Charleston shooting

Obama Wonders If Dylann Roof, Who Passed a Background Check, Could Have Been Stopped by a Background Check

Why "common-sense gun safety reforms" would not have "prevented what happened in Charleston."



"If Congress had passed some common-sense gun safety reforms after Newtown," President Obama said during a visit to San Francisco on Friday, "we don't know if it would have prevented what happened in Charleston." Actually, we do know: Had the bill to which Obama was referring been enacted, it would not have done anything to prevent Dylann Roof from murdering nine people at Charleston's Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church on Wednesday night. But as is usually the case with the policies that gun controllers push in response to horrendous crimes like this one, logic is optional.

Obama was talking about legislation proposed following the December 2012 massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut—in particular, "reforms that 90 percent of the American people supported," meaning expansion of the background check requirement for gun buyers to include sales that do not involve federally licensed dealers. But as CNN reported the day of Obama's remarks, Roof bought the .45-caliber Glock Model 41 handgun he used in the church attack from a Charleston gun store in April, shortly after his 21st birthday (which was on April 3), with money his father had given him as a present. That means he passed a background check.

Whether Roof should have passed a background check is a matter of some dispute, but it looks like he did not have a disqualifying criminal or psychiatric record. Roof was arrested at a mall in Columbia, South Carolina, on March 2 February 28 [see below] and charged with illegal possession of Suboxone, a Schedule III combination of the narcotic buprenorphine and the opioid antagonist naloxone (legally used to treat opioid addicts). According to a story The New York Times ran on Thursday, the drug charge was a felony. But according to subsequent reports from the Associated Press and The Charlotte Observer, the charge was a misdemeanor.

The difference is important under the Gun Control Act of 1968, which bans firearm sales to someone who "is under indictment for, or has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year" (i.e., a felony). Based on the Times report, The Washington Post's Jeff Guo claimed (as J.D. Tuccille noted here on Friday) that "because of his criminal record, Roof would not have been able to buy a gun from a store." Clearly that's not true, since Roof did buy a gun from a store. And if A.P. and the Observer are right that Roof was charged with a misdemeanor rather than a felony, his drug arrest would not have barred him from buying a gun, even assuming that the information would have made its way into the FBI's National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) in the month or so between the arrest and the purchase.

If Roof was a nonmedical user of Suboxone, that fact would have legally disqualified him from buying a gun, since the Gun Control Act excludes anyone who is "an unlawful user" of a controlled substance. But a gun dealer would have had no way of knowing about Roof's tastes in psychoactive chemicals, because NICS does not track people's drug habits—a good thing, since otherwise anyone who has recently consumed cannabis (even in states where it's legal) or used someone else's prescription medication would be stripped of the right to own guns in practice as well as theory. Nor did the "common-sense gun safety reforms" Obama wishes Congress had passed include such a national database of drug users, the creation of which would face enormous practical difficulties, not to mention the wholesale violation of privacy it would entail.

In short, "universal background checks" make no sense as a response to the Charleston shootings, contrary to what Obama and Martin O'Malley seem to think. Then again, universal background checks made no sense as a response to the Sandy Hook massacre, the perpetrator of which, Adam Lanza, used a rifle legally purchased by his mother and in any case did not have the sort of criminal or psychiatric record that would have legally barred him from buying a gun on his own. Such emotional appeals do not have much staying power, not because people forget about the horrors perpetrated by the likes of Roof and Lanza, but because the proposed solutions are non sequiturs that cannot withstand a moment's reflection.

Addendum: Yesterday The State, Columbia's daily paper, reported that, "according to an arrest warrant reviewed by The State," the drug charge against Roof was indeed a misdemeanor, so it looks like the Times (and therefore the Post) got that important detail wrong. The State also says Roof was arrested on February 28, not March 2, the date given by the Observer.

NEXT: Coming Soon from SCOTUS: Blockbuster Rulings on Gay Marriage, Obamacare, and More

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 or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Facts have no place in today’s journalism, Walker.

