For those who might lean toward agreeing with the “Gun control works Down Under” letter in the March 29 Ellsworth American, rest assured that firearm “research” and an expanded Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, both recommendations of the current gun control vanguard, are dog whistle codes for initial steps designed to eliminate private firearm ownership within the United States, a position clearly advocated by Justice Stevens and others within his camp.
Once “research” determines its own definition of a “health hazard,” draconian controls would then be in order, along the same lines of unilateral decisions regarding tobacco policies.
The major objective of these and other “common sense” firearms mandates is to establish a slippery slope, from which future protections would be eliminated. This strategy has been ongoing, employing inflammatory terms such as “arsenal,” “assault weapons,” “high power firearms,” “sniper rifles,” etc. being employed in an attempt to portray firearm ownership as a menace to society, and the owners of all guns, the most evil of sorts.
While respecting any legitimate attempt to eliminate the misuse of firearm ownership, one must be ever vigilant in defense of the Trojan horse being paraded before us with attached false promises and pie-eyed projections being employed in the most nefarious manner. The above projections of change clearly fall into that category and require additional scrutiny and applicable rejections as the defense of firearm ownership demands.