Would You Turn In Your Guns For A Beyoncé Concert?

What would it take for you to take your guns up to the local police station and turn them in? A $100 gift card? Some free gasoline?

Michael “Blue” Williams, who heads up a hip hop music company called Family Tree Entertainment, wants to make disarming Americans more fashionable among the younger set, particularly among blacks and Latinos aged 16 to 36.

“That’s the audience they need to reach out for, the ones who are carrying the guns and committing the crimes,” Williams said.

He thinks that can be accomplished by offering mentorships and concert tickets to the hottest new shows in return for guns. Among the tickets up for grabs could be a set to Barack Obama darling and recent headline grabber Beyoncé’s world tour concert. It isn’t clear at this time whether Beyoncé or any other pop stars have agreed to get involved.

According to MSNBC, William’s program, “Guns For Greatness,” is already being considered by New York City Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly; but the commissioner wants to study the proposal further before implementing the program.

If New York implements the program, however, it would be one of the first private-sector gun collection initiatives to spring up in the Nation.

On Gun Control, The Emperor Has No Clothes

Earlier this month, the National Rifle Association leaked a furtively obtained internal Justice Department memo in which a leading official in the Administration of President Barack Obama mused that a ban on so-called assault weapons and large ammunition magazines coupled with a more stringent background check system would have no impact in reducing the availability of certain firearms.

Instead, the official opined, a national gun registration and confiscation system would have to be put into place to eliminate the guns the Obama Administration and certain lawmakers are hell bent to ban.

If the Presidential Administration’s goal is to ban certain firearms incrementally without making obvious that the elimination of all 2nd Amendment rights is the endgame, the memo is damning in its honesty. In a nutshell, the tone is this: “Well, we could actually cut the number of gun murders by simply enforcing existing gun laws, but if you guys want to ban them, here’s how.”

From the memo:

Fatalities from mass shootings (those with 4 or more victims in a particular place and time) account on average for 35 fatalities per year. Policies that address the larger firearm homicide issue will have a far greater impact even if they do not address the particular issues of mass shootings.

The memo goes on to suggest that gun buybacks, magazine bans, background checks, assault weapon bans and the development of “smart guns” are all really fatuous things to suggest if you are a top government official serious about cutting down on gun violence.

A recent Syracuse University study backs the Justice memo’s initial assertion that gun crime would be cut drastically if existing gun laws were simply enforced. According to that report, since Obama took office, the number of gun crime prosecutions in the Nation has dropped significantly. By 2011, there were 40 percent fewer gun-related prosecutions than when they peaked in 2004 under President George W. Bush.

That study prompted members of the House Judiciary GOP to band together and sign a letter criticizing the President that has made such a policy plank of gun control for his Administrations poor record on gun crime. The letter was sent to Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder.

Besides pointing out the overall low number of gun crime prosecutions, the GOP lawmakers lambasted Administration officials for failing to place high value on prosecution of paperwork violations from Federally licensed firearms dealers:

In 2010, there were 76,142 [National Instant Criminal Background Check System] denials screened by the ATF’s Denial Enforcement and NICS Intelligence (DENI) Branch. Of those screened, 4,732 denials were referred to field offices for investigation. However, only 62 prosecutions resulted from these actions,” the letter says. “A prosecution rate this low is not indicative of a Department of Justice that takes the act of illegally attempting to acquire a firearm seriously.

The lawmakers asked Holder to provide records of Justice prosecutions for Federal firearms violations over the past 11 years.

In another recent open letter to the President, Columbine survivor Evan Todd similarly criticized the Administration for gun prosecution failings:

Mr. President, these are your words: “And finally, Congress needs to help, rather than hinder, law enforcement as it does its job. We should get tougher on people who buy guns with the express purpose of turning around and selling them to criminals. And we should severely punish anybody who helps them do this.”

Why don’t we start with Eric Holder and thoroughly investigate the Fast and Furious program?

Todd also noted that it was during the initial assault weapons ban that the Columbine massacre occurred.

Israeli TV: Window Of Opportunity For U.S. Strike On Iran Coming

An Israeli media outlet is reporting that an American strike on Iran is in the cards, as the Administration of Barack Obama expects a “window of opportunity” for U.S. military aggression against the country to open in June.