      1. Your comment was clever until you corrected it.

        1. yeah, I thought he was making a sideways refrence to “Project Gunwalker”, the early name for what we now know as Fast and Furious, Obama’s best known and most effective “common sense gun control” programme.

  2. The anti-gunners deperately need something to be proposed, anything, so that they can raise lots of campaign money and get their based fired up for the Democrats next year.

  3. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I thought the gun he used was given to him by his father.

    1. That was the initial report, which turned out to be wrong.

      1. I’m beginning to suspect I should take initial reports on gun stories with a grain of salt.

        1. You can pretty much put all “initial stories” in a wood chipper, near as I can tell. You wait for the mulch – that’s when you get accuracy. Sort of.

          1. Careful with that word….. “Woodchipper” gets the Feds involved

        2. better to take with a whole bucket of salt. Once the lamestream media begin to “feed” the waters get churned up mighty quickly, and cummed with all manner of juicy “bait” in the form of “facts” made of whole cloth, rumours, and wishful thinging. Sort of like the italian cook throwing the whole pot of spahgetti against the wall, and waithing to see what sticks.

    2. No, that was a preliminary that has proven to be false. His dad gave him money for his birthday that he used to go buy the pistol.

      1. which he purchased at a federally licensed retail gunstore, in his own name, passing the standard backgroung check.

    3. Yes, but it was clearly illegal because of gun shows, racism, income tax issues, Duck Dynasty, dogfighting, online gambling, violent video games, exotic reptile pets and unacceptable aesthetics.

      1. Ban birthdays.

  4. It was clearly triggered by a trigger.

  5. How can anybody oppose legislation that’s described as “common-sense?” If you do, you must want people to die.

    1. Drone murders are so much more awesome on so many levels.

      1. no background check required

    2. Assault woodchippers need to be banned as well.

      1. Automatic assault woodchippers. You fucking blew it.

        1. No, if it looks like an automatic woodchipper, I don’t care if it’s automatic or semi-automatic, it needs banned. I don’t like scary looking things.

          1. My PTO woodchipper is orange. If I paint it black I should expect a visit from the ATF (Bureau of alcohol, tobacco, and forestry equipment).

            1. Only if you put a folding stock on it.

              1. and a five ton wood round feeding device.

                1. We are all going to re-education centers when SHTF, mark my word

        2. With that thing that goes up.

          1. the shoulder thingy that goes up, yeah

  6. But as is usually the case with the policies that gun controllers push in response to horrendous crimes like this one, logic is optional.

    But muh feels!

  7. Keep in mind that, for a certain sector of the population, a complete ban on guns falls within the realm of “common-sense reforms.”

    1. A lot of them also think taxing ammo until it is prohibitively expensive, mandating yearly home inspections of gun conditions and requiring a full training course before getting a permit to buy a gun are reasonable.

      1. Training courses are important if you want even more victims and that helps your cause even more. Shit, if the stupid fuckstain had killed even more people, that’s more ammo to stop guns.

      2. I’m actually kind of surprised no one has proposed the “common-sense” idea of an annual property tax on guns (like with houses), or at least a periodic registration renewal (like with vehicles).

        Yes, I know — stop giving them ideas.

        1. They sort of have. It’s just in the form of separate gunowner insurance policies.

        2. Here’s an even better idea. You pay property taxes, and fee’s for your rights and vote for someone that tells you which rights you are and are not going to have.

          Then you can leave others the hell alone while they go about life without being a slave to the state.

        3. …periodic registration renewal (like with vehicles).

          NYC is way ahead of you. Here one must obtain a permit to posses any firearm in one’s home, a separate permit to transport any firearm in one’s motor vehicle, and a separate permit to posses any firearm in one’s business. These permits are per firearm; if one owns say a handgun for target shooting and a scattergun for waterfowl, one needs 2 permits for home possession, 2 permits for transport, and 2 permits for business possession. These permits are may issue at the discretion of the precinct captain of whatever neighborhood in which one resides. These permits require a $380 non-refundable application fee and must be renewed every year at $80 each thereafter. All to exercise a Constitutionally protected right.

