By Dave Workman
Editor-in-Chief
Georgia Democrats are moving quickly to exploit the Atlanta-area massage parlor murder spree in an effort to penalize all Peach State gun owners because the suspect, Robert Aaron Long was able to legally purchase the gun he used only hours before the shootings.
According to the New York Post, Georgia’s “no wait gun laws” allow for a firearm to be transferred to a buyer who passes a background check. Instead of wondering “why” or “how” that was able to happen, one might ask what’s wrong with that—the “Instant background check” system was created to allow Americans to quickly exercise their Second Amendment right as quickly as they might exercise any other constitutionally-enumerated fundamental right—and why anyone would seriously believe, or have anyone else believe for that matter, the accused killer wouldn’t have acted, anyway, had he been required to wait a few days.
New York Magazine asked this question: “Will the fresh violence in Atlanta change the calculus in Washington?” The change to which the magazine alludes is the official Capitol Hill attitude about gun control.
Anti-gunners are quick to seize any such outrage to further their public disarmament agenda, grassroots activists contend, and the Georgia case appears to reinforce that notion.
But the New York Magazine story adds remarks that are simply preposterous, when given a cursory examination based on common sense.
“The 2013 push for background-check legislation occurred in the wake of the Sandy Hook school massacre,” the magazine accurately notes, “and the 2015 bid happened soon after another murder spree, that time in San Bernardino.”
But wait a minute, any Second Amendment advocate would observe. Sandy Hook was the act of a deranged young man who didn’t bother with background checks because he murdered his own mother hours before going to the school, with her legally-purchased firearms. At the time, Connecticut gun laws were strict, but as with any law designed to keep guns out of the wrong hands, they failed tragically.
The guns used by San Bernardino domestic terrorists Syed Rizwan Farook and his wife, Tashfeen Malik, were purchased by a third party who cleared a background check. That individual, Enrique Marquez Jr., was prosecuted and pleaded guilty to federal charges.
Unless a firearms dealer is clairvoyant, it would be impossible for the retailer to know what a buyer is going to do with the guns he/she purchases, say gun rights advocates.
The New York Post quoted Georgia Democrat Rep. Matthew Wilson, who reportedly tweeted on the day after the massage parlor shootings, “in Georgia, it’s easier to buy a gun than it is to vote.” In the wake of the 2020 presidential election, one might seriously argue such a remark is hogwash. No voter in Georgia or anywhere else is subjected to a background check prior to casting a ballot, and gun buyers have to provide photo ID when filling out the required paperwork.
Another Georgia Democrat state representative, Mike Wilensky, called for a waiting period law, claiming in a tweet, “I have never heard of someone in a rush to get a gun for a safe, good reason.” Why should any law-abiding citizen be forced to wait before they exercise a right?
Ultimately, that’s the question Democrat anti-gunners should answer straight up. Why should a citizen’s rights be delayed because some other person claiming to have some kind of sex addiction goes on a rampage?
