Lawful American gun owners are in the crosshairs all across the nation as anti-gun politicians and their minions attempt to criminalize gun ownership and intimidate citizens. We cannot and will not sit by as good people are harassed and bullied by those who are supposed to be “civil servants”.
During this episode, we specifically discuss the current anti-freedom movement afoot in Colorado, New Jersey, and New York. The time has long since passed to stand up for your rights. If you love this nation and the principles upon which it was founded you cannot sit on the sidelines.
Visit www.studentofthegun.com for more from the host.
This Episode brought to you by:
Kel-Tec Weapons – keltecweapons.com
CrossBreed Holsters – crossbreedholsters.com
The following two tabs change content below.
Professor Paul Markel
Founder & CEO at Student of the Gun
Paul G. Markel has worn many hats during his lifetime. He has been a U.S. Marine, Police Officer, Professional Bodyguard, and Small Arms and Tactics Instructor.
Mr. Markel has been writing professionally for law enforcement and firearms periodicals for nearly twenty years with hundreds and hundreds of articles in print.
Paul is a regular guest on nationally syndicated radio talk shows and subject matter expert in firearms training and use of force.
Mr. Markel has been teaching safe and effective firearms handling to students young and old for decades and has worked actively with the 4-H Shooting Sports program.
Paul holds numerous instructor certifications in multiple disciplines and a Bachelor’s degree in conflict resolution; nonetheless, he is and will remain a dedicated Student of the Gun.
Latest posts by Professor Paul Markel (see all)
- Liberalism Kills - March 28th, 2023
- Examining the Citizen Soldier - March 16th, 2023
- Beretta ARX100: Ahead of its Time? - February 9th, 2023
- Disspelling the Tourniquet Boogeyman [Updated] - January 23rd, 2023
- Community Prepping and Communal Living [Updated] - December 29th, 2022
Good episode!
Sorry, buddy, gotta break ranks with you here. I do not support background checks and never have.
When they were instituted, they were technically imposed upon licensed dealers, appropriate subjects of regulations. But the government simply cannot be trusted, and the trust extended to them vis-a-vis background checks is now redounding to our dismay. “Reasonable” firearms regulations now include impositions on the private citizen, someone whose rights are supposed to be beyond government authority.
Our rights are being legislated out of existence an iota at a time. Every restriction you agree with sets the stage for further restrictions, for which there will always be supporters, and their support will lead to yet more restrictions. The “slippery slope” is not only real, we’ve been sliding on it for some time.
Funny, you mention the parable of the frog, but you haven’t applied the lesson to your own thinking. We are the frog, and as long as we have government, we’re in the pot. We can’t let them turn on the fire at all, because someone is always ready to turn up the heat.
You are correct, with a qualification. At about 2:45, he states that people who are “reasonable” (I presume he means people who consider themselves reasonable, and not necessarily judged reasonable by himself) support background checks. The “reasonable person” asks (about FFL transaction checks), “What’s wrong with that?” Paul then grants a pass to the hypotheticaly “reasonable person’s” opinion by saying “OK” and does not object to premise that background checks run by FFLs are “reasonable.” From this, I infer that he supports background checks when making purchases from an FFL. I may be wrong, but that’s what I got from his theoretical discussion with the hypothetical “reasonable person.”
Can you point me to a specific podcast or video in which he makes a objection to the current background check system?
OK, I watched the recommended “period.” The only mention of background checks was in relation to those conducted by FFLs at gun shows to put the lie to the “gun show loophole” myth. He made no comments about his personal thoughts about background checks as they are currently required. No indication otherwise whether or not he supports them or not. Any “sarcasm” in the period was not in reference to the constitutionality or propriety of background checks. Yes, he directs sarcasm at those who support “reasonable gun laws,” but that’s because the laws those people are supporting now are unreasonable and far beyond what is already established; he is mocking their claim to “reasonableness.”
OK, I watched the recommended “period.” The only mention of background checks was in relation to those conducted by FFLs at gun shows to put the lie to the “gun show loophole” myth. No comments about his personal thoughts about background checks.
OK, I watched the recommended “period.” The only mention of background checks was in relation to those conducted by FFLs at gun shows to put the lie to the “gun show loophole” myth. No comments about his personal thoughts about background checks.