Advocates of ever more restrictive infringements on that which shall not be infringed almost universally refer to the current infringement du jour as a "modest" "gun control" measure. Examples are far too numerous to count, but here are a few: "Obama unveils modest new restrictions on some guns," "Gun Lobby’s Effective Use of Second Amendment to Scuttle Even Modest Safety Measures," "Leahy Introduces Modest Gun Safety Measure in the Senate," etc., etc.
As discussed in this column yesterday, forcible citizen disarmament advocates view "modest" measures as the essential "thin edge of the wedge" to start "progress" toward outright banning of private gun ownership, as when the chairman of Handgun Control, Inc. (the Brady Campaign's old name) outlined his group's strategy (bold emphasis added):
I'm convinced that we have to have federal legislation to build on. We're going to have to take one step at a time, and the first step is necessarily — given the political realities — going to be very modest. Of course, it's true that politicians will then go home and say, 'This is a great law. The problem is solved.' And it's also true that such statements will tend to defuse the gun-control issue for a time. So then we'll have to strengthen that law, and then again to strengthen that law, and maybe again and again. Right now, though, we'd be satisfied not with half a loaf but with a slice. Our ultimate goal — total control of handguns in the United States — is going to take time. My estimate is from seven to ten years. The problem is to slow down the increasing number of handguns sold in this country. The second problem is to get them all registered. And the final problem is to make the possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition — except for the military, policemen, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors — totally illegal.
On the other hand, if gun rights advocates refer to that strategy, we are summarily dismissed as "paranoid" (and by the way, although the "slippery slope" is quite real, it is also beside the point, in that each infringement, each "good first step," would be unacceptable even if that were as far as the gun prohibitionists intended to go).
What must be noted about this notion of "modest gun control" is that not only is "gun control" a fallacious term for total control, there is nothing "modest" about restrictive gun laws. What can be more insufferably arrogant than presuming to deny people an effective means of defending their families, their lives, and their liberty?
If there were anything "modest" about oppressive gun laws, how would such laws have become such a priority for twisted megalomaniacs like New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg, Narcissist in Chief Barack Obama, and every other government official who has made forcible citizen disarmament a central element of his or her platform?
Those who would impose these laws on a free people have convinced themselves that their personal dislike of an armed citizenry is more important than the lives and liberty of entire nations. That's not "modesty"--it's monstrous, evil arrogance, and it's beyond forgiveness. These people need to be reminded of what goeth before the fall--and someday, they will be.