According to an Israeli television news report, when Obama makes a scheduled visit to Israel next month he will tell Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to “sit tight” and let Washington take the stage. In the likely event that continuing U.S. sanctions against the Iranians do not halt the nation’s nuclear ambitions before summer, a U.S. military operation is expected to commence.

On Monday, Secretary of State John Kerry said that time for a diplomatic solution to the impasse was running out, since the Iranians continue to enrich uranium. Tehran claims the nation isn’t breaking any international laws because the uranium enrichment is only to make reactor fuel and medical isotopes. But some watchdogs say Iran is quickly enriching enough uranium to pose a significant nuclear threat by summer.

“As we have repeatedly made clear, the window for a diplomatic solution simply cannot remain open forever,” Kerry said in London, on his first international tour as Secretary of State. “But it is open today. It is open now and there is still time, but there is only time if Iran makes the decision to come to the table and to negotiate in good faith.

“We are prepared to negotiate in good faith, in mutual respect, in an effort to avoid whatever terrible consequences could follow failure, and so the choice really is in the hands of the Iranians. And we hope they will make the right choice,” Kerry added.

This week top diplomats from the United States, U.K., France, China, Russia and Germany — all but Germany are permanent members of the U.N. Security Council — are meeting with Iranian officials in a hotel in Almaty, Kazakhstan, to try to convince the nation to stop enriching uranium to 20 percent (the point at which it becomes weapons viable) and to export highly enriched uranium. The diplomats are also urging the Iranians to shut down the mountain-shielded Fordo uranium enrichment center, which the nation has refused to do in the past.

Iranian compliance would lead to a lessening of sanctions that have crippled the nation’s economy, according to reports. Some of the reported economic reliefs could include permission to resume Iranian gold and precious metals trading and international banking activity. But not much is expected to come from the latest round of talks with an Iranian Presidential election slated for June, making top officials in the country hesitant to make any deals with Western powers that could be perceived as a result of weakness.

Hollywood Propaganda Film Is The Oscars’ Best Picture

Call it playing the devil’s advocate if you like; but, sometimes, you have to hand it to Iranian government officials: They call ’em like they see ’em. Such is the case with the recent outcry from top Iranian officials that the Hollywood blockbuster “Argo” is an aptly timed anti-Iranian propaganda film.

“Argo,” for those who weren’t interested in forking over $7.50 to line the pockets of Hollywood actors and producers, is a revisionist account of the 1979 rescue of six American hostages from the U.S. Embassy in Tehran. The movie portrays brilliant CIA operatives working with compliant Hollywood elite to orchestrate a plan to extract the hostages. How?: By sending a fake movie crew to Iran to scout for shooting locations for their science fiction film.

Of course, in all of the CIA-glorifying, America touting,  the movie leaves out a bit of critical information: The hostage rescue was necessary due to American failures (actually, much like those leading up to the Benghazi, Libya, fiasco in September), and the rescue of the six hostages that is portrayed in “Argo” was actually orchestrated by brilliant Canadians.

Former President Jimmy Carter sums up one of the most obvious inaccuracies in the movie nicely in the interview below:


So, big deal, you say. “Argo’s” producers stole a bit of Canadian thunder in the name of American patriotism. After all, many Canucks still feel all warm and fuzzy falsely believing it was they, and not British soldiers, who set the White House ablaze back in 1814. But, I digress.

The biggest problem with “Argo” was revealed Sunday night when first lady Michelle Obama appeared on national television flanked by American service members to announce the movie won the award for best picture: It is — whether by design or not — a propaganda film. It’s quite appropriate that the first lady announced the award for “Argo,” because the movie pushes propaganda to those who view it that is undoubtedly beneficial to her husband’s Presidential Administration.

President Barack Obama has continued with a war effort on par with anything George W. Bush did, despite many lofty promises during his first campaign. Liberal Americans and anti-war Democrats know this, even if they are unwilling to admit that the Nobel Peace Prize winner in the White House is a wartime President. Furthermore, America is nowhere near wrapping up in the Mideast; in fact, before Obama leaves the Oval Office, an Israeli-backing Iranian invasion is probably in the cards.

