"You let a camel get his nose under the tent..."

Several of my, shall we say, "Progressive" friends, not that there's anything wrong with that, have wagged their fingers in my face over the past few months and scolded me for being against "Universal Background Checks" (UBC) for gun purchases.  

I've tried patiently, and very slowly (you just have to talk slowly to these folks), to explain to each and every one of them that I'm not against requiring background checks before one can buy a gun.  In fact, I'm all for it.  Please allow me to explain.

The way the law currently works is you go into a gun store, you pick out your weapon, and you fork over the cash. The store owner then runs what's called a "NICS" check. That stands for "National Instant Criminal Background Check System," or NICS for short.

Within minutes the store owner gets back an approval or a denial from the FBI which has been tasked with answering that question.  If you're okay, you walk out with your gun. Unless, of course, you live in Taxifornia, or Massachusetts, or Maryland, or Connennteecticutt (is that how you spell it?), or a dozen other states run by commie pinkos , where you have to come back in a week, or two weeks or a month.  Or a year. Or, if they get their wish, never.  That's because they're verrryyyy worried you might use your newly acquired gun to blow your significant other's head off.  And we couldn't be having that, now could we?  

And that NICS check is the law throughout the Land.  It's been that way for more than two decades.  And it works that way whether you're at a gun store in Iowa or at a gun show in Alabama, or if you buy Uncle Tony's old six shooter in Wyoming .  And I'm totally okay with that, even though the 2nd Amendment makes no provision for such an intrusion into our lives.  Bad guys will try to get guns and we need to employ whatever reasonable and unobtrusive method we can to make sure they don't, without unduly hampering good, solid, qualified citizens' access to self-defense.

So why am I making such a fuss over UBC?  Because what the ex-NYC Mayor Mikey Bloombergs and the almost-retired President Barry Obamas and the "Sheriff" Joe Bidens and the Chicago Mayor Rahm Emmanuels are advocating is the first step toward gun confiscation.  They call their version of fascism "UBC," because if they called it what it truly is, there would be a nationwide backlash from every single Constitution-loving American.  

Why?  Because, according to the law, the NICS background data must be destroyed within 30 days of the gun purchase.  The UBC?  They want it transferred to a Federal data base and kept forever!  I wonder why, don't you?

You may have read that back in 1936, Hitler demanded a background check on everyone in Germany who owned a gun.  And then, in 1939, because he knew where they actually were, he sent his SS goons around to scoop up all those dangerous guns. Funny how compliant the population becomes when they have no way of protecting themselves. Imagine how much tougher it would have been to round up all the Jews and send them off to their death if they still had their guns.  And the same thing happened in post WW1 China.  And in Cuba following Castro's rise to power.  And England once the lefties took over.  And Australia.  And Argentina.  And Denmark.  And on, and on, and on.  And in each of those countries the crime rate soared because the people couldn't protect themselves.  And not just against criminals.  Against their governments.  Put simply, more than 100 Million people have been murdered in countries where guns were confiscated by the dictators who ran them. If that's not a condemnation of gun confiscation, I don't know what is.

Taking away peoples' ability to protect themselves in exchange for some promised additional security is like a drug the government peddles to the addled, addicted masses.  It's a false, and unfulfillable promise.  Founding Father Ben Franklin famously stated, "He who would trade liberty for some temporary security deserves neither liberty nor security."  Ponder that quote for a minute.

The 2nd Amendment was not written, nor envisioned, to permit the people to hunt deer or shoot at targets. It was written so that the people could protect themselves and their families from each other.  And from out-of-control government overreach.  And it was no accident, I maintain, that the 2nd Amendment was placed right behind the 1st. You can stand on a soapbox in the public square and spew the most ridiculous, hateful and useless blather.  But after doing so you might well need access to a trusty gun to help you escape from the crowd you just pissed off mightily.    

So now we're facing an Obama Government that makes no secret of its wish to take access to guns away from ordinary people.  Obama has said so many times over his "career." Check out the YouTube library if you doubt me.  His Government knows that criminals don't obey laws.  They know that criminals will get guns, even if they have to steal them.  They know that all but two mass shootings in the past 20 years occurred in "gun free zones."  They know that ever stricter gun-control laws will only make it harder for the average citizen to buy a gun for protection.  So what happens if their zeal to make us all "sheeple" is successful?  Read on...