          1. But that’s totally OK, because as the Drug Warriors say, “the law is the law”, amirite?

            (This is sarcasm, BTW. No, not “sarcasmic”, just sarcasm. 😉 )

          2. The local ordinance enacted in 1967 requiring the registration of long guns maintained at ones city residence was what led me to give up on NYC, where I was born and raised. I was also “annoyed” at the lying by a couple of NYC Police Detectives during their “testimony” at the Dog and Pony Show that City Council hearings on the proposal amounted to. By the way, the fees originally set for the registration were nominal. This “nominality” of fees didn’t last long, to nobodies surprise.

          3. Reason number 287 explaining why I do not live in New York State, let alone NYC. I think I’d rather live in Cuba… at least those folks all work at playing the gumint for the fools they are.

          4. You said scattergun

        4. they’ve already got plenty, including this one. Registration, tax on each one (for the damage they MIGHT inflict, you understand.. its only FAIRRRRRR…….) oh, and lately an inusrace policy.

      3. A lot of them

        Well, many of them are the same person.

      4. A lot of them

        Well, many of them are the same person.

  8. A true-blue progressive friend of mine is majorly p1ssed with Obama for not talking about the racism of the perpetrator and shifting the conversation to guns instead. Obama is losing his base.

    1. Wow. A chick that brings home the bacon. That is smokin’ hot! Yes, thanks.

    2. All I see is boobs.

      So – good!

        1. ur doin it wrong!

    3. I tried to watch that show about hog hunters in Texas. All it was is people trash talking.

  9. “Obama wonders if…”

    Lemme stop your right there.

    1. Exactly wonder is a racial trigger as in WonderBread.

      1. or WonderWoman

        1. or Wonderama. Damn, I’m showing my age.

  10. With this latest hysteria of the month we’re hearing the Dems once again dip into their vast pool of passive-voiced statements, calling for meaningless changes like ” common-sense gun regulations” that are emotion-driven and nothing more. Their rhetoric doesn’t square with any facts on the ground:

    –American society has become LESS violent, not more, and the stats from the CDC and FBI bear this out. This despite a massive increase in firearms ownership to the point that your chances of actually dying from any gun-related incident is 0.0001 percent.

    –When they do finally get around to brass tacks, the laws they propose inevitably would have done nothing to prevent the very tragedy they’re lamenting.

    Inevitably, it all comes down to progressive hoplophobia and their control-freak fetishes. It’s telling that every time something bad happens in our society, their instinctive response is to demand another regulation be passed, as if words on paper and a bunch of third-tier bureaucrats possess magic powers to prevent Bad Things from happening. It’s autistic, cargo-cult thinking at its most puerile, as evidenced by their childish retort that passing no laws would be worse than passing anything at all (but lets not examine phenomena such as the effects of social atomization in these events, because why bother to examine something they actively engage in and celebrate?).

    1. American society has become LESS violent, not more, and the stats from the CDC and FBI bear this out.

      The lefitsts are using gun deaths of all types — homicide, suicide, accidents, etc.

      I just checked WISQARS and gun deaths of all types fell from 1981 to 1983, then rose from 1983 until 1993, when they began to fall rapidly until 1999 when they began to rise again slowly.

      The deaths per 100K, though, followed the same pattern as deaths from 1981 until 1999 when it flattened out.

      Unfortunately, we don’t have pre-1981 data from the CDC.

      1. The lefitsts are using gun deaths of all types — homicide, suicide, accidents, etc.

        And even when all gun-related deaths are included, they’re still far lower than alcohol-related deaths. So by shitlib logic, we need to start talking about either repealing the 21st Amendment, or at the very least make it extremely difficult to both purchase and consume alcohol. Hell, how many sob stories from feminists and manginas have we heard about how their daddy liked to get drunk and beat them?

        It’s funny how every time I mention this special pleading, leftists either completely shut up, or desperately backtrack by whining that alcohol doesn’t have anything to do with firearms, even though the former helps contribute to deaths by the latter.

    2. -When they do finally get around to brass tacks, the laws they propose inevitably would have done nothing to prevent the very tragedy they’re lamenting.

      nor would any of them have possibly prevented ANY of the mass shootings of the past fifty years. NOT ONE. Lanza committed some forty felonies between the time he murdered his Mother (yet one more, actually two, as he used a firearm to kill her) and when he ARRIVED at the school, and before he broke in. Add three more new law type gun felonies for a total of close to fifty before he started shooting….. then twenty six more for the murders he committed. Quite the toll of felonies, eh?

      Inevitably, it all comes down to progressive hoplophobia and their control-freak fetishes
      its pretty obvious its not hoplophobia. That’s just the excuse they throw about. It is a compelling desire to dominate, control, subjugate, enslave………..

  11. Obama Wonders…

    About a lot of things, I’m sure.

    Obama Wonders If Dylann Roof, Who Passed a Background Check, Could Have Been Stopped by a Background Check

    Logic, is not the strong suit of a progressive community organizer.

    …And honesty is not the strong suit of a politician.

  12. “Obama Wonders If Dylann Roof, Who Passed a Background Check, Could Have Been Stopped by a Background Check”

    So, Obama is either an imbecile, or a total and incompetent political opportunist.

    But we knew that.

    1. Why can’t he be both?

    2. I think neither. He is a cold, calculating creature with very specific and well-identified goals in view and is relentlessly pushing the cart down the road toward that goal.

  13. I’m wondering if a PSA campaign about how bad racism is wouldn’t have stopped the crime before it started.

    If you’re opposed to that, you’re probably racist.

  14. Is it a sign of progress or a sign of the nation’s increasing stupidity that, instead of freaking out about guns, everyone is instead freaking out about some stupid loser flag for rednecks? I can’t decide.

    1. Seems to me that there is plenty of freaking out over both.

      1. If you were to ask people to list important issues they care about, the Confederate flag would come in about 700,000th on that list. The noise being made is not indicative of how much the average person actually cares.

    2. I don’t think everyone is freaking out about some stupid loser flag for rednecks, I think the chattering classes are freaking out about it as a means of signaling their condescension. Sort of like when Katrina Vanden Heuvel hilariously argued that voter ID is a continuation of the Civil War.

  15. The smartest thing the racist gun grabbers back in the day ever did was convince African Americans that grabbing their guns was for their own good, and enlist “community leaders” to support this. Very clever, gun grabbers. Wily as Putin.

    1. Given that black support for gun rights is now at an all time high, this wily trick does not appear to have actually worked.

      1. There’s a looooong way to go before black folks get on board with the whole gun thing. I don’t think there’s a single black politician, and almost no black “community leaders” urging their constituencies to resist gun control.

        The gun grabbers have also done a great job of casting gun supports as racist nutjobs.

        The gun grabbers own the narrative at this point. I don’t see how it can be perceived any other way.

        1. Ending the war on drug users would go a long way in getting black people on board with gun rights. As it is, black communities are disproportionally affected by the violence associated with the illegal drug trade. Unfortunately, like most Americans, they blame the guns and the drugs for the violence, not the government policies that create the black market.

          1. If the president really cared about having a legacy, ending the drug war would foot the bill.


          According to Pew, black support for gun rights is now 54%-41% in favor.

          It’s especially funny because Democrats overall are 60-35% against, so white Democrats actually now have an opposite position on guns than the majority of the black people in their own party.

          1. They only demographic that actually increased for more gun control were liberal Democrats. No surprise there.

        3. Yep… look at the way Robert Williams has suffered damnatio memoriae from the civil rights movement.

      2. And I hope it is increasing after this. The guy was able to reload 5 times? I’m still not clear on the logistics of that.

