‘Background Checks’ Could Leave Grandmother Disarmed Despite Her Indifference

By David Codrea

ScreenHunter_01 Jan. 11 11.39
How would you like your mother or grandmother to be alone in the dark, defenseless, and trying to ward off an attack by this guy? That's what the gun-grabbers want, and so-called “universal background checks” are just another step down the road toward that goal. (Manchester PD photo)
AmmoLand Gun News
AmmoLand Gun News

USA –  -(Ammoland.com)-  A 65-year-old grandmother returning home from work used a gun to stop a man from mugging her, the New Hampshire Union Leader reported.

The woman, a permitted concealed carrier, shot her assailant once in the chest with a .32 caliber handgun after he tried to grab her and take her purse.

That’s despite armed bodyguard-protected Shannon Watts of Moms Demand Action insisting such defensive gun uses never happen. That’s despite addlepated allegations by anti-gun political hacks like former Colorado State Senator Evie Hudak , who resigned before being recalled after telling a rape victim:

“For women especially, [a gun is] more likely to be used against them and taken away from them. They are more easily overpowered…”

Disregarding her lying premise against the effectiveness of defensive gun uses, the bit about overpowering an unarmed woman is obvious. In the New Hampshire grandmother’s case, her 23-year-old attacker has a foot in height and a hundred pounds on her. Without her gun, she would not have stood a chance.

And that’s where she is now – without her gun.

Police impounded it as evidence, to be held until it is no longer needed for investigation and prosecution purposes. Fortunately for her, an armed neighbor loaned her a handgun to use until she gets her property back. And that makes an admission she made to reporters all the more curious:

“Honestly, I do not have a problem with background checks.”

She should. If such checks were to be imposed in New Hampshire, her protective gun owner neighbor would not have been able to provide her with an open-ended loaner gun.  Such a “transfer” would have required going through the National Instant Check System, which, as the FBI explains on its “A NICS Delay” page, isn’t always “instant.”

Add to that the “progressive” penchant for taking an inch and then going after everything that isn't nailed down, gun-grabbers have made no secret of their intentions to close what they pejoratively call the “Charleston Loophole.” That would allow the government to take its own sweet time, as South Carolina Democrat Rep. Jim Clyburn’s H.R. 3051: Background Check Completion Act would do.

Then factor in gun owners being denied transfers due to “false positives,” where people are flagged due to similar names. Add to that the latest push for infringement, disallowing firearm transfers – and due process – to all who are on so-called “terror watchlists.” Due to their secrecy, those could be expanded to include any activist/advocate those who crave a monopoly of violence find advantageous to label an “anti-government extremist” or “domestic terrorist.”

You know, people like “Jihadi Wayne” and, by default, anyone who is an NRA member…

Honestly, ma’am, you do have a problem with background checks – you just don’t realize it. All gun owners do.

That’s one of the greatest challenges facing those of us arguing against the infringements Bloomberg is trying to impose in places like Nevada, and soon, what it covets as a prized jewel for its crown, Arizona.

That some gun owners still don’t think they have a problem with the mandated universal elimination of private transfers shows what happens when the narrative is controlled.  Adding to Bloomberg's focus group-tested propaganda,  the supposedly objective media acts instead as his partner, amplifier and cheerleader.

The truth is, anti-gun fanatics would rather see the New Hampshire grandmother – and all of us – dead than armed. The “universal background check” scam is just that, just another incremental step on the way to the end goal of citizen disarmament. If gun owners surrender that to them, they'll be back with another infringement, and another after that.

The uninformed need to be educated to get rid of the naïve notion that what the antis want has anything to do with “universal background checks.” They know such nonsense won't slow predators down for a second. It has everything to do with a goal they never state, but let slip in a Department of Justice report by Greg Ridgeway, Deputy Director, National Institute of Justice, in his “Summary of Select Firearm Violence Prevention Strategies”:

“Effectiveness depends on the ability to reduce straw purchasing, requiring gun registration…”

Since we can’t count on the establishment press to inform voters of that inconvenient truth, it’s up to us to share information and to support grassroots groups on the front lines, like Nevadans for State Gun Rights and Arizona Citizens Defense League. It doesn’t matter if you don’t live in those states – if the Bloomberg Everytown machine rolls over them, it will be heading your way soon enough.

Where would you rather try to stop it?

David Codrea in his natural habitat.

About David Codrea:

David Codrea is the winner of multiple journalist awards for investigating / defending the RKBA and a long-time gun rights advocate who defiantly challenges the folly of citizen disarmament.

He blogs at “The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance,” and also posts on Twitter: @dcodrea and Facebook.

  • 8 thoughts on “‘Background Checks’ Could Leave Grandmother Disarmed Despite Her Indifference

    1. Good article. What I find interesting is that every poll I have seen that breaks down the demographics shows old people support gun control at much higher levels than middle aged and younger people. I don’t know if it is because old people are the only ones still relying on tv for their news or what, but they are definitely the ones most hurt by new gun laws

    2. “Never forget, even for an instant, that the one and only reason anybody has for taking your gun away is to make you
      weaker than he is, so he can do something to you that you wouldn’t let him do if you were equipped to prevent it.
      This goes for burglars, muggers, and rapists, and even more so for policemen, bureaucrats, and politicians.”
      – Aaron Zelman

      “Won’t he smile in welcome at anyone he meets, saying that he’s no tyrant, making all sorts of promises both in
      public and in private, freeing the people from debt, redistributing land to them, his followers, and pretending to
      be gracious and gentle to all?”
      However after a series of unpopular actions, including stirring up a war, the leader begins to alienate some of his
      most ardent advisers who begin to voice their misgivings in private. Following a purge of these advisors the tyrant
      attracts some of the worst elements of the state to help him rule.
      As the citizens grow weary of his tenure the tyrant chooses to attract foreigners to resupply his dwindling bodyguards. The citizens finally decide they’ve had enough and begin to discuss rebellion.

      At this point in the story the student asks his teacher incredulously: “What do you mean? Will the tyrant dare to use violence against [the people] imprison or to hit [them] if [they] don’t obey?

      The teacher answers, “Yes – once he’s taken away [the people’s] weapons.”
      The name of book 8 in the 10 book series from Plato Is THE REPUBLIC

    Leave a Comment 8 Comments