Column: Let's try extreme vetting for gun owners (barf alert)

Chicago Tribune ^ | 17 feb 2017 | Zorn

[rellimpank]

What if — and it's a crazy thought, I know, but stay with me — what if it actually isn't a good idea to allow nearly everyone to buy all the guns they want with minimal to nonexistent background checks?

What if it's not just poverty, joblessness, illegal drugs, wimpy judges and fractured families causing the sort of mayhem that recently saw three kids die of bullet wounds in just two days in Chicago? What if the glut of guns is a part of it?

[freeandfreezing]

Another example of the usual liberal idiocy. The idea of applying "extreme vetting" to potential immigrants is based on the likelihood of risk resulting from the behavior of the immigrants. If we were to apply the same kind of logic within our country, it would mean that we had different types of "vetting" for people who were likely to be a greater risk to society.

That might be a good approach, but it runs counter to our beliefs in equality before the law. I'm sure that the author of the article, would be totally opposed to a system which required, for example, different firearms rules and laws for young African American men as opposed to older, wealthier white men, even though we already have laws restricting firearms ownership based on age.

Applying other kinds of "vetting" to people from groups within our society that have shown an increased risk for certain kinds of behavior is generally not supported since it infringes their rights as citizens.

A far better approach is to address the real problems - criminal gangs and a culture of violence.

[\/\/ayne]

Title sounds like one of these illegal chain letter forwarding statements "I don't know, let's try it."

Never thinking about how illegal it is to "just try it."

[DeWalt]

He is to stupid to realize that he is living in John Lennon’s “What if”.

[Cincinnatus.45-70]

If there is to be extreme vetting of the exercise of Constitutional rights, let’s “vette” newspaper owners, publishers, and writers. Maybe even editors. Just common sense reviews, you know.

[vortec94]

And not one of you so far has mentioned the FOIC process to buy guns and ammo in Illinois.

[ChildOfThe60s]

minimal to nonexistent background checks?

This alone tells me how s..l..o.w..l..y the neurons are firing in this loon's brain.
He has obviously never legally bought a gun.

Unless, of course, he is referring to black criminals. Then he is indeed correct. I'm pretty sure the gang member on the corner supplying the guns doesn't conduct proper background checks.

I cannot deal with the profound and numbing level of ignorance and stupidity of liberals. I no longer argue gun rights with them, nor do I try to change their views. I simply tell them "I am keeping my guns and I will shoot anyone that tries to take them - now do you still want to take them"? That usually ends the "discussion".

[Beagle8U]

“She wants women to be locked up at all times when not in use.”

That last one has merit.

[trebb]

If all folks coming into the country were as well vetted as gun purchaser, we wouldn’t be having this conversation.....

[Malone LaVeigh]

[Cincinnatus.45-70]

Like drugs and porn always leading to harder stuff, once a liberal wet dream like the FOIC process becomes law, they move on the the next stage of oppression.

[BookmanTheJanitor]

I have a strange feeling these guys won't be vetted...ever.

[Ruy Dias de Bivar]

The way it used to be

The fear begins (from the Chicago Trib in the 1930s)

The new fear from the 1960s

[John Milner]

I’m pro-choice.
If you want to choose to buy a gun. You have that choice.
If you want to choose not to buy a gun. You have that choice.

[ctdonath2]

Extreme vetting?

I have 400+ hours of firearms training from at least 3 schools.
I have 3 state carry permits, each involving detailed background checks taking weeks and one renewed & reviewed every 5 years.
I have a Federal Firearms License, renewed & reviewed every 3 years, involving background checks.
I have 3 NFA “Form 4”s involving months of background checks (one including personal extensive interview with sheriff).
All of my guns were obtained by providing extensive personal information by the initial buyer, most of them showing my information; this information is retained forever for BATFE review on demand.
Half my guns involved an “instant background check” when obtained.

Does that not count as “extreme vetting”?
And yet ... it’s illegal for me to merely use a restroom in a National Park while carrying.
If she’s going to advocate “extreme vetting”, surely that culminates in someone being completely cleared to carry any gun anywhere (save maybe for actively secured areas like courthouses & airport terminals) - no?