For years, the forcible citizen disarmament lobby has heaped scorn on the notion that restrictive gun laws lead to still more restrictive gun laws, on a “slippery slope” that can lead only to the forcible utter disarmament of the citizenry–global history repeatedly showing precisely that notwithstanding. Now, in the gun banners’ gleeful haste to exploit the murdered children of Sandy Hook Elementary, many of them are so emboldened as to barely bother trying to conceal their goal of complete citizen disarmament.
President Obama himself has recently used that talking point, as CNN reported yesterday:
“Part of the challenge we confront is that even the slightest hint of some sensible, responsible legislation in this area fans this notion that somehow, ‘Here it comes, everybody’s guns are going to be taken away,'” Obama said.
What Obama, and even many decent, intelligent Americans fail to realize is that the government does not have to go so far as an outright ban–or anywhere near one–to have gone much further than a free people can allow. A ban of “regime change rifles” (which is how St. Louis Gun RightsExaminer is going to refer to so-called “assault weapons” from here on out) would itself be an unacceptable, unforgivable violation of the Constitution’s guarantee that our right to capable fighting arms shall not be infringed.
We do not care if banning regime change rifles and “high capacity” magazines is as far down the slope as the gun prohibitionists want to go (and it isn’t, anyway). Maintaining our access to these arms is worth the legal danger of defying such laws. If that defiance is met with the armed might of the government, it will be worth fighting and dying for–but even more worth killing for.
If we must make the slippery slope argument (and that argument does have some value–for pointing out to hunters who don’t care about AR-15s that the next step will be banning their scoped bolt-action hunting rifles as scary “sniper rifles,” for example), we need to stop pointing to a total, outright, confiscatory ban as the end point. The “government monopoly on force” secured by such a ban is instead merely the means to an end. What is that end? Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership can tell you.