Is that the game they want to play?

Back in May, War on Guns brought my attention to a point made by Kent McManigal regarding the persecution of David Olofson.

If "they" can now punish us for owning a machine gun that isn't a machine gun until they tamper with it, why would "theoretical gun owner" worry about getting caught with a real machine gun? Is there a worse penalty? There seems to be an unintended consequence lurking there somewhere.

That's a very astute observation, in my view, and constitutes what I see as a highly condensed version of what Mike Vanderboegh might describe as one of the unintended consequences of "Waco Rules."

The Olofson case confirms that we are still living in the time of Waco Rules, so let's not kid ourselves over the maybes of Heller. Supreme Court decisions don't count for spit in the wind to these people. But if the law no longer protects us, it no longer protects them either. Which is something they probably haven't considered, but should, given the Law of Unintended Consequences.

If possession of a malfunctioning semi-automatic rifle can lead to us being persecuted . . . er, prosecuted for illegal possession of an unregistered machine gun, what have we to lose by owning a real machine gun?

If our elected servants wish to consider us "homegrown terrorists" for merely pointing out that the Second Amendment exists to protect our ability (to put it bluntly) to kill tyrants, why should we not introduce them to real terror?

If those same elected servants will imprison us as terrorists, merely for exercising our right to free speech, why should we not disseminate information useful for tyranny-busting to people who are likely to make effective use of it?

Finally, and hopefully I'll be forgiven for mangling one of the best ever quotes related to American liberty, in order to put it in a form consistent with the above: if this be treason, why should we not make the most of it?

Clearly, I am no Patrick Henry, but you get the idea.