![The mythical "gun show loophole" is the gun-haters' lowest hanging fruit, with the GOP already looking very wobbly on the issue, and the GOP and NRA looking poised to draw an artificial distinction between private sales at gun shows, and identical sales elsewhere.By doing so, if they can limit the damage to gun shows only, they can declare "victory" for gun rights, despite having given the other side--with very little in the way of resistance--a beachhead for its next round of attacks.And even that weak-kneed line in the sand is hardly looking inviolable. United States Senator John McCain (R-[supposedly]-AZ) seems intent on banning private sales everywhere, whether at gun shows or not.If the gun-haters can be stopped cold here, if they can be forced to walk away with nothing, even after the deliberate, callous exploitation of 20 murdered children, the gun ban lobby will be reeling for a long time.It will not happen, though, if gun rights advocates fight back with anything less than everything we have, and make clear to our Congress members and to the NRA that we demand their refusal to compromise our rights, as well.See also:Threat to private gun sales might be greater than threat to 'assault weapons'Feinstein's 'assault weapon' ban probably not gun grabbers' main effortNRA unlikely to strongly fight private sales ban unless pushed to do soGOP, NRA may invent distinction between 'loopholes' at gun shows and awayWith GOP sellout on private sales looming, non-compliance is second-to-last step](http://cdn2-b.examiner.com/sites/default/files/styles/thumbnail/hash/0c/c3/0cc3c0d45a78c16fe2b37ae6efa95c5a.JPG?itok=y8UGYvW6 "The mythical "gun show loophole" is the gun-haters' lowest hanging fruit, with the GOP already looking very wobbly on the issue, and the GOP and NRA looking poised to draw an artificial distinction between private sales at gun shows, and identical sales elsewhere.By doing so, if they can limit the damage to gun shows only, they can declare "victory" for gun rights, despite having given the other side--with very little in the way of resistance--a beachhead for its next round of attacks.And even that weak-kneed line in the sand is hardly looking inviolable. United States Senator John McCain (R-[supposedly]-AZ) seems intent on banning private sales everywhere, whether at gun shows or not.If the gun-haters can be stopped cold here, if they can be forced to walk away with nothing, even after the deliberate, callous exploitation of 20 murdered children, the gun ban lobby will be reeling for a long time.It will not happen, though, if gun rights advocates fight back with anything less than everything we have, and make clear to our Congress members and to the NRA that we demand their refusal to compromise our rights, as well.See also:Threat to private gun sales might be greater than threat to 'assault weapons'Feinstein's 'assault weapon' ban probably not gun grabbers' main effortNRA unlikely to strongly fight private sales ban unless pushed to do soGOP, NRA may invent distinction between 'loopholes' at gun shows and awayWith GOP sellout on private sales looming, non-compliance is second-to-last step"){kind=small}
![If a ban of so-called "assault weapons" is off the table, the next "best" thing for the gun-haters would be banning what they call "high capacity" magazines (actually, in his State of the Union Address, President Obama could not satisfy himself with even that hyperbole, and called them "massive" magazines).The bills to do this are McCarthy's H.R. 138 and Sen. Frank Lautenberg's (D-NJ) S. 33. Both of these bills make it a crime worthy of ten years in federal prison, for possessing an 11-round magazine.Oh--"Only Ones," and even retired "Only Ones," are exempt.As of very recently, a magazine ban bill looked only marginally more easily passed than an "assault weapons" ban bill, but that may have been an overly optimistic assessment, with some evidence of even ostensibly "pro-gun" members of Congress being willing to cave on sending their constituents to prison for 10 years, for the "crime" of equipping themselves for defense against large, feral, brutal mobs.Meanwhile, aspiring mass killers will be finding the magazine bans less and less relevant, as technology marches on.See also:Why we need 'high capacity' magazines: Because there are more than 10 DemocratsIL Dems think 11-round magazines more dangerous than outdated nuclear plants'Magazine control' will be made irrelevant even sooner than 'gun control' willKnown 'gun criminal' David Gregory goes uncharged; life-saving hero may notSt. Louis teenager suspected of 'knockout game' violence picks wrong victim](http://cdn2-b.examiner.com/sites/default/files/styles/thumbnail/hash/03/12/1361463814_6939_why30rounders.jpg?itok=V-m6kHM9 "If a ban of so-called "assault weapons" is off the table, the next "best" thing for the gun-haters would be banning what they call "high capacity" magazines (actually, in his State of the Union Address, President Obama could not satisfy himself with even that hyperbole, and called them "massive" magazines).The bills to do this are McCarthy's H.R. 138 and Sen. Frank Lautenberg's (D-NJ) S. 33. Both of these bills make it a crime worthy of ten years in federal prison, for possessing an 11-round magazine.Oh--"Only Ones," and even retired "Only Ones," are exempt.As of very recently, a magazine ban bill looked only marginally more easily passed than an "assault weapons" ban bill, but that may have been an overly optimistic assessment, with some evidence of even ostensibly "pro-gun" members of Congress being willing to cave on sending their constituents to prison for 10 years, for the "crime" of equipping themselves for defense against large, feral, brutal mobs.Meanwhile, aspiring mass killers will be finding the magazine bans less and less relevant, as technology marches on.See also:Why we need 'high capacity' magazines: Because there are more than 10 DemocratsIL Dems think 11-round magazines more dangerous than outdated nuclear plants'Magazine control' will be made irrelevant even sooner than 'gun control' willKnown 'gun criminal' David Gregory goes uncharged; life-saving hero may notSt. Louis teenager suspected of 'knockout game' violence picks wrong victim")
![So-called "assault weapons," defined in part by the presence of a "barrel shroud," as the photo indicates, are a favorite target of the gun-haters. Senator Feinstein's (D-CA) S. 150, and it's House companion bill, Rep. Carolyn "What's a Barrel Shroud?" McCarthy's H.R. 437, would ban the most popular centerfire rifles in the country, and many popular shotguns and handguns, as well.Feinstein, readers will remember, wrote the first federal "assault weapon" ban, which collapsed under its own weight in 2004. In describing that ban, she lamented her inability to make it confiscatory: "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an out right ban, picking up every one of them....Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in. I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here," Feinstein said.She evidently knew she didn't have the votes for that this time around, either, but initially aimed for the next "best" thing--a strict registration scheme, regulating every such firearm as oppressively as machine guns have been regulated since 1934.At least that was her announced intention in December. Since then she has apparently given up on the idea of putting the "grandfathered" guns on the NFA (National Firearms Act--the 1934 law heavily restricting machine guns, short-barreled rifles and shotguns, etc.) registry, as quoted in Roll Call:Feinstein told CBS’ “Face the Nation” host Bob Schieffer that she had made a concession by not requiring that current owners of military-style weapons register their firearms. “I would like to see them all registered, but it’s not in our bill,” she said.Even with that "concession," the AWB looks quite unlikely to pass, even in the Democrat-controlled Senate, let alone the House. Chris Knox describes the bill as a gun ban "rope-a-dope" gambit, intended to distract gun rights advocates long enough, and exhaust us fully enough, that other, less obvious restrictions can slip through.That indeed seems likely, but with one caveat, as National Gun Rights Examiner David Codrea described in his Guns Magazine "Rights Watch" column:Still, does that mean we can relax as far as Feinstein’s latest plot against our rights is concerned? Imagine as you’re reading this, right now, the TV playing in the background interrupts its regular program with breaking news of another mass shooting. It’s going to happen, you know, as long as maniac killers are guaranteed success and “fame.” So now ask yourself if your representatives have demonstrated enough fidelity to their oaths to give you confidence that they’ll hold fast.Have they?The next mass shooting could be more like Beslan than Sandy Hook. If so, all bets are off.See also:Threat to private gun sales might be greater than threat to 'assault weapons'Feinstein's 'assault weapon' ban would be tantamount to confiscationFeinstein's 'assault weapon' ban probably not gun grabbers' main effortAmericans aren't buying 'assault weapons' just to have something to registerCall them 'regime change rifles'Obama wants to ban 'weapons of war' for Americans, use them to kill AmericansIf 'assault weapon' ban fails, 'bump fire' stocks may be consolation