A Chicago-Sun Times reporter was looking to demonstrate the false claims that obtaining a gun is too easy for a hit piece. Specifically, he wanted to purchase an AR-15 semi-automatic rifle. However, what he discovered was it was a lot harder than he thought.
Neil Steinberg attempted to buy the gun at Maxon Shooter's Supplies in Des Plaines, Illinois. Since he was in Illinois, he needed a Firearm's Owners' Identification Card (FOID) and submit himself to a background check. Additionally, he had to wait 24 hours before picking up the gun. All of this he complied with, even though every bit of it is unconstitutional and an infringement upon his rights.
Mr. Steinberg wrote his piece to slant and demonize the gun store and the Ar-15. He mentioned seeing "cases of weapons" and specifically pointed out that the Smith & Wesson M&P AR he was looking at came with a "standard issue 30-round magazine."
Still, he agreed to buy the gun.
He included a shocked response from a neighbor after he mentioned that he had purchased an "assault rifle." The ignorance of this reporter is amazing, as the AR-15 is a semi-automatic rifle. In other words, it fires one bullet for each pull of the trigger. It is the furthest thing from an assault rifle. With that said, there is nothing in the Constitution that gives government the right to make real assault rifles illegal nor is there authority given to government to infringe on the right to obtain such a weapon.
oped: Indeed see: http://sharlaslabyrinth.blogspot.com/2016/06/fact-check-orlando-islamic-terrorist.html
However, during the waiting period, the gun store decided not to sell him the weapon.
"It was uncovered that Mr. Steinberg has an admitted history of alcohol abuse, and a charge for domestic battery involving his wife," said the gun store.
"Would-be terrorists can buy guns. Insane people can buy guns," Steinberg responded to the cancellation of his gun sale. But reporters . . . that's a different story."
This is simply sour grapes from Mr. Steinberg. The checks, though I believe to be unconstitutional, did prevent him from obtaining a weapon, something that was obviously not in his favor considering his approach to the story.
However, I do agree that there seems to be a double standard in all of this. The problem is that when no one has committed a crime, then no one's rights should be infringed. Yet, this is exactly what the Obama administration is attempting to do through its use of a nebulous terror watch list and an illegal no fly, no buy legislation in Congress. This must be stopped at all costs.