms every day. They’re called laws, and without them there isn’t an organized society.

      Everything for the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State.

  19. We know there are simply too many guns. Maybe some of you would disagree with me, but
    you’re all nuttier than Grandma’s Christmas fruitcake, so I can safely ignore any “reservations” you might have.

  20. Are you guys paranoid that background checks might become universal?

    Good grief. Let me answer that question by posing another: Have you stopped beating your husband?

  21. According to a string of polls, most gun owners favor the idea of universal background checks for gun purchases, and such a system was considered the most likely response to the horrifying rampage at Sandy Hook Elementary School.

    Perhaps I just haven’t been keeping up, but what in the holy hell do universal background checks have to do with Sandy Hook?

    1. Because WE MUST DO SOMETHING!

      OK, now you’re up to speed, NEM.

    2. We have to do something to prevent this from happening again, even if it will in no way prevent something like this from happening again! I mean, something must be done! Something! Anything!

      Do you have a better idea?

      (any idea that involves liberty is not an option, only things that restrict liberty are acceptable)

      Why do you hate the children?

      1. universal background checks as an idea have been around a heck of a lot longer than sandy hook. i think they are a good idea, but not because of sandy hook, but because i think it empowers gun sellers, to be able to check to see if the person they are selling to is in fact a convicted felon w/o gun rights, etc.

        of course there'[s a difference between setting up/allowing access to background checks for sellers and REQUIRING them.

        i wish all the kneejerk nimrods would just accept there is NO WAY To prevent mass shootings and just fucking get over themselves. if somebody is intent on causing mayhem and plugging away, you can’t prevent them…

        although an armed populace is imo the best idea, which we have in the states that are constitutional carry or at least shall issue.

        1. although an armed populace is imo the best idea, which we have in the states that are constitutional carry or at least shall issue.

          Yeah. Except for those magical ‘gun-free-zones’ where even a retired policeman who by federal law can carry concealed in all 50 states is forbidden from armed self defense.

          Yet so many shootings happen in these magical places where no one has a gun.

          So much for magic.

          Seriously though, the point of universal background checks is to, whenever there is a shooting, add some new criteria to the check.

          The shooter had a DUI thirty years ago? No one with a DUI can be trusted to own a firearm.

          The shooter had a speeding ticket?
          The shooter got caught shoplifting when he was ten?
          The shooter failed high school algebra?

          Until… the shooter was not in a government uniform?
          (and since shootings by people in government uniforms are ALWAYS justified, only people in government uniforms may legally arm themselves)

          1. Hadn’t thought of that angle sarc, but even if not the intention of implementing UBCs, that’s exactly where it would end up.

            1. Logical conclusions, while invisible to those incapable of abstract thought, do exist.

          2. Originally under FOPA, there was supposed to be a process, run by ATF, for ineligible people to have their “disability” removed so they could possess firearms. unfortunately, nothing in the law actually forced ATF to set up such a process, so they basically have stonewalled for 27 years.

      2. Do you have a better idea?

        Concentrate them together in camps, where they’ll only be able to interact with approved adults, whom we’ll call “guards”.

    3. It seems that Lanza, Loughner, and Holmes were all able to obtain their weapons from a third party that obtained them legally and would have passed a background check.

      Unless they want you to also submit your immediate family to background checks if you buy a gun.

      1. It’s background checks all the way down!

  22. I’m not sure how much any of this matters anymore since Obama is buying up all of the available ammo.

    1. You mean for skeet shooting?

      Or are you just talking about the price of ammo since Obama started running his mouth about this?

      1. I’m talking about the fact that federal agencies are buying up a billion rounds of ammo. They’re literally emptying the shelves.

        1. Dude, I was talking about the price of ammo with my bro the other day…

          You got a link?

          1. No they took out an option to buy that much ammo a while back. The current shortage of ammo is solely due to private citizens buying it up. There have been over 5 million background checks run since Sandy Hook. All those new guns need feeding.