As the wheels of war begin to turn more rapidly, Americans must have a barbaric, almost inhuman, face of hate to picture when the name of the enemy is mentioned. “Argo” has handed this over in grand fashion by portraying the Iranians protesting in 1979 as barbaric and unthinking mobs ready to tear apart anyone who was unlike them. Of course, there is little mention of the fact that the revolution that occurred in Iran that year may have never happened had it not been for American hegemony years earlier.

The Iranian Revolution that was sparked in 1979 helped create the “defiant,” near-nuclear Iran that the world knows today. But it isn’t often discussed that the American decision in 1953 to topple one of the most democratic governments Iran had ever known for “strategic” (for British Petroleum Company) reasons (because Iran had nationalized its oil supply) was one of the root causes of the revolution.

Former Secretary of State Madeline Albright admitted in March 2000: “In 1953 the United States played a significant role in orchestrating the overthrow of Iran’s popular Prime Minister, Mohammed Mossadeqh. The Eisenhower Administration believed its actions were justified for strategic reasons; but the coup was clearly a setback for Iran’s political development. And it is easy to see now why many Iranians continue to resent this intervention by America in their internal affairs.”

Some of that anti-American sentiment could stem from the fact that the U.S.-installed Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi to Iran’s top position following the coup. The CIA-backed Shah of Iran then enjoyed 25 years of tyrannical rule over the Iranian people as a U.S. puppet. He also denationalized the Iranian oil supply.

Young Iranians, in 1979, having lived under tyrannical rule because of U.S. meddling for more than two decades, began protesting as a new set of ideas emerged from radical Islamists like Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, who promised things could be better.  The hostage crises that provided fodder for “Argo” only ensued after the U.S. refused to return their puppet Shah, who had since fled to America, to face the prosecution from a new Iranian regime.

Believe it or not, it got even sillier as the years went on:

1980: The United States backs and provides support for an Iraqi (that’s Saddam Hussein’s Iraq) invasion of Iran.

1982-1983: The U.S. ups support for Iraq as Iran gains an upper hand in the conflict. CIA fronts in Chile and Saudi Arabia begin sending weapons directly to Baghdad. This went on for years as things like advanced computers, equipment to repair jet engines and rockets, and bacterial cultures to make weapons-grade anthrax were provided to the Iraqi regime.

1985-1986: President Ronald Reagan violated an embargo to deliver weapons to Iran to secure the release of seven American hostages in Lebanon. Yes, it’s a little more complicated than that — but not much. By the time the plan was discovered, more than 1,500 missiles had been shipped to Iran. Three hostages had been released, but they were replaced with three more, in what Secretary of State George Shultz called “a hostage bazaar.”

1987: A skirmish occurs between U.S. and Iranian naval forces.

1988: The U.S. shoots down an Iranian passenger jet that was mistaken for a hostile Iranian fighter aircraft; 290 people died.

1995: President Bill Clinton levies hefty sanctions against Iran for promoting Mideast terror.

2002 and 2003: President George W. Bush brands Iran a part of the “axis of evil.” America subsequently looks for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and finds none, but proceeds to overthrow Saddam, the guy the CIA once armed to kill Iranians.

Now here we are in 2013, and a war with Iran is forever on the horizon. As history demonstrates, successful war efforts require public support. And the first lady of the United States handing over a prestigious award to the makers of a movie that portrays Iran as a country of barbaric animals and Americans as a Nation of powerful, intelligent rescuers can’t hurt. Had the movie given a little more perspective and been a little more historically honest, it isn’t likely that the first lady would have been anywhere near the award ceremony.

Supporters of a hawkish Mideast foreign policy will point out that hindsight is 20/20 and that each reversal of course the U.S. has made in the region was necessary at the time. But those war hawks who also call themselves conservatives should also remember a few other things: America owes $16.6 trillion in debt, sequestration that could kick in by the end of the week is going to cut monetary resources at all levels of government and Iran’s aggressive behavior (now, and historically) appears driven by increased pressure and tightening of sanctions by the West. Can we really afford to keep playing in the sand, even if Hollywood bends the truth to help us picture an enemy worth attacking?

Dogs On Welfare, Johns Hopkins ‘Armageddon’ Plan, Tax The Poor, Gibbs Knows Nothing: Monday Morning News Roundup 2-25-2013

Here is a collection of some of the stories that Personal Liberty staffers will be keeping an eye on throughout the day. Click the links for the full stories.

