Demand Mandatory Background Checks

Some law enforcement “leaders” demand it:

Demand-A-Plan-Background-ChecksThat chief hat looks HUGE on that guy’s head.

Although I agree that criminals, the mentally ill etc.. shouldn’t have guns, I find it hard to even remotely support the message of an organization that wants to BAN HIGH CAPACITY ASSAULT CLIPS and make something that’s already illegal (straw purchases) more illegal… don’t even ask… I have no idea.

Thoughts?

16 COMMENTS

JUMP DOWN ↓ TO ADD ANOTHER

smoky March 20, 2013 at 04:25 am

He looks like he didn’t get enough oxygen when he was born.

Reply

No One March 20, 2013 at 06:07 am

Wtf was that?

You know what you DON’T see in this video? ACTUAL Police Officers. You known, the ones in the streets, doing police work and actually dealing with violence. These adminstrators are so far attached from the real problems that they have become part of the problem.

-This message paid for by the commission for buying police chiefs hats that fit.

Reply

Franz March 20, 2013 at 07:38 am
phil o sophy March 20, 2013 at 08:07 am

Demand universal background and mental health checks on law enforcement and politicians annually. If they can’t be trusted with a gun, they can’t be trusted.

Reply

Anon March 20, 2013 at 08:38 am

How can he expect to be taken seriously when he can’t even wear his peaked cap correctly?

Reply

dave w March 20, 2013 at 09:07 am

doesnt he know its flat brims now?

Reply

Quint Young March 20, 2013 at 09:01 am

Actually, as far as the mentally ill and criminals thing goes, I kind of disagree on that. If your absolutely insane then of course you shouldn’t have a gun but lets say you’ve been admitted to a psychiatric ward 10 years ago because you were suicidal, should you still be denied your rights as an American citizen? You might be fine now but still can never purchase a gun and even if you WERE still suicidal that should also be YOUR choice.

As far as being a felon, I think that you should be able to appeal that after 10 of 15 years. Sometimes people make mistakes, or get railroaded. Just because you thought it would be a good idea to set something on fire when you were 19 or just because you got caught with a pill of ecstasy when you were 20 dosent mean you shouldn’t be allowed to vote or own a gun when your 60. Many people change. A lot of elderly people need firearms (for protection) yet cannot obtain them because of stupid mistakes made when they were much younger. Obviously, this should be up to a judge though. If you walk in to appeal your conviction and the judge looks you up in the system and so far you’ve been arrested 4 times for assault, and once for breaking and entering, then you WILL NOT be getting any of those rights back. But if you’ve been a clean and perfect citizen for an extended period then I see no issue with giving people their rights.

Reply

Sid March 20, 2013 at 01:23 pm

Quint,

The mental exercise is a little easier than you would assume. If the 2nd Amendment really means what we in the gun community believe it means, then we really need to look at why we are performing background checks. If you are in prison, you should not be in a gun store. If you have been released from prison, you are now a damn citizen. The same can be said of persons with mental issues. If you cannot be trusted with a gun, why are you walking the streets?

Background checks are gun control theatre just like TSA security at airports. If a criminal wants a gun, background checks are not going to stop them. The same can be shown true of the mentally ill (pick a tragedy as your example). So, we are left with “WHY THE HELL ARE WE WASTING TAX DOLLARS ON BACKGROUND CHECKS?” It is not a reliable way to keep guns out of the hands of criminal or the insane.

Reply

bull March 21, 2013 at 03:08 am

what is the definition of “mentally ill” ? depression? a huge number of people go though some period of life when they feel depressed. and they get though it!
ADHD? Asbergers?

Reply

jpcmt March 20, 2013 at 01:43 pm

Just fix the current background check problems by allowing for mental illness reporting to be included in NICS checks while not infringing on the rights of others. Not rocket science. They’re trying to rape everyone because of their own ineptitude. They’re the ones who design the current background checks, it’s their problem to fix. Avoiding fixing their broke crap and coming up with new crap that is already broke before it started and rapes rights from people is not responsible….mr bloomberg.

police chiefs in the video need to have mental checks because they lack sense of reality and should not be in charge of a department of officers sworn to uphold constitutions.

Reply

Werewolf1021 March 20, 2013 at 03:46 pm

There is a term for these kind of “lead from behind” shills.

REMF.

Reply

Bob Richardson March 20, 2013 at 08:39 pm

I checked out this video and the one posted on here yesterday that was titled “Revealed: The Truth about the NRA”. I find it interesting that anti-gun videos are usually posted with commenting disabled. If they were telling the truth and had the “overwhelming support from the average person and even NRA members” that they always claim to have, they would not fear the comments they would receive.

Anti-Gun groups are famous for saying “we need to have a national discussion on gun violence” then take the opportunity to speak their view but are not willing to hear the opposing side. This is in not a discussion this is “preaching”.

Mr. Colion Noir, fxhummel1, and other Pro-Gun videos are not afraid to receive and discuss people who oppose their opinion.

Reply

Cuban Pete March 21, 2013 at 08:35 pm

Well this private citizens DEMANDS that the Law Enforcement “leader” shut the fvck up and stay out of the political process.

God I hate it when cops get involved in politics, they sound as stupid as my sailors used to.

Reply

El Duderino March 21, 2013 at 10:55 pm

Lemme guess, all of them are police chiefs appointed by liberal, gun hating mayors (didn’t watch).

Sheriffs that actually get elected seem to love the 2A. It’s those douchey chiefs that are the problem.

Reply

Jim P. March 23, 2013 at 10:21 pm

For some reason “Ratings have been disabled for this video.” But of course it isn’t because it would be voted down to the pits of hell. That wouldn’t happen, would it?

I’ll give them an expanded background check when they actually use the NICS system that is already in place. If they actually charged and prosecuted anyone who failed the background check, then I would believe it.

But really all the NICS system is doing is building a list of probable gun owners. Basically as soon as your FFL calls in with a 4473 form, they can now create a record that you had a NICS check. Why are you having a NICS check? You are buying a firearm. If you believe that database is purged, can you sell me whatever drugs you are taking to believe that fantasy.

Then add in that most of the NICS denials are later approved.

But there were 500+ murders in Chicago last year. How many of them went through a NICS check?

Reply

Wayne March 24, 2013 at 04:41 pm

Jim P; Re: “. . . if they actually charged and prosecuted anyone who failed the background check, then I would believe it.” BullsEye. How many times do disqualified people (eg felons) illegally try to buy a weapon? How many are prosecuted? How many are convicted? How many serve time? If they aren’t catching any offenders with the program then why expand it; indeed, why have it at all.

Reply

LEAVE A COMMENT:

Previous post:

Next post: