Hapless Dimwit Reporter Tries to Buy a Gun, Highlights Related Problem

At least she admits she’s clueless and does a fair bit of self-deprecation before launching into her “look how easy it is to buy a gun” schtick. She also gets busted fairly easily, because numbnuts knows next to nothing about firearms, and her feeble attempt at undercover journalism is cringeworthy at best.

Nervous, I walked into Pinto’s and was greeted by a friendly, ginger-bearded employee. With time on my mind, I launched right in.

“I wanted to get something that I could get today,” I whispered to the clerk, feeling unsure and like a complete hack. “Um, what kind of things can I buy today on the spot?”

“We’re talking about a gun?” he asked, straight-faced.

“Yes, yes,” I responded.

Clearly, I am not a seasoned “undercover journalist” and I am not a very good actor either.

The clerk explained that I could buy any long gun, a rifle or a shotgun, right then and there. To take home a handgun I’d need a concealed permit, or I’d have to wait a few days.

“What about the AK-15?” I asked, wanting to see how easily and quickly I could buy one. “Do you guys carry those?”

“Uh, it would be more like the AR-15 or the AK-47,” the clerk corrected me.

But hidden in the article was actually something useful and interesting as it pertains to our national security. We’ve been assured by this administration several times that the background checks and vetting for Middle Eastern refugees wanting to enter this country are stringent. The White House put out this infographic that claims “Refugees are subject to the highest level of security checks of any category of traveler to the United States.”


As you can see, there are biometrics, background checks, checks for known connections to terrorist organizations by NCTC, FBI, DHS, and the State Department! Seems pretty thorough, correct?

But please take a look at what this Rachel Belle, who clumsily attempted to buy a gun before failing miserably and going back to her talking points on how easy it is to purchase a firearm.

Think about it. You don’t need a permit to buy a gun. You don’t need training. You just need an ID, to fill out a form and pass the instant background check, which completely depends on individual states reporting criminal records to the FBI. If they don’t report, the FBI background check is pretty much useless.”

The background check completely depends on individual states reporting criminal records to the FBI. In other words, if there is no information reported to the FBI, the check will come back clean.

The reason I mention this is because this is precisely the problem with the “stringent” vetting of Syrian refugees who desire to come into this country. Are there databases in Syria we can access to check their criminal histories? Are there assets we have who will reliably report on criminal connections? Just like the background check to purchase a firearm, if there are no inputs into the NICS database, the background check will come back clean, if there are no data in the country of origin, the background check is pretty much useless.

So liberal gun grabbers have a big problem with background checks being incomplete, allowing possibly violent criminals to purchase firearms, but they don’t seem to have a problem with incomplete background checks for those claiming to be refugees coming into our country without proper vetting.

Under grilling from GOP Sen. Jeff Sessions, head of the Senate subcommittee on immigration, the Homeland Security official in charge of vetting Syrian and other foreign Muslim refugees confessed that no police or intelligence databases exist to check the backgrounds of incoming refugees against criminal and terrorist records.

“Does Syria have any?” Sessions asked. “The government does not, no sir,” answered Matthew Emrich, associate director for fraud detection and national security at DHS’ U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.

Sessions further inquired: “You don’t have their criminal records, you don’t have the computer database that you can check?” Confessed Emrich: “In many countries the U.S. accepts refugees from, the country did not have extensive data holdings.”

While a startling admission, it confirms previous reporting. Senior FBI officials recently testified that they have no idea who these people are, and they can’t find out what type of backgrounds they have — criminal, terrorist or otherwise — because there are no vetting opportunities in those war-torn countries.

If this is a problem in the gun context (I would submit it isn’t really, because if denied a background check, criminals will get guns the same way they normally do: friends, family, black market, or theft), then it should definitely be a problem when vetting refugees from hotbeds of terrorism who want to enter this country!

Which one will it be, gun grabbers?


14 responses

  1. I could have sworn that there was a medical check in that process …


  2. Oh, come now, Nicki. Surely you recognize a double standard when in play. I’m sure there would never be any horsefuckery going on from countries whose populations have sworn to kill us all anyway.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. There’s no double standard involved. There’s a simple standard:

      Is this something the left would approve of? If yes, approve it, if not, shit all over anyone who tries it. Simple.

      Liked by 1 person

    2. Nope nope nope.


  3. Of course, they have things exactly backwards. A citizens rights cannot be abridged without probable cause, aliens have no rights. Dimwits indeed.


    1. “No” rights? So I should legally be allowed to cut down aliens, leave them dead in the streets?

      Assuming you meant to say “illegal aliens” my question still stands as modified.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. nope, just aliens. No rights under our constitution, no right of entry, etc,etc.
        They are, presumably, human and endowed with God given human rights, but I don’t believe that’s the issue.


        1. Then FGS, if you don’t want to be thought of as a xenophobic ass, qualify it when you say “no rights.” Because “No rights” unqualified means…NO rights, not even the ones to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.


        2. Maybe so. Seems like quite a stretch, the context was pretty narrow.


  4. […] Source: Hapless Dimwit Reporter Tries to Buy a Gun, Highlights Related Problem […]


  5. Let’s see. The story goes like this…. a dumb broad goes into a gun shop to buy a gun, acts like she’s doing something naughty, and comes away empty-handed.

    And then we find out, thanks to Nicki’s attention to detail, that the most important part was not the naughty reporter, but that she was dumb enough to prove that the influx of illegal aliens has so many leaks and rat tunnels for them to scurry through, we should all be REQUIRED to own a handgun for self defense, and to help the local law enforcement peeps take down the bad guys.

    I gather that was not the original intent of the writer of that article, but I’m pleased to know that she was dumb enough to contradict herself.


    1. Although I doubt she’s self aware enough to understand the hypocrisy!


    2. Hmmm….

      It’s my civic duty to buy another gun?

      I have that beat. I got a Message From God ordering me to buy a .308 one time.


%d bloggers like this: