| 
            
              | 
 | 
                
                
                  
                    | 
                              
                                   
                                        | 
                              
                              
                              NOTE! 
                               
                              This is a real-time comments system. As such, it's also a
                      free speech zone within guidelines set forth on the Post
                      Comments page. Opinions expressed here may or may not
                      reflect those of KeepAndBearArms staff, members, or
                      any other living person besides the one who posted them.
                      Please keep that in mind. We ask that all who post
                              comments assure that they adhere to our Inclusion
                              Policy, but there's a bad apple in every
                              bunch, and we have no control over bigots and
                              other small-minded people.  Thank you. --KeepAndBearArms.com
                              
                              
                                         |  
                         
                         The
                      Below Comments Relate to this Newslink:
                         
                                       
                                            
                      
     
  
    | Background Checks Do Not Infringe on Our Rights Submitted by: 
			
Mark A. Taff
 Website: http://www.marktaff.com
 | 
			There 
				are 3  comments 
			 	on this storyPost Comments | Read Comments
 |  
    | In his Sept. 18 column, Dave Skinner once again missed the mark. With his all too common complaint about how the federal government can’t do anything right, Mr. Skinner now targets firearm background checks. Rather than celebrate that background checks kept 181,000 firearms from being sold to criminals last year he lambasts the federal government for not prosecuting the offenders.
 |  
 
 
     
  
    | Comment by: 
     PHORTO
     (9/28/2019) |  
    | No comment provision on that site. 
 The writer thinks that if a constitutional violation that doesn't bother him is so small as to be no big deal, he needs a good smack.
 
 There is no, like ZERO, authority delegated to the federal government in the Constitution to regulate private sales of firearms or anything else.
 
 If he wants his state to enact them and it doesn't violate its own constitution, well, have at it.\
 
 But at least know WTF is happening, and why or why not.
 |  
 
 
     
  
    | Comment by: 
     AFRet
     (9/28/2019) |  
    | Hey dude, how about a backround check on fools like you before you are allowed to write an article like this...sounds good to me. |  
 
 
     
  
    | Comment by: 
     lbauer
     (9/28/2019) |  
    | OK, then how about a common sense background check before anyone can cast a vote in a federal election. Right to vote and right to bear arms both protected by the constitution, so shouldn't be a problem now should it?
 |  
 
 |  |  
              | QUOTES
                TO REMEMBER |  
              | 
                    
                      | Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States.  — Noah Webster in "An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution," 1787, in Paul Ford, ed., Pamphlets on the Constitution of the United States, at p. 56 (New York, 1888). |  |  |