Incorporation Continues – Universal Gun Background Checks

Podcast: Play in new window | Download | Embed

Subscribe: Email | RSS

Mandeville, LA – Exclusive Transcript – Doesn’t this stuff just irk you?  It ought to irk you.  Why does the nation have a gun background check system?  We’re not in a time of war.  The militia hasn’t been called out.  What business is it of the nation what the people in the sovereign states are doing with their Rugers, with their Howitzers, with their Smith & Wessons, with their Colt 45s or whatever the case may be?  Check out today’s audio and transcript for the rest…

 

Begin Mike Church Show Transcript

Mike:  We have this now, “Senate panel approves gun background check and school security bills.”  Nice work, incorporationistas, nice work.  Success.  New universal amendment now is going to be universally applied by the United States Senate.

[reading]

The Senate Judiciary Committee approved Democratic-sponsored measures Tuesday to expand the nation’s gun background check system…

[end reading]

Mike:  Doesn’t this stuff just irk you?  It ought to irk you.  Why does the nation have a gun background check system?  We’re not in a time of war.  The militia hasn’t been called out.  What business is it of the nation what the people in the sovereign states are doing with their Rugers, with their Howitzers, with their Smith & Wessons, with their Colt 45s or whatever the case may be?  What business is it of theirs?  As a matter of fact, they’re supposed to be prohibited from doing anything about it.  No, it’s 2013, Mr. Church.  You need to modernize yourself, sir.  You need to get with the program.  By the by, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll, the public supports this nonsense.

[reading]

The 18-member committee referred the background check bill to the full Senate on a party-line vote of 10 to 8 and later passed the school security measure 14 to 4. [Mike: I would ask the same question again. I know that they send funds to the schools, and I know that the states foolishly accept the money and accept the edicts and the regulations that come with it. I suppose if you’re going to do all these things, you’re going to be ordered about and micromanaged by your almighty federal overlords inside Mordor on the Potomac River.  This is just tragic.] Scheduling conflicts with other committee hearings postponed until Thursday a showdown on the most controversial proposal under consideration, a ban on hundreds of military-style assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition clips.

[end reading]

Mike:  Again, thanks to my research — I don’t spend my time reading other people’s opinions.  I spend my time reading source material, stuff that was from the actual event, the debate, the discussion, the letter, the proposal in and around the time of the proposal of the Constitution, the ratification of it, then how the first twelve amendments worked their way through the House of Representin’ in 1789.  Again, the historical record is clear as to what those amendments meant, who they were aimed at, and what they were designed to do, what they were intended to do, which was to shut up Patrick Henry, George Mason and the antifederalists and say: Look, we muzzled the new federal government, guys.  You guys need to get with the program, become good little federalists, and let’s give this Constitution thing a try.  We did everything you asked us to do.  We made amendments.  We pointed the amendments at the new monster.  It’s got a leash around its neck now.  (Maybe this will help some of you understand this.)  The new federal monster has a leash around its neck now, a muzzle on its mouth.  We can tighten it up a little bit if we need to.  It has been made to heel.  Now will you please drop your opposition?  Will you please give life under the Constitution a try?  For the most part they did, although Jefferson never stopped being suspicious of what was going on, especially after Hamilton started his shenanigans with the National Bank.  The rest, as they say, is history.

[reading]

The background check bill, sponsored by Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), lacks bipartisan support and is considered a placeholder as the lawmaker negotiates with moderate Republicans and Democrats on an alternative measure that would exempt firearm transfers between relatives and possibly close friends.

[end reading]

Mike:  How do you determine who a close friend is? What is close? [mocking] “Did you sell that Glock to a close friend, sir?” — “Yeah.” — “How close was he? Well, not according to Article 16, Section 43, paragraph 14, sentence 3. Right there, read that definition of ‘close friend to me,’ sir.”  Good grief.  The point of this entire exercise here is to assert the authority now granted to it by the out-of-control Supreme Court and begin the process of writing national rules for the micromanagement of the gun trade.  It’s as simple as that.  That’s what’s going to happen.  It’s going to happen with the blessing of the NRA.  They’re going to sit down at the table and say: No, no, not that clip.  You’ve got to let us have some ammo.

[reading]

“This isn’t going to be a perfect bill, but it will sure reduce crimes,” Schumer said before the vote.

[end reading]

Mike:  How do you know that?  How do you know that it will reduce crimes, senator?  How could you possibly know that?  How do you know that by your measure here you’re not going to prevent someone from actually obtaining a weapon, actually obtaining the arms they sought to protect themselves, actually obtaining the ammunition, actually obtaining sufficient amounts of ammunition?  How do you know that you’re not going to be creating crimes?  Every time you create a law, you create a criminal.  He’s got it exactly backwards.  This will reduce crimes?  No, this will make more crimes and it’ll make more people criminals.  This is going to reduce crime?  A crime by who?  The bad guys already don’t abide by any of your laws, so now the good guys can become bad guys.  Oh, wonderful.  I can’t wait for this to go into effect, how about you?

[reading]

Republicans united in opposition, saying the measure might overburden gun owners and prompt Democrats to propose stricter firearm legislation, including the confiscation of weapons, if it doesn’t curb gun violence.

“Why would anyone think that criminals would comply with broader background check requirements?” asked Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa). “They would be drawn more to straw purchases. . . . The effectiveness of this bill is highly questionable.”

[end reading]

Mike:  Why not just say that the Second Amendment prohibits us from writing this rule, Senator Schumer, and the Republican members of this body will not and cannot sanction any manner of regulation of the militia unless there is a declared war, so we’re going to oppose every piece of every little bill and motion and resolution that you introduce in committee that violates the Second Amendment?  That’s wishing for oaths to be violated and things like that, Mr. Church.  Why would you do such a ghastly thing?

End Mike Church Show Transcript