prize](http://cdn2-b.examiner.com/sites/default/files/styles/thumbnail/hash/b7/29/b7294c77a2828d72cac1c3f9e3cd0135.jpg?itok=sMUybYID "So-called "assault weapons," defined in part by the presence of a "barrel shroud," as the photo indicates, are a favorite target of the gun-haters. Senator Feinstein's (D-CA) S. 150, and it's House companion bill, Rep. Carolyn "What's a Barrel Shroud?" McCarthy's H.R. 437, would ban the most popular centerfire rifles in the country, and many popular shotguns and handguns, as well.Feinstein, readers will remember, wrote the first federal "assault weapon" ban, which collapsed under its own weight in 2004. In describing that ban, she lamented her inability to make it confiscatory: "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an out right ban, picking up every one of them....Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in. I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here," Feinstein said.She evidently knew she didn't have the votes for that this time around, either, but initially aimed for the next "best" thing--a strict registration scheme, regulating every such firearm as oppressively as machine guns have been regulated since 1934.At least that was her announced intention in December. Since then she has apparently given up on the idea of putting the "grandfathered" guns on the NFA (National Firearms Act--the 1934 law heavily restricting machine guns, short-barreled rifles and shotguns, etc.) registry, as quoted in Roll Call:Feinstein told CBS’ “Face the Nation” host Bob Schieffer that she had made a concession by not requiring that current owners of military-style weapons register their firearms. “I would like to see them all registered, but it’s not in our bill,” she said.Even with that "concession," the AWB looks quite unlikely to pass, even in the Democrat-controlled Senate, let alone the House. Chris Knox describes the bill as a gun ban "rope-a-dope" gambit, intended to distract gun rights advocates long enough, and exhaust us fully enough, that other, less obvious restrictions can slip through.That indeed seems likely, but with one caveat, as National Gun Rights Examiner David Codrea described in his Guns Magazine "Rights Watch" column:Still, does that mean we can relax as far as Feinstein’s latest plot against our rights is concerned? Imagine as you’re reading this, right now, the TV playing in the background interrupts its regular program with breaking news of another mass shooting. It’s going to happen, you know, as long as maniac killers are guaranteed success and “fame.” So now ask yourself if your representatives have demonstrated enough fidelity to their oaths to give you confidence that they’ll hold fast.Have they?The next mass shooting could be more like Beslan than Sandy Hook. If so, all bets are off.See also:Threat to private gun sales might be greater than threat to 'assault weapons'Feinstein's 'assault weapon' ban would be tantamount to confiscationFeinstein's 'assault weapon' ban probably not gun grabbers' main effortAmericans aren't buying 'assault weapons' just to have something to registerCall them 'regime change rifles'Obama wants to ban 'weapons of war' for Americans, use them to kill AmericansIf 'assault weapon' ban fails, 'bump fire' stocks may be consolation prize")
The forcible citizen disarmament fanatics do not intend to let the victims of the Sandy Hook Elementary atrocity go unexploited--even openly acknowledging that "exploiting" this horrific mass murder has been their intention since before the little bodiers were cold. As Representative Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) was quoted in the Washington Times:
Mr. Nadler was asked whether the Newtown tragedy could be the turning point in many Democrats’ longstanding struggle to enact stronger gun laws.
“I think we will be there if the president exploits it, and otherwise we’ll go on to the next” incident, Mr. Nadler said.
Still, even with bodies of 20 kids and the courageous, devoted adults who died trying to save them, the forcible citizen disarmament lobby cannot get everything they want (with "everything" being a total ban on private ownership of firearms).
Even the most ideologically extreme among them know this, and so now, the main focus is on what they think they can pass in both houses of Congress. At the moment, that seems to narrow things down to three main goals.
That's not to say that there will not be a wide variety of other proposed new infringements on that which shall not be infringed (and indeed the anti-gun bills already introduced attack the Constitutionally guaranteed, fundamental human right of the individual to keep and bear arms from an impressively large number of angles). Still, most of those are little more than political theater.
![So-called "assault weapons," defined in part by the presence of a "barrel shroud," as the photo indicates, are a favorite target of the gun-haters. Senator Feinstein's (D-CA) S. 150, and it's House companion bill, Rep. Carolyn "What's a Barrel Shroud?" McCarthy's H.R. 437, would ban the most popular centerfire rifles in the country, and many popular shotguns and handguns, as well.Feinstein, readers will remember, wrote the first federal "assault weapon" ban, which collapsed under its own weight in 2004. In describing that ban, she lamented her inability to make it confiscatory: "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an out right ban, picking up every one of them....Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in. I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here," Feinstein said.She evidently knew she didn't have the votes for that this time around, either, but initially aimed for the next "best" thing--a strict registration scheme, regulating every such firearm as oppressively as machine guns have been regulated since 1934.At least that was her announced intention in December. Since then she has apparently given up on the idea of putting the "grandfathered" guns on the NFA (National Firearms Act--the 1934 law heavily restricting machine guns, short-barreled rifles and shotguns, etc.) registry, as quoted in Roll Call:Feinstein told CBS’ “Face the Nation” host Bob Schieffer that she had made a concession by not requiring that current owners of military-style weapons register their firearms. “I would like to see them all registered, but it’s not in our bill,” she said.Even with that "concession," the AWB looks quite unlikely to pass, even in the Democrat-controlled Senate, let alone the House. Chris Knox describes the bill as a gun ban "rope-a-dope" gambit, intended to distract gun rights advocates long enough, and exhaust us fully enough, that other, less obvious restrictions can slip through.That indeed seems likely, but with one caveat, as National Gun Rights Examiner David Codrea described in his Guns Magazine "Rights Watch" column:Still, does that mean we can relax as far as Feinstein’s latest plot against our rights is concerned? Imagine as you’re reading this, right now, the TV playing in the background interrupts its regular program with breaking news of another mass shooting. It’s going to happen, you know, as long as maniac killers are guaranteed success and “fame.” So now ask yourself if your representatives have demonstrated enough fidelity to their oaths to give you confidence that they’ll hold fast.Have they?The next mass shooting could be more like Beslan than Sandy Hook. If so, all bets are off.See also:Threat to private gun sales might be greater than threat to 'assault weapons'Feinstein's 'assault weapon' ban would be tantamount to confiscationFeinstein's 'assault weapon' ban probably not gun grabbers' main effortAmericans aren't buying 'assault weapons' just to have something to registerCall them 'regime change rifles'Obama wants to ban 'weapons of war' for Americans, use them to kill AmericansIf 'assault weapon' ban fails, 'bump fire' stocks may be consolation prize](http://cdn2-b.examiner.com/sites/default/files/styles/profile_large/hash/fe/45/fe45f036ecceccb1c307d3f43baf8cc3.jpg?itok=SlAazVSS "So-called "assault weapons," defined in part by the presence of a "barrel shroud," as the photo indicates, are a favorite target of the gun-haters. Senator Feinstein's (D-CA) S. 150, and it's House companion bill, Rep. Carolyn "What's a Barrel Shroud?" McCarthy's H.R. 437, would ban the most popular centerfire rifles in the country, and many popular shotguns and handguns, as well.Feinstein, readers will remember, wrote the first federal "assault weapon" ban, which collapsed under its own weight in 2004. In describing that ban, she lamented her inability to make it confiscatory: "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an out right ban, picking up every one of them....Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in. I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here," Feinstein said.She evidently knew she didn't have the votes for that this time around, either, but initially aimed for the next "best" thing--a strict registration scheme, regulating every such firearm as oppressively as machine guns have been regulated since 1934.At least that was her announced intention in December. Since then she has apparently given up on the idea of putting the "grandfathered" guns on the NFA (National Firearms Act--the 1934 law heavily restricting machine guns, short-barreled rifles and shotguns, etc.) registry, as quoted in Roll Call:Feinstein told CBS’ “Face the Nation” host Bob Schieffer that she had made a concession by not requiring that current owners of military-style weapons register their firearms. “I would like to see them all registered, but it’s not in our bill,” she said.Even with that "concession," the AWB looks quite unlikely to pass, even in the Democrat-controlled Senate, let alone the House. Chris Knox describes the bill as a gun ban "rope-a-dope" gambit, intended to distract gun rights advocates long enough, and exhaust us fully enough, that other, less obvious restrictions can slip through.That indeed