CA proves 'assault weapon' bans have nothing to do with 'military features'

None of this, by the way, should be interpreted as an argument that a gun ban that did only target "military style" firearms, while exempting guns on which the government has bestowed the privileged status of "suitable for sporting purposes," would be any less heinous than this abomination. This column has long argued that the right to keep and bear arms does not constitute ten percent of the Bill of Rights because the Founding Fathers were terribly concerned about protecting the right to own sporting goods-- not, at least, unless a new and very different sport become popular.

The idea instead is to illustrate how blatantly the other side lies about its eventual intentions, and in their denial of a slippery slope. The only guns they do not think are "too dangerous" are those in the hands of the government's hired muscle. That's a truly epic level of historical illiteracy. [More]

That's today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner. Please give it a look, and tell a friend.