Levinson cites the many ways in which the current crop of gun control laws are in fact a war on guns, and on gun owners. These new laws attempt to delegitimize the bearing of arms by making possession of classes of weapons illegal, and those possessing them criminal. What was legal yesterday has become illegal today. In New York today, a handgun that carries 10 rounds of 9mm ammunition is a legal self defense weapon, but a similar handgun that carries 11 rounds of the same ammunition illegal. There is no sense to such a thing, other than to wage a war on guns and gun owners, and further restrict the type of weapons civilians can own. Noteably, police officers are exempt from such silly rules.
Gun owners have become the new Jews, the scapegoated minority that took the blame for the country's difficulties in Nazi Germany. The nasty cartoons and articles demonizing gun owners as somehow sanctioning the murders of children by our refusal to give up our guns insults each and every peacefully armed citizen. The use of the National Rifle Association as a stand in for the "gun lobby" resemble again the propaganda that was run against the Jews in Nazi Germany. Lest you think that the anti-gun crowd is made up of mere citizens upset at the murders that seem to continually take place, please note that the fact that the NRA is cited so often as an enemy of the anti-gun crowd is due to the Saul Alinski's Rule 13 "Pick a target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it." The facts do not matter. The truth does not matter. The only thing that matters is the goal of disarming the American people. Levinson also points out the many other ways the war in being waged, including blitzkrieg legislation, military grade propaganda, and incrimentalism. Yes, other writers have remarked on any number of these methods, but none has framed them in terms of the debate we are supposed to be having.
After the Supreme Court handed down its decision in Heller, and the Left began its drum beat for a "national conversation on guns," I commented that we had been having a national conversation since the 1950s. Arguably, we have really been having the conversation since the 1930s, with the passage of the National Firearms Act, making fully automatic weapons effectively out of reach of the average man. Heller settled the issue by deciding that the Second Amendment meant that Americans can have weapons, at least at home. McDonald extended that to possession of arms outside the home. The Constitutional side in the war on guns won that particular battle. But the Left never gives up, and the current crop of gun control laws illustrates that fact very clearly.
Unfortunately, the Constitutionalists side in this war has never understood it as a war. Understand, the Jews could not have had a meaningful conversation with the Nazis about differences. The Nazis were determined to kill them, and either the Jews had to fight back, flee the country, or be killed. There was no compromise. Similarly today, there is no compromise with radical Islam. They are determined to kill us, and the only reason to understand them is to live rent free in their heads in order to fight back. Gun owners must adopt guerrilla tactics of their own if we hope to win the war on guns. Failure to do so...
Update: Bob Barr has an article up at Townhall.com entitled Another Federal Court Undermines the Second Amendment today. It illustrates the war being waged on all fronts. Bob Barr:
Ever since the 2008 Heller opinion (and the companion, 2010 Chicago v. McDonald decision), liberal judges and anti-gun state and local government officials have been fashioning ways to undercut and subvert the ability of citizen to exercise their Second Amendment rights. That’s why Alan Gura, the prominent Second Amendment lawyer who argued both Heller and McDonald, has stayed so busy since 2008. “It's nice that the Supreme Court declared we enjoy a fundamental individual right to bear arms, but that doesn't mean much if they allow lower courts to rubber stamp any infringement of the right,” says Gura. “It's not the judiciary's role to 'defer' to the legislature's alleged wisdom and expertise. It's the judiciary's role to guard our rights and enforce the constitution.”