I mentioned Great Britain above.  They had their guns confiscated a little bit at a time over the past 40 years.  First they came for the pistols.  Then rifles.  And then shotguns. So, with exception of the military (even cops over there have been disarmed!), nobody has a weapon to protect themselves over there across the Big Pond.  So a prospective rapist, burglar, mugger or murderer knows he or she will likely face little or no opposition.  Maybe a kitchen knife, or a baseball bat, but nothing serious.  The Bad Guys will have a gun, but not their victims.  So what's the natural extension of such a stupid bunch of laws?  Check this out:

In the latest news out of the U.K we hear some tremendous news for violent criminals and some disgusting news for their innocent citizens.  Authorities over there are doing their level best to make sure ordinary citizens will not be able to defend themselves from Bad Guys.  The police have recently released a statement concerning "self defense products" on its "Ask the Police" website.  And what they've told their citizens will disturb you.

When asked, "Are there any legal self-defense products that I can buy?" the police over there responded with some inane prattle. "The only fully legal self-defense product is a rape alarm."  The website goes on to say that there are other so-called "self-defense" products that claim to be legal available to the populace, but folks are warned that their legality has not been tested in court.  Thus, you buy and use these products at your own peril.  Because, the website says, "You must not use a product which is made or adapted to cause a person injury.  Possession of such a product in public...is against the law!"  

So, my friends, if you use pepper spray, for instance, and aim it at someone's eyes who is about to rape you, and that person later states that they have been injured as a result, you will be guilty of a felony, and you will be prosecuted. 

Can't you just see it?  A rapist and his victim appearing simultaneously in front of a magistrate, each being charged with a major crime?  Beyond amazing...

Could it get more ridiculous?  I'm guessing it could.  This past summer famous shouty chef Gordon Ramsey appeared before the House of Parliament to advocate against a law they were then considering.  They actually were debating whether or not to outlaw all knives over 4"in length! Ramsey stated that he really, really needed a longer knife to ply his trade. How else, he asked, would he be able to julieanne his mirepoix?  The lawmakers didn't seem moved by his begging and pleading. However, they did decide to put off a final vote until this session.  It will be interesting to see how they vote.

(UPDATE:  In the week since this screed was posted, the over-the-top lefties in once-Great Britain outdid themselves. The police in Lancashire just gave a name to their lunacy: "Save a life.  Turn in your knife."  Yes, my friends, they began their campaign to save everyone their from themselves by beginning to order the forfeiture of knives.  In the past month more than 800 of these dangerous weapons have been turned in.  And the campaign has been so successful, they stated, that they've extended it for another week, before, I assume, going door-to-door and confiscating knives.  They believe that everyone their needs to be protected from themselves by giving up all their "pointy objects."  I guess there's no adults in this chunk of England.  I kid you not.  This is absurdity on a global scale.)

So, as the old saying goes, "You let a camel get his nose under the tent, pretty soon you have a camel in the tent." Or, put simply, when you let the "Progressives" among us, those nice folks who just want to be left alone to live our lives, take away your freedom a little bit at a time, pretty soon you are fresh out of freedom.  

The UBC is an effort to take away your right.  And owning a gun IS a right.  As the 2nd Amendment clearly states, "...the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Could it be any more clear?  We already have background checks on everybody who legally buys a gun.  What we need to do is find ways to prevent the illegal gun purchases.  We do not need the Government to begin collecting data on everyone who tries to exercise their Constitutional Right.  If they do, what's next?  

I shudder to think...  

Update:  Within hours of my posting this most recent offering, the unthinkable happened once again.  A deranged young man shot up the AME Church in Charleston, SC.  After sitting for more than an hour among the other congregants at a bible study class, where he had been warmly welcomed into the fold, he decided to shoot and kill 9 innocent Christians with a .45 semi-automatic pistol.  Importantly, this gun was obtained illegally.  According to the shooter's uncle, the pistol was a birthday present from his father in April. However, the killer had been arrested in March for a drug violation, making him a "prohibited person" for firearm ownership under ATF Form 4473.  This gun was bought legally following a NICS background check, but illegally transferred to the killer. 

This fact alone serves to indelibly undermine the arguments of anti-gun zealots who advocate for UBC.  

Beyond the obvious shock that this horrific and senseless crime has sent through our collective consciousness, its occurrence presents an interesting point for us to ponder. The pastor of this historic church, one Mr. Clementa Pinckney, was a much beloved husband and father, as well as a powerful South Carolina State senator.  In that latter capacity he cast the deciding vote which resulted in leaving whether or not the concealed carrying of guns in SC churches would be left up the pastor.  As a rabid anti-gun activist, he chose to make concealed carry in his church off limits.  And it was in his church that a massacre happened. Considering it's reported that he reloaded no less than five times, there certainly would have been an opportunity for intervention. A "good guy with a gun" certainly could have minimized, or eliminated altogether, the suffering this killer chose to inflict.  

Pastors who love their flocks should also want to protect them. Twice in the past few years concealed carriers cut short the evil actions of mass killers in churches.  This church could have, and I submit should have, been number three...