I love the argument by gun control advocates that states, “we don’t want your guns, we just want commonsense gun laws”.  They argue the need for universal background checks, the needs to close the gun show loophole, the Internet loophole and so on.  They pander to your fears by saying its for the lives of the children and quote the 33k figure of gun deaths per year. They say they believe in the 2nd Amendment and quote “well regulated” as the basis of their right to strip yours.  Let me tell you something.  They don’t care about the 33k lives, they don’t care about your rights.  This article hopefully will bring some sanity to these ludicrous arguments.


The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms and was adopted on December 15, 1791, as part of the first ten amendments contained in the Bill of Rights. The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that the right belongs to individuals. In the twenty-first century, the amendment has been subjected to renewed academic inquiry and judicial interest. In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Supreme Court handed down a landmark decision that held the amendment protects an individual right to possess and carry firearms.  To put it in simple terms, YES! You have the right to own guns, big ones!  Lots of them!  This is why when the liberals start saying, we want commonsense gun laws, i.e. universal background checks we should stand firm and say NO!


To be clear, proposals for universal background checks would require almost all firearms transactions in the United States to be recorded and go through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), closing what is sometimes called the private sale loophole.

Gun show loophole, gun law loophole, Brady law loophole (or Brady bill loophole), private sale loophole, and private sale exemption are political terms in the United States referring to sales of firearms by private sellers, including those done at gun shows, dubbed the “secondary market”.  The term refers to the concept that a loophole in federal law exists, under which “[a]ny person may sell a firearm to a resident of the state where they reside, as long as they do not know or have reasonable cause to believe the person is prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms

Here is why this is flawed thinking. Law-aiding citizens are not the problem, criminals are. Numerous studies conducted by academic researchers and by the federal government have shown that criminals do not use legal markets to obtain guns. And now we have more evidence of this reality, this time looking at criminals in Chicago. Their primary findings were that criminals get guns from their “social network,” i.e. friends and persons known to them, but generally not from the various legal sources available to them.

They do not buy guns in gun stores.  They do not get guns at gun shows. They do not buy them from Internet sources.  The study even found that criminals only rarely steal guns.

Research also found that criminals do not often buy guns on the used market, as they have a fear of buying a gun from a source they do not know.  Fear of police stings, or from being turned in by law-abiding gun owners leads them to obtain guns from sources they trust, most often, family, fellow gang members, and other criminals. They also found that criminals do not hold guns for a long period, fearing that a gun could be traced to a specific crime.

The findings were clear.  Criminals do not engage in activities that would make them subject to any sort of a “universal” background check requirement or any of the other common proposals put forth by the anti-gun crowd.  As usual, this study illustrates that laws and regulations only impact the law-abiding.


With this in mind, “IF” the liberal agenda is passed, and universal background checks become the norm, time will prove that is has made no impact on reducing gun crime. Since they already have further restricted our gun rights, the logical next “commonsense” gun laws will be to restrict our rights even more. Please refer to the 1994 AWB that did nothing to reduce gun violence.


They use the same argument to increase taxes and expand more government. Ever hear the quote, “the rich need to pay their fair share”? Most recently Obama got the rich to pay their fair share by increasing their tax for the ACA, now Clinton is talking about getting the rich to pay their fair share also. It would be nice to figure out what a fair share is…..


This election, like every election, has serious consequences- ones that will affect our children’s children. 4 to 8 supreme court justices, healthcare, education, our military hang in the balance of the results that we will hear on November 8th and 9th. Nothing I have seen in my 37 years gives me any comfort in giving the government more reach in my life. Every election season, we hear “I have the right experience to lead this nation”. Experience has gotten us 20 trillion in debt, the worst healthcare in our nation’s history, an education system than doesn’t prepare our youth for the workforce, a military that embraces men wearing dresses and a culture that idolizes the Kardashians and shames the police.


Its time we defend our 2nd Amendment rights or we’ll soon see all the others go away.


Todd Underwood

Founder & CEO

United Gun Group


Look at our newest commercial here:



Join now at www.unitedgungroup.com