  • Researchers from Johns Hopkins University’s Applied Physics Laboratory are preparing a decade-long, $350 million project to propel a rocket into an asteroid as it passes close to Earth. If successful, it would be the first time an asteroid is knocked off course by human intervention.
  • Remember when President Barack Obama kept saying the rich ought to pay their fair share? Well, because he and Congress allowed the payroll tax to increase, the poorest Americans are going to feel the most pain in coming months.
  • Former White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said Sunday that he was told not to “acknowledge” or “discuss” the secret drone program when he was Obama’s press secretary.

Check back for updates, news and analysis throughout the day. Like us on Facebook.

How To Dodge A Drone Strike

The Associated Press recently uncovered a trove of documents left behind by al-Qaida operatives in Timbuktu, Mali. A rough translation of one of the documents reveals instructions the terror group has compiled to help people in regions where the United States frequently uses drone strikes to take out key targets avoid being killed by the unmanned aerial vehicles.

While the list of 22 tips to avoid being killed by drones was compiled by a terrorist group in a foreign land, recent developments demonstrating the willingness of the U.S. government to order strikes against its own citizens prove, unfortunately, that there could be a time when U.S. citizens could benefit from the advice.

BIN2

There have not yet been any drone strikes carried out on U.S. soil, but politicians such as Senator Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.) maintain that the government’s capability and past use of drone strikes against American citizens on foreign soil warrant cause for concern.

In a recent letter to Homeland Security and Counterterrorism Adviser John Brennan, who is currently being vetted by Congress for the top position at the CIA, Paul said he believes the government should provide concrete answers to the following questions, among others:

  • “Do you believe that the president has the power to authorize lethal force, such as a drone strike, against a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil? What about the use of lethal force against a non-U.S. person on U.S. soil?”
  • “Do you believe that the prohibition on CIA participation in domestic law enforcement, first established by the National Security Act of 1947, would apply to the use of lethal force, especially lethal force directed at an individual on a targeting list, if a U.S. citizen on a targeting list was found to be operating on U.S. soil? What if the individual on the targeting list was a non-U.S. person but found to be operating on U.S. soil? Do you consider such an operation to be domestic law enforcement, or would it only be subject to the president’s wartime powers?”
  • “Have you personally been involved in either the decision to place a U.S. citizen on a targeting list, or the decision to set criteria by which U.S. citizens may be placed on a targeting list?”

Wyden had a similar question earlier this month during a confirmation hearing for Brennan: “I’ve asked you how much evidence the president needs to decide that a particular American can be lawfully killed and whether the administration believes that the president can use this authority inside the United States. What do you think needs to be done to ensure that members of the public understand more about when the government thinks it’s allowed to kill them, particularly with respect to those two issues: the question of evidence and the authority to use this power within the United States?”

Again, drone strikes have not yet been used to kill Americans on U.S. soil; but the public should certainly be worried that U.S. Senators even feel the need to ask questions about the prospect of it happening in the future.

In the event that the public fails to get angry enough to make clear to government officials that drone strikes on U.S. soil will never be tolerated, the following public service announcement is brought to you by al-Qaida.

Ways To Avoid Being Blown To Smithereens In An Extrajudicial Drone Strike Carried Out By Your Government:

1. It is possible to know the intention and the mission of the drone by using the Russianmade “sky grabber” device to infiltrate the drone’s waves and the frequencies. The device is available in the market for $2,595 and the one who operates it should be a computer know-how.

2. Using devices that broadcast frequencies or pack of frequencies to disconnect the contacts and confuse the frequencies used to control the drone. The Mujahideen have had successful experiments using the Russian-made “Racal.”

3. Spreading the reflective pieces of glass on a car or on the roof of the building.

4. Placing a group of skilled snipers to hunt the drone, especially the reconnaissance ones because they fly low, about six kilometres or less.

5. Jamming of and confusing of electronic communication using the ordinary water-lifting dynamo fitted with a 30-metre copper pole.

6. Jamming of and confusing of electronic communication using old equipment and keeping them 24-hour running because of their strong frequencies and it is possible using simple ideas of deception of equipment to attract the electronic waves devices similar to that used by the Yugoslav army when they used the microwave (oven) in attracting and confusing the Nato missiles fitted with electromagnetic searching devices.

