It is the Sunday following the Connecticut massacre of innocents. All the usual suspects of the citizen disarmament lobby are on the talking head shows demanding a "serious discussion" about further proscribing the rights of American firearm owners. They are demanding, among other things:
1. A ban on private sales of firearms without first obtaining the federal government's permission. (This would mean that before a grandfather could hand a family heirloom to his son or granddaughter that he would have to get the government's permission to do so.) No one, and I mean NO ONE, would be able to legally transfer a firearm to ANYONE with first being entered into the government's database. This is what the antis call a "reasonable restriction." It also happens to be an infringement of individual rights that the Founders would have consdiered a casus belli, for not even King George the Third was so grasping.
2. A ban on "large capacity magazines", which seems to be anything over 10 rounds. The reasoning behind this is that "no one needs thirty rounds to hunt a deer," the so-called "sporting purpose" written into the 1968 Gun Control Act by Senator Thomas Dodd who apparently lifted it from the Nazi weapons law of 1938 (Dodd was a Nuremberg trials prosecutor). The Founders would have found this to be silly, for the Second Amendment is not about the right to bear arms to hunt game but rather to resist tyrannical government. Thirty round magazines come in handy for that.
3. A new "Assault Weapons Ban" like the 1994 law which was neither about "assault weapons" (those are, by definition, full automatic which can empty the magazine with a single pull of the trigger) nor was it a ban, since it merely regulated cosmetic features on military-style semi-automatic rifles (which fire one shot per pull of the trigger) and it grandfathered in all existing so-called "assault weapons," presumably because they knew that a confiscation bill would be resisted by force. Indeed, in the run up to the passage of the AWB, millions of such riles were domestically produced, imported and sold. This time, we are assured by the antis that not only will the new bill be "tougher" but that it will exempt several hundred semi-automatic rifles by name that are used for "sporting purposes." This is an attempt (and it may well work) to split off the hunters from the collectors of evil, black military-style semi-automatic rifles. How the bill will do these two seemingly mutually exclusive things is at this writing unexplained.
The fact that the weapons used to kill the little children and their teachers at the school were stolen from a legal owner in a state which strictly regulates firearm ownership (who was a crime victim herself) and that, like almost all mass shootings took place in a woefully-misnamed "gun free zone" (more like a criminal empowerment zone), makes no difference to the antis, whose only "solution" is to force lawful gun owners to surrender more of their rights. Within hours of the tragedy of unspeakable evil, these people were out in the media, social and traditional, dancing in the blood of the victims to make their points that the rest of us should submit to further circumscription of our God-given, inalienable traditional rights to liberty and property.
So now they are demanding a "serious discussion" about firearms, which translates into jaw-boning the weak-kneed GOP leadership in the House and Senate to agree to one or more of their proposals as outlined above. Yes, by all means, let's have a 'serious discussion' about more firearm rights restrictions.
My contribution to this "serious discussion" is this question that I would like the antis to answer up front: What do they intend to do with the millions of us "bitter clingers" who will disobey any more such laws? If they pass the "gunshow loopjole" bill, we will simply host out own without background checks and defy the federal government to do anything about it. If they ban large-capacity, I can guarantee you that they will soon be turned out by the million in thousands of metal-working shops around the county. (Didn't anyone learn anything about Prohibition?) If they "ban" military-pattern semi-auto rifles, the same thing will happen. The only thing is, that if you make the punishment for possession of a previously-legal semi-automatic rifle (that he can no longer legally obtain) a felony, isn't that incentivizing the home gun maker to turn out small, concealable machine guns? You will have already made him a felon. What then does he have to lose?
So I'd like the antis to answer up front before their "serious discussion" -- How many of us are they willing to kill to achieve their avowed purpose? A hundred thousand? A million? Two? Ten?
You may pass a law, but how will you enforce it? And, again, how many of us "bitter clingers" are you willing to kill in the process of this civil war you propose?