key quote, from the end of it.


“If our troops need a background check, so should criminals.”


we're all criminals, apparently.

Honestly, background checks will happen on all purchases, fairly certain of it.  It's just going to be a matter of how they let us do it.  If they allowed us to expand the NICS check to private individuals doing transfers, I could see that going through.

Honestly, background checks will happen on all purchases, fairly certain of it.

i just dont like his wording. 

Those are almost certainly not "his words".  They were more likely wordsmithed by a lawyer or team of lawyers, and paid for by one of the anti-gunner groups. 
Some sentences are carefully worded, others are just outright incorrect (lies).

Sort of paraphrased by me, but close to verbatim:
"I had to have a background check before I could join the marine corp and carry a weapon like this...."  Did he have to have a background check before joining, or did he have to have a background check to be able to carry that weapon?  His statement does not make this distinction clear.

"here at home, anyone can purchase this weapon no questions asked".  As we know, that's not true.  I bet almost all "new" purchases already require and have NICS checks, The often-quoted figure of %40 acquisitions w/o NICS includes all transfers, gifts from family, inheritance, etc...

This is more misrepresentation of facts, spun to sound like it has some different meaning.  Translation- some mis-statements are also known as lies   ...at least among the folks I hang out with...

Quite a bit of military members feel the same way. Shame.

Isn't that vet the dude Kenny in "Half Baked"? Yeah the dude that went to prison for killing the cop's horse.

make everyone be an FFL free of charge, anyone can do a background check and guns can now be sent straight to our homes.

Those are almost certainly not "his words".  They were more likely wordsmithed by a lawyer or team of lawyers, and paid for by one of the anti-gunner groups. 
Some sentences are carefully worded, others are just outright incorrect (lies).

Sort of paraphrased by me, but close to verbatim:
"I had to have a background check before I could join the marine corp and carry a weapon like this...."  Did he have to have a background check before joining, or did he have to have a background check to be able to carry that weapon?  His statement does not make this distinction clear.

"here at home, anyone can purchase this weapon no questions asked".  As we know, that's not true.  I bet almost all "new" purchases already require and have NICS checks, The often-quoted figure of %40 acquisitions w/o NICS includes all transfers, gifts from family, inheritance, etc...

This is more misrepresentation of facts, spun to sound like it has some different meaning.  Translation- some mis-statements are also known as lies   ...at least among the folks I hang out with...

The "40% transfer rate without NICS" is from a 251 person survey 20 years ago......not good info then and certainly not representative of the situation now.....

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/338735/40-percent-myth-john-lott

New: "40% myth" awarded three Pinocchios......

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/obamas-continued-use-of-the-claim-that-40-percent-of-gun-sales-lack-background-checks/2013/04/01/002e06ce-9b0f-11e2-a941-a19bce7af755_blog.html

The "40% transfer rate without NICS" is from a 251 person survey 20 years ago......not good info then and certainly not representative of the situation now.....

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/338735/40-percent-myth-john-lott

I agree, but what is useful is how this demonstrates "they" are willing to use old and outdated information/findings in current discussions.  "They" are cherry picking reports to give their spin to things.  If some group, like NRA, point out they are cherry picking and using weak or outdated information, "they" avoid that statement/question by saying something like "...but in another report from blablabla, we see the majority of Americans are in favor of some kind of more aggressive gun control measures...".  The do the "switch" part of a "bait and switch".  They don't answer or even address the "outdated and weak" statement by NRA.  They change the subject to yet another part of the issue which appears to support their intent.   These folks aren't stupid by any means, and I bet half of them are lawyers, so they are pretty smart! Damn smart.  Smart enough  to knowingly and carefully change the subject and avoid the question while "supporting" their position.  It's unfortunate that much of the public doesn't see this "smartness" (my equivalent to lying without actually lying).   

"They" depend on this strategy to dupe those not aware of "truth", if you will. 
I'm a boy scout at heart.  I want to believe our elected officials will tell the truth, will present the facts which are most accurate for the issues, and I'm constantly let down by their continued demonstration that some these folks are lairs.  That is what I - the realist, not the boy scout- call intentional misrepresentation of "facts".  Lies.  It's a real bummer to me personally to resign to the view that some of our elected officials speak (and legislate) based on known un-truths. 

I think we are going the wrong way, we should militarize the American civilian populace.  Your granny shouldn't step into church without checking the corners first.