7. Using general confusion methods and not to use permanent headquarters.

8. Discovering the presence of a drone through well-placed reconnaissance networks and to warn all the formations to halt any movement in the area.

9. To hide from being directly or indirectly spotted, especially at night.

10. To hide under thick trees because they are the best cover against the planes.

11. To stay in places unlit by the sun such as the shadows of the buildings or the trees.

12. Maintain complete silence of all wireless contacts.

13. Disembark of vehicles and keep away from them especially when being chased or during combat.

14. To deceive the drone by entering places of multiple entrances and exits.

15. Using underground shelters because the missiles fired by these planes are usually of the fragmented anti-personnel and not anti-buildings type.

16. To avoid gathering in open areas and in urgent cases, use building of multiple doors or exits.

17. Forming anti-spies groups to look for spies and agents.

18. Formation of fake gatherings such as using dolls and statutes to be placed outside false ditches to mislead the enemy.

19. When discovering that a drone is after a car, leave the car immediately and everyone should go in different direction because the planes are unable to get after everyone.

20. Using natural barricades like forests and caves when there is an urgent need for training or gathering.

21. In frequently targeted areas, use smoke as cover by burning tires.

22. As for the leaders or those sought after, they should not use communications equipment because the enemy usually keeps a voice tag through which they can identify the speaking person and then locate him.

Personal Liberty Digest™ Is Top Libertarian’s No. 1 Libertarian Website

Personal Liberty Digest™ was recently ranked No. 1 among libertarian websites by Patrick McEwen’s Top Libertarian, a website dedicated to shining light on the top libertarian links, tweets, websites, Twitter accounts and Facebook pages.

Launched in February 2012 by McEwen, an aspiring libertarian political writer and analyst, Top Libertarian ranks the top websites offering information about libertarian issues based on unique visitor and page view Web traffic.

According to the website’s analysis of the most current month of Web traffic data provided by the Web ranking service Compete, Personal Liberty Digest™ is ranked first among top libertarian sites.

Here are the top 10 Top Libertarian picks:

  1. Personal Liberty Digest™ personalliberty.com
  2. LewRockwell.com lewrockwell.com
  3. Reason Magazine reason.com
  4. Daily Paul dailypaul.com
  5. The Cato Institute cato.org
  6. The Tea Party Economist teapartyeconomist.com
  7. Electronic Frontier Foundation eff.org
  8. Tenth Amendment Center tenthamendmentcenter.com
  9. Ludwig von Mises Institute mises.org
  10. Economic Policy Journal economicpolicyjournal.com

Personal Liberty Digest ™ was also ranked at 41 out of the top 100 conservative news outlets based on an analysis of Alexa web rankings by the news aggregation specialists at Red Flag.

Bob Livingston began his mission to empower his audience with information beyond what is available from the mainstream press via a simple newsletter more than four decades ago. As Livingston’s audience grew and technology presented better opportunities to reach more people with timelier information, the newsletter (which you can still subscribe to in print here) was supplemented with a healthy online presence that continues to grow.

On behalf of Livingston and the entire Personal Liberty™ staff, thank you for visiting our site and, most of all, for seeking information beyond what is provided you by the government, the manipulated media and the ruling elite. It is our sincere hope that the information you read here finds its way into your daily life, whether in political conversation, in making a healthy lifestyle choice, in protecting your wealth or in protecting your family from the unthinkable.

We hope you will continue reading Personal Liberty Digest ™ for years to come; and we will remain dedicated to keeping you up to date about the latest liberty-related news.

Panic Buttons For Teachers, Deadly Rabbits, Iranian Nuke And Targeted Killing: TGIF Morning News Roundup 2-22-2013

Here is a collection of some of the stories that Personal Liberty staffers will be keeping an eye on throughout the day. Click the links for the full stories.

  • Schools in Marietta, Ga., have added “panic buttons” which can be worn around teachers’ necks to its schools in response to the tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn.
  • Attention rabbit hunters: The North Carolina Division of Public Health and the State Wildlife Commission are urging hunters to be wary about rabbit fever after two hunters contracted it this month.
  • Since POLITICO wrote an article criticizing the White House relationship with the press, it is reported the Presidential Administration has blacklisted the publication.
  • On the heels of complaints revealed in the POLITICO story, President Barack Obama held an off-the-record meeting with top White House reporters on Thursday afternoon.

