In the discourse involving gun control, something to me seems illogical. People who oppose any more gun laws often make the claim that we should just enforce existing laws. Yeah, we should.
But what doesn't make sense to me at all is that given the fact that a person can avoid a background check by purchasing a fire arm at a gun show or from another individual, existing law doesn't seem to prevent someone who shouldn't be able to purchase a gun from doing so. Call it a loophole if you'd like, but it's a damn big one.
The opponents to new laws, or better laws, make the argument that a criminal will break the law anyway and buy one and law abiding citizens, well aren't breaking the law so we shouldn't burden them.
By making it law that every gun purchase must require a background check on the purchaser, at least every legitimate gun sale would prevent someone not eligible to buy one from doing so. It's pretty solid logic. The burden wouldn't be on the buyer, but the seller. And if someone is selling a lethal weapon, let them be a bit more burdened. It's not as if we would be preventing them from selling it. They would just be prevented from selling it to someone who shouldn't be buying it.
No, this kind of law wouldn't prevent illegal gun sales, but it would ensure that all legal sales are legitimate. Can we consider a sale legitimate now if a person unable to purchase a gun in a gun shop does buy one from a gun show? Come on, that's not logical nor intelligent. Leaving this kind of "grey area" in the business of selling arms is just plain irresponsible.
If our politicians can't even take obvious steps to minimally address the situation then they really don't deserve to receive a salary paid by us. They can go work for an industry that they do the bidding for and stay the hell away from public business.