Could an Additional Background Check Have Stopped Sandy Hook Massacre?
For Republicans and the handful of gun owners who have actually thought of capitulating to Democrat demands for heightened psychological background checks for gun purchases, a word of caution -- no increase in psychological scrutiny would have stopped Adam Lanza from obtaining his weapons.
Why? Because he stole the weapons he used, thus bypassing background checks altogether.
This came to mind Tuesday night, Jan. 1, while I was a guest on the David Webb radio show. During that time a caller said he opposed more gun control, yet was so desperate to prevent another Sandy Hook-type incident that he would willingly accept more psychological-based questions before purchasing a firearm.
In response, I pointed out that this was simply a surrender of more freedom to a government bent on control, and it was a move that would not do anything to stop another Sandy Hook-type incident from happening.
Think about it -- how effective will expanded background checks be for criminals who choose not to submit to background checks to begin with?
Such checks will only prove to be a tool the government can use to pick and choose those they believe ought to be able to keep and bear arms.
Looked at in this light, the only thing more exhaustive background checks will do is prevent many law-abiding citizens from obtaining the weapons they need to defend their lives and the lives of their families when a criminal like Lanza decides to act on his darkest desires.
We must break free from the yoke of political correctness that even now entices us to place a greater burden on ourselves for being armed. On Dec. 14, one criminal committed a horrific act of violence toward others. And to commit this act, he sidestepped every safeguard and background check liberals had proudly put in place.
Now, rather than looking for new ways to burden the 100 million gun owners who didn't commit a crime on Dec. 14, we ought to be critiquing and eliminating aspects of the liberal gun control agenda that brought us to a point where Lanza could commit his crime to begin with (this should include critiquing and eliminating things like Gun-Free School Zones).
We would do well to heed Wayne LaPierre's admonition and be sure there are good guys with guns ready to take out the bad guys with guns when they come.
The bottom line: We trample freedom by embracing the idea that 100 million gun owners who didn't commit a crime should face heightened scrutiny over one criminal who stole guns and committed a heinous act.