seems likely, but with one caveat, as National Gun Rights Examiner David Codrea described in his Guns Magazine "Rights Watch" column:Still, does that mean we can relax as far as Feinstein’s latest plot against our rights is concerned? Imagine as you’re reading this, right now, the TV playing in the background interrupts its regular program with breaking news of another mass shooting. It’s going to happen, you know, as long as maniac killers are guaranteed success and “fame.” So now ask yourself if your representatives have demonstrated enough fidelity to their oaths to give you confidence that they’ll hold fast.Have they?The next mass shooting could be more like Beslan than Sandy Hook. If so, all bets are off.See also:Threat to private gun sales might be greater than threat to 'assault weapons'Feinstein's 'assault weapon' ban would be tantamount to confiscationFeinstein's 'assault weapon' ban probably not gun grabbers' main effortAmericans aren't buying 'assault weapons' just to have something to registerCall them 'regime change rifles'Obama wants to ban 'weapons of war' for Americans, use them to kill AmericansIf 'assault weapon' ban fails, 'bump fire' stocks may be consolation prize")
![If a ban of so-called "assault weapons" is off the table, the next "best" thing for the gun-haters would be banning what they call "high capacity" magazines (actually, in his State of the Union Address, President Obama could not satisfy himself with even that hyperbole, and called them "massive" magazines).The bills to do this are McCarthy's H.R. 138 and Sen. Frank Lautenberg's (D-NJ) S. 33. Both of these bills make it a crime worthy of ten years in federal prison, for possessing an 11-round magazine.Oh--"Only Ones," and even retired "Only Ones," are exempt.As of very recently, a magazine ban bill looked only marginally more easily passed than an "assault weapons" ban bill, but that may have been an overly optimistic assessment, with some evidence of even ostensibly "pro-gun" members of Congress being willing to cave on sending their constituents to prison for 10 years, for the "crime" of equipping themselves for defense against large, feral, brutal mobs.Meanwhile, aspiring mass killers will be finding the magazine bans less and less relevant, as technology marches on.See also:Why we need 'high capacity' magazines: Because there are more than 10 DemocratsIL Dems think 11-round magazines more dangerous than outdated nuclear plants'Magazine control' will be made irrelevant even sooner than 'gun control' willKnown 'gun criminal' David Gregory goes uncharged; life-saving hero may notSt. Louis teenager suspected of 'knockout game' violence picks wrong victim](http://cdn2-b.examiner.com/sites/default/files/styles/profile_large/hash/03/12/1361463814_6939_why30rounders.jpg?itok=-1JDLVnl "If a ban of so-called "assault weapons" is off the table, the next "best" thing for the gun-haters would be banning what they call "high capacity" magazines (actually, in his State of the Union Address, President Obama could not satisfy himself with even that hyperbole, and called them "massive" magazines).The bills to do this are McCarthy's H.R. 138 and Sen. Frank Lautenberg's (D-NJ) S. 33. Both of these bills make it a crime worthy of ten years in federal prison, for possessing an 11-round magazine.Oh--"Only Ones," and even retired "Only Ones," are exempt.As of very recently, a magazine ban bill looked only marginally more easily passed than an "assault weapons" ban bill, but that may have been an overly optimistic assessment, with some evidence of even ostensibly "pro-gun" members of Congress being willing to cave on sending their constituents to prison for 10 years, for the "crime" of equipping themselves for defense against large, feral, brutal mobs.Meanwhile, aspiring mass killers will be finding the magazine bans less and less relevant, as technology marches on.See also:Why we need 'high capacity' magazines: Because there are more than 10 DemocratsIL Dems think 11-round magazines more dangerous than outdated nuclear plants'Magazine control' will be made irrelevant even sooner than 'gun control' willKnown 'gun criminal' David Gregory goes uncharged; life-saving hero may notSt. Louis teenager suspected of 'knockout game' violence picks wrong victim")
![The mythical "gun show loophole" is the gun-haters' lowest hanging fruit, with the GOP already looking very wobbly on the issue, and the GOP and NRA looking poised to draw an artificial distinction between private sales at gun shows, and identical sales elsewhere.By doing so, if they can limit the damage to gun shows only, they can declare "victory" for gun rights, despite having given the other side--with very little in the way of resistance--a beachhead for its next round of attacks.And even that weak-kneed line in the sand is hardly looking inviolable. United States Senator John McCain (R-[supposedly]-AZ) seems intent on banning private sales everywhere, whether at gun shows or not.If the gun-haters can be stopped cold here, if they can be forced to walk away with nothing, even after the deliberate, callous exploitation of 20 murdered children, the gun ban lobby will be reeling for a long time.It will not happen, though, if gun rights advocates fight back