            1. The billions of bullets have to come from somewhere. Options or no options you can only ramp up production so much. The fact they started thise last summer doesn’t mean anything either since gun control has never had anything to do with sandy hook.

          2. http://www.nraila.org/news-iss…..ition.aspx

            According to my father’s DEA friend they receive regular shipments of 1000s of rounds of ammunition the agents neither need nor want, so this doesn’t surprise me.

          3. Here’s one but if you google feds buying ammok you’ll find stories going back to last summere of multiple fed agencies stockpiling ammo.

            http://www.examiner.com/articl…..-stockpile

          4. Supposedly they’re buying up .40, which is the only goddamn thing on the shelves.

            Also, where the hell are all the .40 fucking fanboys at now? All, I hear on the internet is how 9mm or .22 won’t kill a baby duck and YOU NEED TO BUY A .40 OR YOU WILL DIE!!! But then I go to buy ammo and all there fucking is is .40. Fuck you clowns and your over-pressurized bullshit round.

            1. Good rant, would read again. +1 baby duck.

            2. Feds are buying up stitloads of 9 as well.

            3. I don’t know how you feel safe leaving the house without at least a .50 Beowulf.

              1. I just carry a gallon of gasoline around with me. If anybody approaches me on the street, I splash it about my head and neck then reach for my tactical zippo.

              2. Anything smaller than the .577 Tyrannosaur is shooting on stun. Real men don’t shoot on stun.

                1. I love this video of a bunch of crazy arabs shooting a .577.

                  Skinny white dude nails it at 4:25.

                  1. LOL. I especially liked the guys who lost their turbans.

                    That guy at 4:25 was badass. He looked like he could have made a follow-up shot.

            4. I was going to post on PAFOA about this (my name is Fujisawa-sensai, btw). I’ve been eschewing getting a .40 for the past year because I figured there wouldn’t be any ammo if SHTF and I was worshipping at the altar of caliber consolidation. And now a fart hits the fan and .40 is all that’s left. WTF.

              1. Yeah, I’m running low right now.

                I was doing the smart thing; buying a box here and there whenever I was out and saw a good price. But, before xmas I was tight on funds and quit buying for a few weeks.

                That, and I was going to the range all the time.

                As for the caliber wars, if I run into the type of trouble that 35 p+ 9mm cartridges won’t help, a .40 ain’t gonna make much difference.

                1. I don’t go to my range during the winter. The internal roads aren’t all paved, and those that are paved are not plowed well and it’s not like I have an SUV.

                  I could go to A+S in Youngwood or Anthony, but it irks me to pay them when I belong to a club.

        2. 1.4 billion.

          1. Going by the data from before the panic-buying madness began, that’s less than 5 rounds for every privately owned gun in the US. That can’t be what’s causing the shortages.

            1. I think it’s just people freaking the fuck out.

              Everybody is buying up everything they can. It’s not like places aren’t getting ammo, they are. It’s gone before it’s uncased.

              And it all started right after Sandy Hook.

              Occham’s razor, bitches.

              1. Yeah, that seems likely. Plus speculators and idiots threatening boycotts if any store raises their prices to slam the brakes on panic buying.

                I guarantee some of the people buying tons of ammo are just planning on selling it on the PAFOA classifieds or something.

  23. what in the holy hell do universal background checks have to do with Sandy Hook?

    Lanza’s mom could have cried out for help over the phone while the transfer was being processed.

  24. Sorry this is off topic but I know there are some computer people here. My laptop sounds like the bearings are going out on the fan. At least that’s what it would be if it were a ca. It’s about ten years old. It quiets down if I smack it. Can it be fixed and is it worth the trouble?

    1. Corrected: At least that’s what it would be if it were a car.

      1. If you were a patriots fan then your first spelling was closer.

    2. It can probably be fixed. The difficulty and expense vary with the manufacturer of the laptop, and whether it uses a customized fan type. I tore my Toshiba laptop apart a few years ago due to a bad fan and gev the bearings a little lube and it’s been fine since.

