Liberals have been on the warpath over guns ever since the Orlando terror attack, with leftists in both the culture and political landscapse demanding strict gun control, despite the fact these measures do absolutely nothing to prevent terror attacks.
After all, what criminal goes to the local gun shop to legally purchase a weapon that could be traced back to him and any crimes he or she might commit (unless you’re a suicidal jihadist)?
Anyway, the latest individual to jump in the fray is Nevada Sen. Harry Reid who got up on the Senate floor and said something extraordinarily outlandish — even more so than his claim of taking a shot from an exercise band to the eye — about the ease of purchasing fully automatic weapons from a gun show.
According to Reid, you don’t even need to submit a background check to buy one of these firearms, a reference to the so-called “gun show loophole.”
There’s just one problem.
The gun show loophole is a myth.Twitchy reports, “Today on the U.S. Senate floor, Sen. Reid quoted, and agreed with, an al-Qaeda spokesman:
Remember what Al Qaeda’s spokesperson said?“You can go down to a gun show at the local convention center and come away with a fully automatic assault rifle, without a background check…”
This terrorist was talking about the gun show loophole. He was specifically pointing to a flaw in our nation’s gun laws that allows convicted terrorists to slip through – and it’s a big, wide hole to slip through.”
Unfortunately for Sen. Reid, he’s sorely mistaken about the ease with which one can purchase a fully automatic weapon from a gun show, as these sales fall under the same rules and laws that govern established shops.
Here’s a little information from Cato on the subject:
Despite what some media commentators have claimed, existing gun laws apply just as much to gun shows as they do to any other place where guns are sold. Since 1938, persons selling firearms have been required to obtain a federal firearms license. If a dealer sells a gun from a storefront, from a room in his home or from a table at a gun show, the rules are exactly the same: he can get authorization from the FBI for the sale only after the FBI runs its “instant” background check (which often takes days to complete). As a result, firearms are the most severely regulated consumer product in the United States — the only product for which FBI permission is required for every single sale.
One thing I’ve noticed about this whole gun control debate is the unbelievable amount of confusion liberals seem to have when it comes to telling the difference between an automatic weapon versus a semi-automatic. Believe me, the difference is huge.
Liberals, like CNN’s Don Lemon for example, seem to think that a fully automatic weapon is one with which “you can shoot off a number of rounds very quickly.”
Lemon came up with this definition during a discussion where he claimed to have purchased a fully automatic assault rifle in Colorado. The gun he purchased was a Bushmaster AR-15, which is actually described as a semi-automatic.
To help clarify the difference, here’s a definition from Politifact:
The 1968 Gun Control Act defines a semi-automatic as “any repeating rifle which utilizes a portion of the energy of a firing cartridge to extract the fired cartridge case and chamber the next round, and which requires a separate pull of the trigger to fire each cartridge.”
The key part there is the “separate pull of the trigger.” One pull = one shot.
The law speaks clearly about what it means by the term semi-automatic. When it comes to the term “automatic,” a little inference is required.
The 1934 National Firearms Act defines a machine gun as “any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger.”
Note that part about more than one shot by “a single function of the trigger.” One pull = many shots.
In summary, a fully automatic fires many rounds with one pull of the trigger, whereas a semi-auto only fires one round per pull of the trigger.
You actually have to go through a super strict FBI background check to purchase a fully automatic. We’re talking one that could take up to six months to clear. Not only that, but in many states, owning such a weapon is illegal regardless.
And just as a bit of an added bonus to all of this, here’s a video of conservative comedian Steven Crowder actually attempting to buy weapons without a background check at a gun show, completely blowing Reid’s statement into tiny pieces.
So, once again, Harry Reid has made a fool of himself by speaking about something he doesn’t know anything about, or worse, lying through his teeth to push forth an agenda designed to violate the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens.
No matter how hard progressives want to blame guns for terror attacks and criminal conduct, it’s just not the case. The problem isn’t guns, the problem is people with wicked, degenerate hearts.
Gun control laws do not address that issue at all. All they do is remove a citizens’ ability to own tools for self-defense, putting them in greater danger of becoming a victim.
Unfortunately, liberals refused to grasp this obvious truth.
[Note: This article was written by Michael Cantrell]