ROMNEY WORDSWORTH - Hillary Clinton and the rest of the DemocRat Party are constantly pushing the idea of “reasonable” gun control.  They believe, rightly, that if you put the word “reasonable” in front of any proposition, enough stupid people will swallow it, regardless of how outrageous the actual details are.  Thus, if we look at another context, the ‘Rats push “reasonable” immigration reform to disguise the preposterous agenda of erasing our national borders and swamping the nation with the global Third World population and murderous Jihadis that we can’t properly vet from the Middle East.  It will be a disaster for the nation, but the barbarian hordes have one advantage for DemocRats:  They will reliably vote for the party of Big Government.

So it is with gun control.  Clinton talks about “closing the gun show loophole”.  But what is this so-called “loophole”?  Well, this refers to the current law that requires professional gun dealers to do background checks when they sell firearms, but does not require private persons to buy and sell weapons among themselves.  Thus, if you want to hand down an old 22 rifle to your son or nephew, you aren’t require to file Federal paperwork for a criminal background check.  It is widely acknowledged that the real point of universal background checks is to shut down the private sale, or inheritance, of firearms.  This is what would happen because most people do not have the wherewithal to jump through such bureaucratic red tape.  They either won’t sell, or, such a law will make criminals out of lazy people who did nothing more nefarious than have a garage sale.

Fundamentally, such a system of gun control laws is anathema to liberty.  Why should I have to go through the government to dispose of my property as I see fit?  Not only would this be a terrible blow to personal liberty, it would allow the Gun Grabbers to achieve their dream of a national gun registry, because sooner or later every firearm will be sold, and the transaction tracked.

Criminals, of course, will go on ignoring such laws and regulations like they always do.  Such gun control won’t stop criminals from getting guns, or do a thing to stop gun crime.  It only erodes our personal liberty.  Does that sound “reasonable” to you?

Then there is the DemocRat agenda to ban semi-automatic weapons.  Mind you, a semi-automatic weapon is NOT a machine gun.  Machine guns are automatic weapons and they have been largely banned from the public since the 1930’s (by legislative fiat, not by an amendment to the Constitution, by the way).  A semi-automatic weapon is simply a weapon that fires one bullet with each squeeze of the trigger, and which does not require the round to be manually chambered.

Such a ban would outlaw virtually every gun in the country of modern manufacture.  It would even apply to a 100 year old Colt revolver.  A Colt revolver can fire 6 rounds just by squeezing the trigger without reloading.

Then there is the penchant of Left Wingers to want to ban guns based on how “scary” they look.  Scary guns are called “assault weapons”, and we are told they should be banned from being sold to the public.  But there is no definition of an “assault weapon”, and all guns are assault weapons by definition.  For those who want total gun confiscation, I suppose that is the point.

So we end up with ridiculous laws that seek to ban the AR-15, because its black and looks scary.

On the other hand, other rifles with wooden stocks seem less threatening to people who know nothing about guns, and are not called “assault weapons”.  Like the venerable M-1 Garand:

Here’s the rub:  The Garand was actually produced for the army during World War II and the Korean War, and American G.I.s fought both wars with the Garand as the standard issue infantry rifle.  It can fire 8 times without reloading, and fires a 30.06 round that is longer and thicker than the genitalia of most Japanese men.

The AR-15, on the other hand, for all of its “scary” black matte finish, has never been used by U.S. Armed Forces, and fires a diminutive .22 round (some AR-15’s fire a larger NATO round, but most AR-15’s fire the .22 round).  It has virtually no recoil, is light and easy for women to shoot, and was strictly designed for hunting and self- defense.

So why would THAT be the weapon that gets banned?  Does that sound “reasonable” to you?  There’s nothing reasonable about it.  There is surely nothing reasonable about a gun control law that would ban so many guns that it triggers a Second Civil War as Americans resist the de facto repeal of the 2nd Amendment.   

If this doesn’t sound reasonable to you, then stop voting for DemocRats.