        1. Reloading is easy, if your not being shot at.

    2. Some of them – Douglass, King, Malcolm X – never bought into that…

  16. In short, “universal background checks” make no sense as a response to the Charleston shootings, contrary to what Obama and Martin O’Malley seem to think.

    The issue here is assuming that the above is what they think. I am 100% sure they’re fully aware of the inherent limitations that plague Background Check controls. You and I know that when the little Marxians talk about “gun control” they’re really talking about gun proscription.

    Every time you hear or read a little red Marxian talk about “having the conversation about gun control”, what they really mean is “shut the fuck up and hand over your guns!” 120 million dead people know that the little red Marxians are the LEAST interested in conversations of any kind.

    1. Without exception, every time I’ve had an in depth conversation with someone who advocates for “common sense gun control,” they eventually admit that total confiscation is the goal. I’ve also found that those who advocate for gun control tend to be as bad as Tulpa at defending crimes committed by thugs with badges.

      1. They like to parry by declaring that no legislation is currently pending to confiscate guns. The parry fails of course, since the only reason no such legislation is pending is that it’s politically inexpedient. If the political conditions allowed for it they’d do it in a heartbeat.

        1. So they argue as dishonestly as tulpa, too.

      2. Re: sarcasmic,

        Without exception, every time I’ve had an in depth conversation with someone who advocates for “common sense gun control,” they eventually admit that total confiscation is the goal.

        Of course they do. But they will always frame their intentions as an attempt at creating a pleasant paradise or achieve a Nirvana which sounds pretty. For instance, leftists rely on the argument that they have a right to not be shot in the street or to live without fear of being gunned down. Leave aside that unrealistic standard (who the hell can guarantee those things?) or the fact that disarmed people will always be at a disadvantage even if there were NO guns (the multiple pyramids of heads by Timur’s armies is but one example of the result of having entire disarmed populations at the mercy of barbarians.)

        The argument serves to shifts the responsibility of that person’s peace of mind on everybody else! You must provide! YOU! Not me, no! The argument is irrational.

        Again, the little red Marxians seem to want to cocoon everybody from the vicissitudes of life, but in reality this protective shield is their Trojan Horse.

        1. They can’t use the government to forcibly silence people who hold intolerant beliefs as long as the population is armed. Can’t force climate deniers and such to repent if they’re armed. I truly believe that’s their ultimate goal: to disarm the population so they can use government violence on anyone who disagrees with them.

          1. Of course. As I mentioned before and especially to our resident little Marxian, Tony, you can’t simply impose your favorite social engineering projects on an armed population.

        2. Well said.

          The notion of a “right to feel safe” is even more ridiculous when you consider that it would be in constant conflict with itself as well as other rights. My guns should be confiscated because others want to feel safe? What about MY right to feel safe? I wouldn’t feel safe being at the mercy of anyone who is physically stronger, or anyone who manages to get ahold of an illegal gun, when the police are more concerned about protecting their “brothers” than the citizens.

          1. The public is everyone except the individual. So the public’s right to feel safe trumps your right to feel safe.

            1. “the public” can not feel anything,only individuals feel.
              Rights are individual rights,none of that “collective rights” bull-oney.

        3. For instance, leftists rely on the argument that they have a right to not be shot in the street or to live without fear of being gunned down.

          I have a right to walk down the street without worrying about being hit by cars.

    2. A while back a U. Chicago prof claimed Obama outright said he thinks no one should have guns:

      “I don’t believe people should be able to own guns,” Obama told Lott one day at the University of Chicago Law School.

      Lott explains that he first met Obama shortly after completing his research on concealed handgun laws and crime.

      “He did not come across as a moderate who wanted to bring people together,” Lott writes.

      After he introduced himself to Obama, Lott suggested that they have lunch one day to discuss their views on guns. According to Lott, Obama “grimaced and turned away.” That was the way many conversations with Obama ended, Lott says.

  17. since Roof did buy a gun from a store

    That means we need legislation to close the gun show loophole! /progderp

  18. More black people have been killed by cops than by mass murders. The government needs more badge control, the cops are the ones that need more background checks and rubber bullets for the 1st 3 rounds in their gun.

