Near the end of the article is a crucial paragraph, which I have excerpted here (go to the post and read the entire paragraph):
We've read the literature of the gun control groups. Their entire existence is based on the belief that "the number of guns" in America is responsible for the level of carnage. How else do they expect to reduce that carnage without reducing "the number of guns"? And who can they take those guns from? Only the law-abiding. And how will they accomplish this? The same way it was done in England - by passing incrementally more restrictive, obnoxious, expensive, and irritating laws on acquisition, possession, use, and storage. Then, because none of these laws will result in traceable improvements in gun crime levels…we will be told that "we need to plug the loopholes" and stronger laws are needed….
This is the best description I have read of how gun control really works. It is not that gun banners are necessarily evil. They are well-intentioned for the most part, but their stated goal of controlling guns to reduce crime will not work. There will still be as much or more carnage and they will demand another law and another hoping that each one will prove the winner. It is a definition of insanity—keep doing something that doesn’t work.
It is not just gun rights that are at risk as Kevin discusses in his post. It could be any right we take for granted. We law-abiding gun owners must hold the line for ourselves and our children. Freedom is not negotiable.