      1. Is there anything little lube can’t do? Thanks. I will try that.

    3. Dude, just plunk down the couple hundred dollars to get a new one. A ten-year-old laptop is not worth fixing. Shit, a five-year-old laptop is not worth fixing.

      1. This is exactly the attitude that Episiarch’s parents had about kids, and it served them well.

        1. I didn’t need fixing, Hugh! I just needed them to love me!

          Smitty: You’re under arrest for child cruelty, child endangerment, depriving children of food, selling children as food, and misrepresenting the weight of livestock.

          Bender: If you had kids of your own, you’d understand!

    4. Ten years old? Hmm, I’m thinking it may not be worth the trouble.

      Although I understand if you’re broke. Money is money. It’s possible you could try to open it up (although opening a laptop can be a dicey affair in that they can be tough to put back together correctly. Ie, two seams never seem to line up correctly ever again.

      If you can get it open safely, and identify the fan, it may be worth doing the work yourself.

      I would doubt it would be worthwhile to pay a professional to do it, however.

      1. “I would doubt it would be worthwhile to pay a professional to do it, however.”

        You’re presuming Gus could buy a new one and not have to up-date all the software.
        It’s like printers now; we’ll give ’em away! But ya gotta buy X to make ’em work.
        If your data is good and the thing still works, pay the pro and don’t spend the next month trying to get a new one to do what the old one did.

  25. I think we should all run background checks on each other but not actually transfer any weapons. The most likely law will probably not have a provision that mandates the transaction actually be performed. GIGO

  26. Cultural bigots projecting their own poor anger management and impulse control skills onto the Great Unwashed. “We are so lacking in self-control and judgment that we do not trust ourselves with guns. And since we are elites, everyone else in the country must be EVEN MORE lacking in self-control and judgment. Therefore we must check, stamp, and number everyone who wants to buy a gun.”

    1. 50% on the first sale. Al Capone had nothing on these mf’s.

      1. BATMF Motherfuckers!

    2. See, all we had to do is sell the notion to legislators that we’d give them new levers to power, they’d be on board with legalization.

      Y’see, before, they just thought they were getting cut out of the action.

      Either ban it, which gives the DEA tons of jobs, equipment, budgets and power, or new regulations, which gives the BATMFE new jobs, equipment, budgets and power. It’s a wash, gentlemen. We’re proceeding to jump from the frying pan and into…

      1. If I became prez, my first order of biz would be to give everyone at the DEA a pay raise while freezing all hiring and transfers into the DEA. I can’t see them objecting when I do this, and after a few years of attrition the agency would just keel over and die from lack of manpower.

  27. The bill is based on a legalization measure previously pushed by former Reps. Barney Frank of Massachusetts and Ron Paul of Texas.

    Blumenauer’s bill would create a federal marijuana excise tax of 50 percent on the “first sale” of marijuana – typically, from a grower to a processor or retailer. It also would tax pot producers or importers $1,000 annually and other marijuana businesses $500.

    I suppose it could be worse. If it somehow passed I wonder if home cultivation would remain illegal?

    1. html FAIL

      “I suppose it could be worse. If it somehow passed I wonder if home cultivation would remain illegal?”

      Is my comment on the quote

  28. Obama said he doesn’t want to do all the things, he just wants to do some of the things.

    1. There is an up-side here.
      The asshole is flying all over the country pitching what’s gonna get hung up in Congress forever.
      During that time, Pelosi can’t push another one of his-n-her disasters through!
      I’ll take it!

      1. He’s playing to the base. I can’t see any independents being swayed by what that product of unfortunate conception says.

        Unfortunately, that strategy worked last time in the general.

    2. Wasn’t there some quote from the other president beloved by African Americans regarding that?

  29. We know it’s a problem. We know there are simply too many guns. Maybe some of you would disagree with me, but I think the majority of Americans think there are too many guns out there. We need to make steps in the right direction so people are not getting killed, especially by those who are not mentally stable.

