There's no possible way to know how many times I've used the "let me Google that for you" website for the internet and intellectually challenged pus-brains who just can't strike fingers to keyboards for anything other than shitposting. Seems our favorite chinless dweeb, David Hogg, isn't sure how to type the proper words into any search engine to get answers. Perhaps that's why he's trying to tweet guilt Dana Loesch into supporting an oft-debunked pro-gun talking point: universal background checks.

I've purchased X number of guns. No, I'm not going to say how many guns I have. Nice try, small fry. Despite having a concealed carry permit, I still have to pass a background check. Be it for a long gun or a handgun. Yes, I have gun(s) from both categories. America. Hell yeah.

Now, a "universal" background check sounds even better than a regular background check. It's like Net Neutrality. Who isn't for the internet being a neutral place? But "universal background check" is as innocent as Net Neutrality, Democratic Socialism. Sugar-free frozen yogurt.

Firstly, the #KashSlap

Kyle's point goes to one of popularity. Universal background checks are not popular. That's ultimately why they're not law.

So why aren't they popular, you ask.

Simple: a "universal" background check would require a "universal" registry. In order for the background check to be performed on that large of a scale, one would eventually need a universal database to keep a record of all guns everywhere. Since private sellers would be required to file another "universal background check." Which, should a government go tyrannical, would give the government a record of every gun everywhere. Let's remember, the Second Amendment is to prevent the sort of government tyranny a gun registry would surely enable. Seems to rather defeat the purpose of the Second Amendment. Which might be the point.

Also, who wants to guess if criminals would abide by the universal background check law. Becuase I'm going with no they wouldn't.

Here's what Kyle wrote in the article he tweeted to Dear David:

My response: The real problem with universal background checks (UBCs) is that they won't make any difference in firearm crimes because most guns used in crimes are not obtained legally. In other words, UBCs don’t impact straw purchasers, people who traffic firearms and ignore the law generally, and kids who take them from parents. And its main value is not preventive, but punitive -- punishing people after the crime has been committed.

Incidentally, how would a double secret background check have prevented the Parkland shooting? Seems David would be better served to target the many failures of local and federal government in the shooting. Not the NRA.

NOT SUBSCRIBED TO THE PODCAST? FIX THAT! IT’S COMPLETELY FREE ON BOTH ITUNES HERE AND SOUNDCLOUD HERE.