Bob Livingston

founder of Personal Liberty Digest™, is an ultra-conservative American author and editor of The Bob Livingston Letter™, in circulation since 1969. Bob has devoted much of his life to research and the quest for truth on a variety of subjects. Bob specializes in health issues such as nutritional supplements and alternatives to drugs, as well as issues of privacy (both personal and financial), asset protection and the preservation of freedom.

Join the Discussion

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

  • Doc Sarvis

    This is total B.S.! The issue being debated is not the size of the hole a weapon makes but the number of rounds someone could get off in a short period of time. This women can get a tight cluster by taking her time but these mass shooters are filling the air with bullets. Some shotguns I am familiar with (pumps) will hold five shells which the shooter must eject after each shot. The assault rifles, the weapon of choice for mass shooters it seems, are just getting started with five rounds.

    • JeffH

      Doc, right away you expose yourself as one who has been propagandized by the anti-gun progressives…Ignorance is bliss!

      The “assault rifle” is not the weapon of choice for mass shooters(?…whatever that means)…and neither are military grade weapons.

      For some known reason(progressivism) all of you anti-gun nuts just can’t get the picture…any gun with any size magazine don’t kill people…criminals and nut cases do commit these crimes…not guns, ammunition or large capacity magazines.

      The public self-educated on the “assault weapons ban” topic, and is now rejecting the plan. And for good reasons.

      Universal background checks would not have changed anything, other that creating a national gun registry…nothing else.

      There are three basic problems with universal background checks; it will have no effect, the numbers don’t prove the case, and the only way to make the scheme remotely effective is repugnant to the people. Those are three big hills to climb.

      Most important is that criminals disobey such laws (and according to the Supreme Court in their Haynes vs. U.S. decision, criminals are not legally obligated to). In a report titled “Firearm Use by Offenders”, our own Federal Government noted that nearly 40% of all crime guns are acquired from street level dealers, who are criminals in the black market business of peddling stolen and recycled guns. Standing alone, this shows that “universal” background checks would have an incomplete effect on guns used in crimes.

      Nearly 80% of crime guns are already outside of retail distribution channels (which are 14% of crime gun sources) and outside of transactions made by the law abiding folks who would participate in “universal” background checks at gun shows (0.7%).

      When 80% of the problem is not addressed by legislation, even if the law was enforced it would be nearly useless.

      To achieve any degree of success, the “universal” background check system would require universal gun registration. Representative Sheila Jackson Lee has already acknowledged this, which doomed the bill before it was drafted. Despite denials by some politicians, registration has already led to gun confiscation in the United States – in New York, California, Chicago, District of Columbia. Voters are wary of repeating the same process in their home towns. National registration to support “universal” background checks is almost universally repugnant.