I would say I feel betrayed...

...but I've never really felt that John McCain and I were on the same page.  I realize I've written a disproportionate number of posts about gun control, but I ended up writing this for two reasons, those being,
A) I feel that gun control is a really important issue right now, and
B) I promised to pick on a Republican in my last post.

With Feinstein's AWB dead in the water (for now, I'm fairly sure it'll be resurrected as an amendment), the big focus now is on "universal background checks."  As you've probably guessed by now, McCain supports the increased checks.  I'll briefly deal with the background checks themselves, but then I want to delve into some less obvious points in the article.

The "increased background checks" are completely undefined, first of all.  It's safe to assume that it will mean requiring a background check for sales between private citizens with no Federal Firearms License, but how far does it extend?  Very likely, it would prohibit someone from casually selling a gun to a friend, given that the law does not distinguish between "good friend" and "complete stranger."  It could potentially also include things like someone's grandpa giving them an old rifle, since that, too, is technically a firearm transfer.  The real issue, though, is that it is completely and totally unenforceable.

Why?  It's already illegal to sell a firearm to someone who is prohibited from buying one, yet people still do it, committing a severe felony in the process.  Adding a background check requirement is not going to do anything; these people are already committing felonies, ignoring a background check requirement won't make things any worse for them, assuming they get caught.

As for the less obvious points about the article, it relates to the way in which it treats organizations like the NRA.  I'm beginning to get tired of it, actually - in articles, news shows and protests, the NRA is, without fail, viewed as the voice of gun rights advocates.

Well, no, it isn't.  It's really freaking big, yes, but it's getting to the point that articles, for all intents and purposes, address pro-gun arguments as the NRA's argument.  In fact, there are a number of less well-known but extremely popular organizations like Gun Owners of America, which are notable for taking a significantly firmer stance than the NRA on things like background checks, including an absolute refusal to even think about possibly considering compromise.  This actually leads into my next point.

The article assumes that the NRA's rankings are viewed as authoritative by all gun rights advocates.  Actually, the organization is fairly lax in its rankings (the fact that McCain has a B+ and Joe Manchin has an A says it all), and there is quite a bit of disagreement.  While the pro-control side is addressed based on individuals and separate organizations, the pro-gun side is consistently lumped into "the NRA" - which, ironically, is both helpful in providing the illusion of unity, and really, really annoying to those who disagree with the NRA on certain issues.