This lady claims that she bought an AR-15 in 7 minutes:
That's how long it took me to buy an AR-15, the semiautomatic rifle used in the deadliest mass shooting in modern American history. Seven minutes. From the moment I handed the salesperson my driver's license to the moment I passed my background check.A Facebook friend shared it but he's not in favor of gun ownership. He's basically in awe and I believe he believed this lady's article.
I believe it's bullshit, no matter if it's in Philadelphia (I'm in Virginia). Here's why.
I've fourteen handguns and one rifle (an AR-15). When I buy my guns locally (online is a whole different process, at least until the gun has been shipped to my local gun store), the whole process can take maybe 20 minutes. The background check paperwork takes maybe 10 minutes and the approval process (where they actually submit the background checks) usually takes 5 minutes for me. The approval process time frame is different for everyone. While mine usually takes 5 minutes, some people usually have to wait an hour. Others have to wait a few hours. For some, it may take days. It depends on your background, as well as if you've a common name (which will slow down the process). Whether it is a handgun or "assault" rifle, the process is the same (although, for an AR-15, two forms of ID are needed -- I used a passport and my concealed carry license). A person that gets approved within 5 minutes of submitting their background paperwork is a person that has a clean background. There's nothing wrong with that. A person that goes through the background check process goes through the same checks as law enforcement officers. I'd ask the author of that article if there's a set amount of time one should wait before knowing that person is bad. I'm wondering what she was expecting.
I highly doubt it took five minutes, total process time for everything, for this lady to buy an AR-15. It takes more than five minutes to read the paperwork and sign/initial them properly (and there are two forms, a state and a federal form). Most guns stores don't move that fast (they can't because they're also required to do certain things before they submit the paperwork, like add the weapon's serial number(s) to the paperwork, then check to see that you completed it correctly). Gun stores (or FFLs) are meticulous with their paperwork because they're liable if they get something wrong and the person turns out to be a nut. They also get audited...any failures mean they could lose their FFL credentials (ie, they're out of business).
Something stinks with this story and we shouldn't always believe what we read on the internet, no matter our stance on a particular subject.
It's funny...she didn't even supply where she bought it. With even the gun owners that have used their guns for bad purposes, the statistical data available shows that gun owners in American have less issues than the whole of the USA LEO group.
Yes, this Orlando shooter killed people. So did the guy who shot up the SC church. So did the
San Bernardino couple. So did the Boston bombers (they used bombs in lieu of guns...we'll discuss that in a bit). So did the Sandy Hook shooter, and so did the VA Tech shooter. So did Vester Flanders, the Roanoke shooter that killed a news crew on camera. I can go on, but that is a small drop in the ocean of gun owners in the US.
I don't believe in bans or limitations. Gun restrictions in the UK, Australia, France, or any other place won't work here because the difference between the US and those countries is that we have the 2nd Amendment. That's an inalienable right to bear arms where the right "shall not be infringed".
Remember, our forefathers left England because they were oppressed. That's why the Bill of Rights reads the way it does. They wanted to ensure that we'd have less issues than they experienced. 2A reads clearly...there's no other way to read it. There's also a reason it's listed as the 2nd...yes, it's that important in priority, and only the 1st Ammendment trumps it.
And I'll say this again. I refuse to be group-shamed. I refuse to take responsibility for the Orlando killings, or any other mass shooting. I'll only take responsibility for the things I've actually done. Each individual in the U.S. is responsible for their own actions. There's no law that says that one individual has to be responsible for another because of group affiliation. I've never killed anyone and my intention is that I never will, unless it's in self defense, but that's a whole different discussion.
The reader is attempting to lump lawful gun owners with these mass killers. Why do Liberals always do this? There are people that own guns legally, and there are people that don't. There are people that own guns legally and end up killing many people, and there are (many many more) people that don't. If she thinks guns are the problem she's wrong. Remember when I mentioned that the Boston Marathon bombers used a bomb? Yes, they didn't use guns...they used a bomb. Bombs are illegal. They used a bomb anyways. If guns are banned or highly restricted, do you honestly think criminals will stop using them? NO. Cocaine has been never been legal...people use that more than they do guns. Let's lump all illegal drugs together. In the last 20 years, drugs have kills far more people than the last 20 years of active shooters. Hell, on 9/11, the terrorists used PLANES!! We haven't banned planes yet. There was also Prohibition. That didn't work well, either.
And once again, Obama refuses to categorize this as Islamic terror plots, even when the Orlando shooter was found to have pledged allegiance to ISIS. WTF? Last time, in San Bernardino, they tried to classify it as workplace violence when those two killers pledged allegiance to the same group. He also focused on the gay angle. We're all Americans. This was another terrorist attack on American soil. Yes, it was a gay club, but it was targeted because those who practice Islam believe that gays are perverted and because the U.S. pushes for gay rights, they believe the U.S. is perverted. This wasn't just a gay thing, otherwise the shooter wouldn't have pledged his act to ISIS. Obama won't use this angle, but he's trying to go after guns (again).
This is why people are questioning Obama's loyalties.
This isn't Australia. US citizens will not let the US government take their freedoms. Every Aussie I've spoken with always tells me, "don't let them do you like they did us". In fact, I've also had British citizens tell me the same. This has nothing to do with the Civil War...back then, they were divided because of slavery. This has to with Liberals altering/limiting/removing an inalienable right. They (Liberals) believe doing this will make the population more pliable...take away the guns, and you don't have to worry about uprising when the government oversteps their bounds (like they're currently trying to do).
She also said the following:
No need for a concealed carry permit. No mandatory training, though the guys did give me a coupon for a free day pass for a local gun range. No need for even a moment to at least consider how gross all of this felt as relatives of the dead were still being notified.
Who carries an AR-15 concealed? Why do you need mandatory training? I advise it but 2A says NOTHING about there being a training requirement for bearing arms. Because if they did, the government would dictate the training...it's a right, not a privilege (like driving). And no, there's no need for a moment to consider "how gross all of this felt"...it's a purchasing decision. What other purchases do you make where you need a moment to consider. Maybe take a moment before you step into the store to buy such a thing as an AR-15.
THIS WOMAN IS A JOKE!