Last summer, the calls for stricter background checks were made after James Holmes opened fire in a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado. A few months later, Adam Lanza broke into an elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut and did the same. This time, the liberal Democrats rallied around the battle cry for stricter and universal background checks on every single American who owned a firearm, even if it was an antique gun that hadn’t been shot since the Revolutionary War.
They claim that having the FBI running comprehensive background checks on every gun owner and everyone desiring to purchase a gun or ammunition would make our theaters, schools, streets and homes safer. But will it?
In 2011, Russian officials had warned the US that Tamerlan Tsarnaev may be involved with radical Islamists. The FBI was asked to investigate, but they said they found no evidence tying him to any radical Muslim groups.
Tamerlan was a model citizen and student. He was well liked, respected and trusted by everyone that knew him, or so we are told. In fact, Tamerlan was such a good person that the FBI considered him to be no risk to anyone. That was just under 2 years ago.
The FBI background check on a foreign born Muslim failed to indicate that less than 2 years later, this young man would become so infamous and deadly. They had no indication that he was capable of building bombs and terrorizing a town and its people.
The FBI background checks failed the city of Boston, the three people that were killed and the two hundred that were injured. They failed to see that he and his brother would bring the entire city of Boston to a complete lockdown stand still for a full day, costing business thousands of dollars. It failed to show that he and his brother would become the most hunted men in Boston in years.
If the FBI background investigation failed Boston here, what makes us believe that it will effectively work to prevent similar killings from happening? Why should we pay millions of dollars to have our privacy intruded upon and our constitutional rights violated when we have no guarantee that it will make a difference?