    As I sit here shaking my head, wondering if this woman has ever had a critical thought in her life, the following is the only suitable comment I can muster:

    DERP!

    To point out all that is wrong with that statement would require a short book, would waste my time and would be ignored anyway.

      1. You just inspired me to go looking for my favorite one, and what did I find? That the guy who wrote it is an honest-to-goodness Communist. I’m going to go think about set theory and cry now.

        1. Dialectics don’t kill people, Marxist dialectics kill people.

        2. Besides, the guy who wrote my textbook, is an “avid Red Sox fan“, which is worse.

          1. Everyone knows that “red sox” is a euphemism for pinko commies.

  30. According to the Twitters, Piers Morgan (who, by the way, has a photo of himself with the fucking president and first lady on his profile, nice journalism skillz dude) has an episode tonight where he actually shoots guns. “You won’t be able to accuse me of knowing nothing about how guns work after this.”

    1. Lulz. Simply having shot a gun does not mean you know how they work. It’s the first step, but I see gun owners all the fucking time who don’t have the first clue about firearms.

      To put it another way, just because you can drive a car doesn’t mean you know how they work, let alone make you an authority on cars.

      1. For an ordinary person that would be true. But this is Piers Morgan. He’s the T-1000 of journalists.

    2. I’d let him try that .577 right out of the chute.

    3. does he still know how to hack voicemail?

    4. What a courageous move by this bastion of ethnical discourse *erp*, sullying himself by touching something as intrinsically dirty as a gun *cough*. Hopefully this encounter doesn’t damage his delicate *gag* sensibilities, or possibly, injure him (because of the extreme danger inherent in these maniacal death dealing devices, known as “the gunz”), what fortitude! Look out Pulitzer…here comes *wretch* Piers Morgan, CNN’s man of impeccable moral *barf…gasp* fiber.

      I feel sick now?.I need to lay down?..

      1. Whatever. I’d like to see you guys have the courage to take part in a midnight no-knock SWAT raid and shoot a dog so you know what it’s like to be in that position.

  31. uptil I saw the receipt that said $5778, I have faith …that…my sister could actualie erning money part-time at there computar.. there sisters neighbour had bean doing this 4 only 6 months and by now paid for the morgage on there appartment and bought Chevrolet. I went here, http://www.buzz75.com

    1. Tell your sister to hire an English tutor.

  32. Fuck background checks and gun registration. Think of it as a test to see who is a pussy and who is not.

  33. Last Wednesday, Peggy Gallagher, beleaguered mother of Noel and Liam, turned 70. She pleaded with her boys to be nice to each other for the occasion.

    According to The Mirror, “the best present she could hope for was to have her family in the same room together.” Nope.

    1. Those were the guys in Milli Vanilli, right?

  34. Sometimes you jsut gotta roll with the punches!

    http://www.ImAnon.tk

  35. There are over 200 million handguns floating around in US cities. Background checks won`t prevent a mentally ill youngster from buying one, stealing 50 bucks from moms handbag and finding a felon that sells guns is all that it takes. Many celebrities are solving the problem by wearing bullet proof vests and designer combat helmets. Staying at home and ordering up food will keep a person safe, but bills have to be paid and chances have to be taken by getting out into the fresh air.

  36. Orin Hatch voted for NDAA and FISA. He doesn’t have a leg to stand on in regards to government databases allowing for the repression of individuals and their liberties. Maybe that should have come up when he started spouting some pandering bullshit about liberty.

    You are Utah’s worst representative in at least two decades Mr. Hatch. If Utah would vote based upon something other than family/religious lines, no one would have ever heard your name.

    1. And I don’t want gun control either. Sen. Hatch is just a bray jackass. Might even reply to myself a couple more times to elaborate on his dirty skullduggery and pathetic personal character. . .

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.