Check back for updates, news and analysis throughout the day. Like us on Facebook.

Liberal Blog Finds The ‘Most Terrifying Thing On The Internet’

Yesterday, the liberal blog Gawker published a picture taken from Redditt, the forum-based website and self-proclaimed “front page of the Internet,” with a headline promising that it was an image of the “most terrifying thing on the Internet.”

The picture was of an AR-15 rifle with an engraving of Reddit’s alien logo. Gawker’s full headline read: “‘Reddit Assault Rifle’ Is The Most Terrifying Thing On The Internet and It’s For Sale on Reddit Right Now.”

gunThe “most terrifying thing on the Internet.”

To be fair — despite Gawker’s alarmist headline — it is unlikely that Adrian Chen, the man responsible for the post, wet his pants when he saw the picture. Nor is it likely that Chen really believes a photo of an inanimate object is more terrifying than the searchable famine, carnage, abuse and depravity at the fingertips of most any Internet user in the United States. What’s more likely and is demonstrated further down the page in Chen’s post is that he is among the shrieking left — most members of which have probably never been in the same room with a gun that wasn’t in a cop’s holster — that see guns as killing machines that belong only in the hands of government officials.

gun1Reddit’s logo is engraved on the rifle receiver.

From the post:

Reddit’s gun-swapping board, /r/Gunsforsale, is a little-known section of Reddit which nonetheless boasts over 3,000 subscribers and a daily rotation of firearms listsings. Unsurprisingly, the libertarian-leaning Reddit has a strong gun culture, anchored by the /r/guns subreddit, with over 100,000 subscribers. This has earned the ire of some anti-gun Redditors, who have appealed to administrators to ban gun sales on Reddit in the wake of the Newtown massacre. This hasn’t happened, yet. We know how Reddit administrators feel about the 1st amendment; we may soon learn their thoughts on the 2nd.

Chen is decrying the fact that the Reddit section, which allows for private, legal transfer of a good between citizens, is exemplary of the much-ballyhooed gun show loophole because it allows for a gun to be sold or bought without a background check. Libertarian-leaning Reddit has made very clear in the past that the site values freedom of speech. But it remains to be seen whether the site will give in to the same pressure that many other organizations have and distance itself from guns at all costs.

EEOC: Background Checks Are Racist

The Administration of Barack Obama has widely emphasized the need for criminal background checks to be performed on anyone who wishes to purchase a firearm. Meanwhile, officials at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) are threatening lawsuits against some companies that perform background checks on potential employees because they have a disparate impact on minorities.

According to the EEOC’s own enforcement guide for criminal background checks, they’re racist because they can lead to: “(1) disparate treatment (e.g., intentionally treating a white job applicant with a criminal conviction differently than a minority job applicant); or (2) disparate impact (e.g., a neutral policy of excluding job applicants with criminal histories, but such policy disproportionately screens out certain racial or ethnic groups).”

EEOC officials contend that to avoid being sued for civil rights violations for not hiring an applicant with a criminal history, an employer’s policy or practice of excluding applicants based upon criminal history must be “job-related and consistent with business necessity.”

The Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP), the agency that makes sure companies doing business with the Federal government adhere to affirmative action mandates, announced earlier this month:

OFCCP stated it is aware of contractors posting job announcements that categorically exclude applicants with arrest or conviction records or require applicants to have a “clean” criminal record.  OFCCP believes these practices likely violate federal discrimination laws.

Also of note, OFCCP follows EEOC’s recommendation that employers not ask about criminal convictions on job applications.  Further, OFCCP suggests that if an employer asks about an individual’s criminal history at any point during the application process, the employer limit the inquiry to convictions that are related to the job in question and are consistent with business necessity.

In the Nation’s past, from the time slavery was abolished until the Jim Crow South became a relic, the gun-control laws that were the harshest were those that were levied against blacks. If the EEOC feels background checks are so racist that companies should hire people without the benefit of knowing whether the new employee is a convicted felon or habitual misdemeanor offender, should the same logic apply to encouraging across-the-board background checks for firearm purchases? Of course, maybe it doesn’t matter, gun control was born of racism in the United States.