Replies

"... improve federal compliance with criminal background check legislation ..."

My guess is that this means making sure the Federal government background check system actually works. There is one in place but in the case of the Texas church shooter, it didn't do its job.

I dunno, maybe a checkbox for psychotropic meds. Worth discussing that, methinks. Also reports from doctors who prescribe, and an admonition from the doctor to the patient, “if I prescribe this med, one of the side effects is possible suicidal or homicidal thoughts, so I am obliged to report this prescription to NICS. If you take this prescription, you agree to relinquish your right to keep and bear arms.”

What's "not good" about thorough background checks? I've read that this young man had been treated for mental illness, and that he had been expelled from school for various violent tendencies. The red flags were clearly there. The schools should be required to report this information to law enforcement. Any measures which don't infringe on Unalienable Rights should be on the table for consideration.

And no gun-seller should be required to sell a gun to anyone they have reservations about.

I understand that it's a slippery slope, but there are two options: measures which infringe on Unalienable Rights, and measures which don't infringe on them. As gun owner's, we're duty bound to seek out the latter, or else the propagandists will ensure the former.

Having said that, it's also incumbent on gun rights advocates to staunchly and articulately defend those rights, and to repudiate the emotional, "feel good" measures which the Leftists propose—measures which both infringe on Unalienable Rights and are also ineffective.