Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO) has an F-rating from the NRA and a penchant for pushing more gun laws as a solution to criminals who already ignore laws on the books.
At other times, McCaskill pushes gun controls that would not hinder a given attack, even if those laws had been in place before the attack occurred.
For example, the day after the February 14, 2018, attack on Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School Vox reported[1] that McCaskill pointed to a number of gun controls the Senate “struggled with” but she supported. McCaskill pointed to “the strengthening of background checks, there’s the gun show loophole, there’s the ‘no fly, no buy.’”
Not one of McCaskill’s proposed gun controls would have prevented the Stoneman Douglas attack from occurring. After all, the gunman passed a background check for his firearm, so expanding background checks would have been pointless. Also, he did not buy his gun at gun show and he was not on a “no fly” list.
But McCaskill’s gun controls would have accomplished one thing–they would have make it harder for law-abiding citizens to get the guns they need for self-defense. Expanding background checks, which is what Democrats mean when they says “strengthening background checks,” is a slick way of outlawing private gun sales and creating a paper trail that can be used to compile a national gun registry of firearm owners. Knowledge of this registry sends up a red flag to law-abiding, would-be gun buyers who do not want to be on a government list, thereby causing them to forgo the gun purchase.
And for all the left’s vitriol in their decades long war on gun shows, can anyone name one instance where a gun from a gun show was used in
