Situations like this story are why we protect the 2nd Amendment.— Dan Crenshaw (@DanCrenshawTX) September 4, 2019
Side note: With universal background checks, I wouldn’t be able to let my friends borrow my handgun when they travel alone like this. We would make felons out of people just for defending themselves. https://t.co/x60mdd1WW1
Why does Rep. Crenshaw have friends who need to borrow a firearm instead of just getting one in their own right and why does he think it's cool to just loan them out to people who can't get them on their own? Because I'd be concerned what they'd be liable to do...with a firearm I gave them.
It's a judgment call, I guess, but people make terrible decisions all time. People who make really terrible decisions though? Maybe those people shouldn't have guns. Just a thought.
UPDATE: He's still on about it--
Just so I’m clear: you think my friends are domestic abusers/criminals? Seriously that’s your argument? That they can’t pass a background check?— Dan Crenshaw (@DanCrenshawTX) September 4, 2019
Wrong. People lend guns to friends, esp if they don’t own a gun, for self-defense and hunting purposes.
This is America outside NYC. https://t.co/wkWPhfi0JB
Beyond the NYC vs "real Amurrica" signifying, is this really a thing people just generally do in practice? Like "can I borrow a cup of sugar", only it isn't sugar, it's guns? Also, just because people do a thing, doesn't mean it's a great idea. People over-serve their friends at parties, then let them drive themselves home because they think they know what a responsible drunk driver looks like. But Crenshaw's original premise was apparently, why do I have to know my friends' business before I give them a thing they can kill people with?
Huh. Why, indeed.