    1. they’d just drop 3 rubber bullets on the ground after shooting someone…but an interesting idea.

  19. Even if you want to take a “common sense gun law advocate” at their word that, heavens no, no one wants to take away all guns!…..even if they meant that, what will the next “common sense” laws be after the next mass shooting that isn’t stopped by the previous common sense laws? These things are purely reactive in nature. Since we know that none of the crap they’re peddling now would have stopped Dylann Roof or Adam Lanza or whoever, there WILL be another one of these in the future. Anyone think their reaction will be “Well, gee, we passed those common sense laws and darn it, that’s the best we can do” ? Hell no, they’re going to shriek and emote again and again, and they will eventually bray on about confiscation, because what else will they have at that point?

    Seriously, all you have to do is point out how useless those supposed “common sense laws” would be at preventing mass shootings and they splutter until they’re blue in the face about how stupid/callous/evil you are.

    1. By criticizing them you are insulting the good intentions with which they are paving the road to hell.

  20. “And if A.P. and the Observer are right that Roof was charged with a misdemeanor rather than a felony, his drug arrest would not have barred him from buying a gun,”

    I can’t wait for them to try to add MORE misdemeanors to that list to debar more lawful owners from obtaining firearms for protection. Yes, there is a misdemeanor that prevents you for buying a gun. Feminist harpies got domestic violence misdemeanors added to that list. In most cases even if a cop gets called for a domestic violence they have to bring one person to jail and that person gets slapped with a misdemeanor. Totally bullshit. Even more so when you can kill someone, get convicted and when you get out you can petition to have your rights returned to you to be able to buy a gun. You cannot do that with a misdemeanor.

    The whole thing is so asinine. As if someone wanted to kill their spouse can’t just walk into the kitchen and grab a steak knife, or go out to the shed and get a rope or go out and rent a wood chipper…

    1. As if someone wanted to kill their spouse can’t just walk into the kitchen and grab a steak knife, or go out to the shed and get a rope or go out and rent a wood chipper…

      I’ve had that conversation with gun grabbers, and their argument is that guns make it easier. True, but stupid.

      1. It only makes it easier if you own the gun and it’s ammo already and know how to use it. And then guns are noisy things.

  21. Black gunowners matter

  22. It was interesting. I didn’t mind the fact that there was no romantic interest. Gives you more time for action but you more nice video check this way and comment me
    Best Home Deal ??????

  23. Suggesting that “universal background checks” was all that was in the bill proposed in 2013 is rather disingenuous as well.

    The background check part was only a an amendment to a bill with much further reach.

    At one point it contained another “assault weapon” ban, and the main bill contained wording which would have made felonies out of things gun-owners do all the time. Like handing your house key to a pet-sitter when you leave for longer than a week, or shooting your gun on land belonging to a friend.

  24. People want:

    1. No guns. So, we can be way safer.

    2. All 300 million hand guns to magically disappear. Including all those owned by bad guys.

    3. Be able to predict which person will snap, and when, and how. Someone, somehow should be able to do this, shouldn’t they? How about if we have hotlines where citizens who love America can report other citizens who appear to be ready to snap? That should do it.

    I just don’t see why this isn’t possible. Why can’t it be? If we can put a man on the moon, why can’t we do these other things?

    (At this point in the conversation I drift away, sit on a couch somewhere, listen to music, and wait for the evening to end. If I can’t go home, that is.)

    1. FEDGOV is “missing” several thousand of their guns,some being full-auto machine guns. that does not include US military arms losses. Then state and local law enforcement have guns stolen from their vehicles frequently. Former Orlando POLICE CHIEF Val Demings had her service handgun stolen from her unmarked SUV,and over a year later,it still hasn’t been recovered. OPD has “lost” 2 AR-15 kits,and had 2 machine guns stolen from vehicles.
      Post-9-11,several armed Federal employees have LEFT their loaded handguns on commercial air flights and deplaned,the guns being discovered by other passengers.One guy in Alabama stole rifles (real assault rifles,select-fire) and grenades from Anniston Army Depot.

      guns will ALWAYS be available to those who really want them.

      1. In the most recent terror attack in Copenhagen, Denmark, the murderer used an assault rifle stolen from the Danish Armed Forces. He would have killed more than one person if an armed cop (“good guy with a gun”) hadn’t stopped him.

        Tell me again how Danish people are safer by not being able to carry guns (or own them in most cases)?

        During the “Great Nordic Biker War” in the 90’s, biker gangs in Denmark used machine guns and rocket propelled grenades stolen from a Danish Army facility, in their attempts to eradicate each other.

  25. The cognitive dissonance of “progressives” is on its most prominent display in the gun rights debate.

    Cops are racist, trigger-happy murderers, yet they’re also infinitely more judicious and level-headed than the lowly citizens, so they should be the only ones allowed to have guns.

    Asking for a driver’s license to cast a vote is an insidious plot to exclude minorities from the democratic process, yet it’s perfectly fair to make prospective gun owners go through a long, expensive ordeal that resembles something out of a Franz Kafka story.

    They say the streets are flooded with “military-grade weaponry”, yet they balk at the idea that gun owners have any chance of defending themselves from a tyrannical government.

  26. the latest meme now is “perhaps it’s time to rethink the Second Amendment”,or “maybe it’s time to repeal the Second Amendment”. I’ve seen these mentioned in several places. They’re laying the groundwork for such a proposal to be put before Congress. It has to begin with a lot of tragedies from guns,then the frequent repetition of how outdated the Second is,to drive it solidly into the public’s “memory”. They’re trying to build up support for such an Amendment.

    1. Another popular bullshit meme with the Left these days is that the sole purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to ensure that slave-catching posses could be armed. It’s ridiculous and not backed by the historical record, but it resonates with lefties especially since it combines “evil guns” with “evil racist whites”.

    2. I think it would be great if they’d openly state that they want to repeal the 2A. There are a lot of gun owners who stay out of gun politics because they believe that the “progressives” would only put “reasonable, common-sense” regulations in place. Let the progs declare it openly, and these head-in-the-sand gun owners will be forced to realize that yes, there is an overall goal among the “progressive” movement to eliminate the right to keep and bear arms.

  27. Let’s not let facts get in the way of what feels right.

  28. Obviously this all was a rsponse to the Black riots and what not of the past year. If Obama had
    acted half as energetically against his fellow Black thugs, the shootings would not likely have occurred.

  29. Obama’s hateful racist rhetoric over the last seven years is probably what caused this person to jump of the deep end. No amount of new gun laws would have stopped this tragedy. It is just another bull crap excuse to trample on gun rights. We need less laws, and less lawsuits. The personal injury, ambulance chasing crooks will probably try to sue the manufacturer of the gun involved in the crime. The politicians and personal injury crooks want to erode all of our rights and freedoms.

  30. I don’t understand why supposedly serious writers, even at Reason, bother arguing with Obama when he says he supports various gun laws. We all know what he really wants, and what he would have tomorrow if he could just figure out how to do it: The complete ban and confiscation of all firearms in private hands in the United States.

    Pretending otherwise is only given Obama a pass – in effect, covers up for – what his real agenda is.

    Because only a total ban and confiscation of firearms, achieved via the most authoritarian police state in history, will actually lower “gun violence.” Though not, of course, all violence.

  31. I suppose anyone can become an AMCT (Amoral, Murderous, Criminal Thug) like Dylann Roof – even “Christians” (the inquisitions and witch burnings for example) or, church-going “rednecks” (the Ku Klux Klan for example). As a matter of self-preservation, perhaps we should either imprison or exterminate all suspected AMCTs and analyze their motives later. . . . Or, might this practice turn our society into AMCTs (like the above examples)? As we grieve, let’s not lose our heads, morality, or Christianity, folks.

