Also, quite possibly a literal civil war.

From Reason Magazine, via Facebook:

New York Times Calls for Immense Expense and Political Civil War To Maybe Possibly Hopefully Reduce Gun Violence by a Tiny Amount

…when they get to concrete (sort of) proposals after expressing their dismay with murders and tools that can be used to murder, they declare that “Certain kinds of weapons, like the slightly modified combat rifles used in California, must be outlawed for civilian ownership. It is possible to define those guns in a clear and effective way and, yes, it would require Americans who own those kinds of weapons to give them up for the good of their fellow citizens.”

Fascinating. It’s not quite “WE WANT TO TAKE YOUR GUNS,” but it’s likely as close as we’ll get from a mainstream media outlet.

Left unsaid, of course, is exactly how they propose this sort of thing is to be enforced. As I have put it elsewhere, this is a very important thing to ponder, because there are a lot of people out there with guns (AND ammunition for them) who are not going to give them up just because government deems it necessary for the greater good. As has also been pointed out elsewhere, in the months running up to the Clinton “Assault Weapons Ban,” more SKS and AK/AR-type rifles were purchased than had been purchased in the preceding 20 years. And we saw more of this type of thing after Virginia Tech, before and after the 2008 election, after Sandy Hook, after Isla Vista, and even on Black Friday this year. Are the people buying these guns doing so to so easily turn them in later? If not, just how far are they willing to go to keep them? Do we really want to find that out?

Tags: politics