Found this article…from who else, Joan Peterson, who links it on her twitter feed!
A conservative case for an assault weapons ban
I lamented the expiration of the federal assault weapons ban in 2004, which prohibited the manufacture and importation of certain particularly deadly guns, as well as magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition.
The ban wasn’t all that stringent — if you already owned a banned gun or high-capacity magazine you could keep it, and you could sell it to someone else — but at least it was something….I am not a social scientist, and I know that very smart ones are divided on what to do about gun violence. But reasonable, good-faith debates have boundaries, and in the debate about guns, a high-capacity magazine has always seemed to me beyond them….I get it. Someone bent on mass murder who has only a 10-round magazine or revolvers at his disposal probably is not going to abandon his plan and instead try to talk his problems out. But we might be able to take the “mass” out of “mass shooting,” or at least make the perpetrator’s job a bit harder.
To guarantee that there would never be another Tucson or Sandy Hook, we would probably have to make it a capital offense to so much as look at a gun. And that would create serious 2nd Amendment, 8th Amendment and logistical problems.
So what’s the alternative? Bring back the assault weapons ban, and bring it back with some teeth this time. Ban the manufacture, importation, sale, transfer and possession of both assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. Don’t let people who already have them keep them. Don’t let ones that have already been manufactured stay on the market. I don’t care whether it’s called gun control or a gun ban. I’m for it.
I say all of this as a gun owner. I say it as a conservative who was appointed to the federal bench by a Republican president. I say it as someone who prefers Fox News to MSNBC, and National Review Online to the Daily Kos. I say it as someone who thinks the Supreme Court got it right in District of Columbia vs. Heller, when it held that the 2nd Amendment gives us the right to possess guns for self-defense. (That’s why I have mine.) I say it as someone who, generally speaking, is not a big fan of the regulatory state.
There you have it. “I’m a judge, so respect my authority! We don’t need a debate! Just round up all those guns!”
Of course Joan loves this…you see she isn’t out to take our guns away either! Except when she is.
This is why nothing will come from this. Its obvious that the President doesn’t care a wit. He let his lackluster toady “take charge”! And mostly he’s talking about the “Fiscal Cliff”, so chatter about gun bans is EXACTLY what he wants as cover for his incompetence as a leader.
Also another thing to think about. Since the majority of people in America own guns, and the vast majority of them own at least one item this jackboot is thinking about confiscating, we have a good situation for a civil war here.
If gun owners fight back against door-to-door confiscation, who will actually fight for the other side? Police? Military? ATF? These are all American gun owners too, are they going to happily turn in their personal gear, then pick up the same government issued gear to go attack lawful citizens who simply want to hold onto their property?