  32. Common Sense and such examples “gun safety reform” are, in case you hadn’t noticed, mutually exclusive things.

    Additionally, laws enacted with the best of intentions, if such generosity of language and thought is to be allowed, have yet to have salutary effects on the criminally inclined, or the Nut Cakes that come along now and then.

  33. According to the police report linked here —…..aine-meth/ — Roof was arrested for LSD and cocaine. If the report is true, then Roof would have been lying had he answered NO to question b. on Form 4473:

    b. Are you under indictment or information in any court for a felony, or any other crime, for which the judge could imprison you for more than one year?

    In South Carolina, while these offenses are called misdemeanors, possession of LSD could result in a 2 year prison term, while possession of cocaine could result in a 3 year term.…..chapter53/

    1. To update that last comment, while the language in the linked report lists other drugs, that may simply be a summary of which substances are covered by the law Roof was charged with violating — Section 44-53-370(B)(1). If he was in fact charged with that section, it is a felony, even if only suboxone (a Schedule III drug) was found. The law can be read here:

  34. minor quibble: the perpetrator of which, Adam Lanza, used a rifle legally purchased by his mother

    referring to the Sandy Hook shooting. As I recall, the perp used a .22 rifle to kill his mother, then stole the guns he alledgedly took to the school for the shooting. Some reports claim he used the Bushmaster to kill… but the medical examiner who was first to view the scene reported, on the step of that school, that all the victims he saw were shot at fairly close range with a handgun, and none with a rifle. His story later changed under rather suspicious circumstances….. the allledged Bushmaster was reported to have been found in two different places, mutually exclusive one from the other: on the grounds near the woods behind the school, and in the trunk of the car he alledgedly drove to the school property, but I watched the video from overhead, taken by a news chopper hovering, as the local LE opened the trunk of that car and removed a long gun…. definitley NOT an AR type rifle, and ceared the weapon. It had no detachable magazine (one of the “hjorror features” of the dread AR style guns) it did have a tubular magazine underneath the barrel, and had an action very mich like a Saiga shotgun. The rounds being ejected were plainly visible: bright yelow cylinders, about one inch in diameter, brass at the back end of each cartridge. Definitely NOT rifle ammunition of any sort.

    1. Still in all, your point that none of the 13 proposed (damanded?) “common sense gun control laws” the kinyun proposed after Scammy Crooks would or could have prevented the Charleston shooter from purchasing that gun from the retail FFL gun store. Tell that guy with the three foot long schnoz he needs to find some better script writers that will do some homework before banbing keys.

  35. By the way, I find myself curious as to one particular point, reading through some of the posts seen here. How many of the posters here,on the pro-gun side that is, have taken the small trouble to get on to their elected reps, re their concerns?

  36. Damn high-capacity woodchippers need to be banned. Its common sense folks!

  37. One thing is for sure. Many of the members of that church were not able to pass the background check and get permission from the government to exercise their unalienable constitutional 2nd amendment right and as a result they were not able to protect themselves from a mass murderer and died as a result.

    1. Under South Carolina law members of the church who have a CHL are prohibited from carrying in church unless the church has a policy allowing it.

      Note that this law only applies to licensees, so the unlicensed killer wasn’t breaking it.

  38. The background check is exactly what killed those people.

  39. Looks like background check is only good for some bureaucrats who sleep at the job or play games, etc….to justify their jobs for the need of background checks.

    On a off-topic sidenote, there already lots of conspiracies theories floating
    here and there.

    1. A bit more on the table, there this blog post on Ilana Mercer about that attack in Charleston and a similar attack who happened in a church in Cape Town, South Africa in 1993.…..-insignia/
      Breitbart also covered this subject.…..turn-fire/

  40. “In short, “universal background checks” make no sense as a response to the Charleston shootings, contrary to what Obama and Martin O’Malley seem to think.”

    Why? Just because in a couple of cases, a background check would not have stopped a killer from buying a gun? Surely that is not enough of an argument against background checks (thought there may be others).

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.