with anything less than everything we have, and make clear to our Congress members and to the NRA that we demand their refusal to compromise our rights, as well.See also:Threat to private gun sales might be greater than threat to 'assault weapons'Feinstein's 'assault weapon' ban probably not gun grabbers' main effortNRA unlikely to strongly fight private sales ban unless pushed to do soGOP, NRA may invent distinction between 'loopholes' at gun shows and awayWith GOP sellout on private sales looming, non-compliance is second-to-last step](http://cdn2-b.examiner.com/sites/default/files/styles/profile_large/hash/3b/f5/3bf52322b96ede4f0e547cef676e6b68.JPG?itok=eyNs034H "The mythical "gun show loophole" is the gun-haters' lowest hanging fruit, with the GOP already looking very wobbly on the issue, and the GOP and NRA looking poised to draw an artificial distinction between private sales at gun shows, and identical sales elsewhere.By doing so, if they can limit the damage to gun shows only, they can declare "victory" for gun rights, despite having given the other side--with very little in the way of resistance--a beachhead for its next round of attacks.And even that weak-kneed line in the sand is hardly looking inviolable. United States Senator John McCain (R-[supposedly]-AZ) seems intent on banning private sales everywhere, whether at gun shows or not.If the gun-haters can be stopped cold here, if they can be forced to walk away with nothing, even after the deliberate, callous exploitation of 20 murdered children, the gun ban lobby will be reeling for a long time.It will not happen, though, if gun rights advocates fight back with anything less than everything we have, and make clear to our Congress members and to the NRA that we demand their refusal to compromise our rights, as well.See also:Threat to private gun sales might be greater than threat to 'assault weapons'Feinstein's 'assault weapon' ban probably not gun grabbers' main effortNRA unlikely to strongly fight private sales ban unless pushed to do soGOP, NRA may invent distinction between 'loopholes' at gun shows and awayWith GOP sellout on private sales looming, non-compliance is second-to-last step")
![Again, this list does not purport to be anything close to exhaustive. It certainly does not cover everything the gun ban lobby wants, and probably does not cover everything they might get.Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL), for example, seems to want to ban private ownership of purely defensive equipment, like body armor.Representative Steve Israel (D-NY) is still bizarrely fixated on banning guns that do not exist.Rep. Linda Sanchez (D-CA) wants to tax handguns, and apparently use the revenue thus gained to buy "back" privately owned guns.And the list goes on and on. Few of these bills are likely to go anywhere, again with the caveat that if a truly unprecedentedly monstrous shooting occurs, all bets are off.As diverse as these anti-gun bills are, they all have one thing in common. They all bring us closer to the "government monopoly on force" so beloved of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence--and of anti-gun Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY)--and such a monopoly brings us closer to genocidal tyranny.That is what is at stake here.See also:'Plastic gun' ban would make even less sense now than in 1988Parents buying body armor for children, Sen. Durbin wants that outlawedCongressman wants to censor Internet of 'high capacity' magazine plansWhat GOP and 'gun lobby' should be willing to yield: Absolutely nothingObama wants to ban 'weapons of war' for Americans, use them to kill Americans](http://cdn2-b.examiner.com/sites/default/files/styles/profile_large/hash/f2/b8/1361481871_7799_dead_7212web.jpg?itok=OP7IT7ze "Again, this list does not purport to be anything close to exhaustive. It certainly does not cover everything the gun ban lobby wants, and probably does not cover everything they might get.Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL), for example, seems to want to ban private ownership of purely defensive equipment, like body armor.Representative Steve Israel (D-NY) is still bizarrely fixated on banning guns that do not exist.Rep. Linda Sanchez (D-CA) wants to tax handguns, and apparently use the revenue thus gained to buy "back" privately owned guns.And the list goes on and on. Few of these bills are likely to go anywhere, again with the caveat that if a truly unprecedentedly monstrous shooting occurs, all bets are off.As diverse as these anti-gun bills are, they all have one thing in common. They all bring us closer to the "government monopoly on force" so beloved of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence--and of anti-gun Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY)--and such a monopoly brings us closer to genocidal tyranny.That is what is at stake here.See also:'Plastic gun' ban would make even less sense now than in 1988Parents buying body armor for children, Sen. Durbin wants that outlawedCongressman wants to censor Internet of 'high capacity' magazine plansWhat GOP and 'gun lobby' should be willing to yield: Absolutely nothingObama wants to ban 'weapons of war' for Americans, use them to kill Americans")
Comments