“Biden: The assault-weapons ban is ‘just the beginning’ of our gun-control plans”
Joe Scarborough will reportedly be given a primary speaking engagement at the next NRO “conservative summit” to express his absolute SHOCK! Biden, speaking during a conference call with “Mayors Against Illegal Guns:”
And lastly, but not least, the Assault Weapons ban and the limitation on the size of magazines, let me say this as clearly as I can: this is just the beginning. We believe that weapons of war have no place on our streets. That’s the message that the retired admirals and generals have spoken to us about. The comment one of them used was: if you want to learn how to use a semi-automatic weapon, join the United States military, but these are weapons of war, and we believe there’s no rational reason why someone would need a clip that can hold fifteen, twenty, thirty, one-hundred bullets, one-hundred rounds. We have to do more and we will do more.
Allahpundit believes that this is grandiose bluster for the leftist base, born of Biden’s realization that the Assault Weapons Ban likely won’t pass during Obama’s final term. And while I see his point, I’m not sure that I agree. Because I don’t think a ban on assault weapons was ever really anything other than a smokescreen (nice if they got it, but not the end game) to force a timid GOP, afraid of being labeled “pro-child slaughering puppets to the Gun Lobby”, to “compromise” — specifically, I think what the Democrats want is a universal background check, which they’ll later claim won’t work without an accompanying registry — and that’s what John McCain and his ilk have shown repeatedly they are bred for.
Tie this in to what we learned yesterday about a Democratic effort to quietly have the Tiahrt Amendment stripped from the budget, ending checks on eTrace and compulsory background check record destruction, itself coupled to efforts to use ObamaCare, the CDC, and mental health professionals to gather data on “potentially violent” citizens (who may or may not own guns; should we not know if they do? Why, what can be more commonsensical than that?), and what we see here is the contours of a plan to integrate databases and use various rationales for denying ever-more people their second amendment rights that includes, as a policing necessity, a registry of firearms.
Historically-speaking, this has never ended well. But then, we’re different. Our politicians and courts would never do anything to harm private citizens (fugitive slave acts, Jim Crow, interment camps, etc. notwithstanding) — and if you suggest they might, well, then you are one of those fringe extremists who should be put on a list and have your firearms taken from you. For the safety of the
British Crown! Progressive States of America!