Gun control: Is it really going to be reasonable?

Gun control advocates say they are pushing for “common sense,” “responsible” and “reasonable” reforms, an approach that frames opponents as extremists.

Trouble is, the actual legislation and proposals being advanced by Democratic politicians, whether at the state or federal levels, aren’t as reasonable as advertised. Especially when they are considered collectively, these proposals amount to an attack on lawful gun owners with a pernicious potential to become an incremental gun grab. Some politicians are coming right out and advocating gun confiscation.

Take Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s bill to ban “assault weapons” — something that is regarded by many Americans, particularly in the national media, as an entirely reasonable goal. The bill, like many others that are in the works, is however draped with provisions that go well beyond its titled purpose. It also would apply to a wide variety of semi-automatic handguns, and it contains a section that “requires grandfathered weapons (firearms purchased prior to a ban being passed) to be registered” along with providing dedicated funding for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms “to implement registration.”

It should be obvious to all that registration would make confiscation much easier.

Of course, because of the far-reaching nature of Feinstein’s bill, it is bound to face substantial opposition from Republicans and many Democrats and it probably doesn’t stand a chance. But it is just one of many bills coming down the pike.

Let’s take a look at what else might be regarded as a “reasonable” reform to help keep firearms out of the hands of the wrong people. Legislation that focuses tightly on establishing a feasible way to conduct background checks at gun shows might fit the bill. Currently, gun-show transactions are exempt from background checks that have been the norm at sporting-goods stores and pawn shops since 1998.

With cell phones and Internet technology, surely there should be a way to close the loophole and ensure that gun sales would be limited to U.S. citizens without criminal or mental-health histories. But the way these proposals actually come out, gun-control opponents say they would be so onerous that it could spell the end of gun shows or worse.

Consider Vice President Joe Biden’s remarks last week about regulating not just gun shows but all private gun sales. There is, he said, “a surprising recurrence of suggestions that we have universal background checks. Not just close the gun-show loophole, but total, universal background checks, including private sales.”

So something that seemed possibly reasonable and workable evolves into an idea that would require a sweeping and intrusive crackdown by the federal government. Think about what it would take to pull off such a regulatory enterprise: the expense, the manpower, the creepy monitoring, and snoopy record-keeping that would be necessary.

But that’s not all Biden had to say to alarm Second Amendment defenders last week.

“There are executive orders, there’s executive action that can be taken. We haven’t decided what that is yet. But we’re compiling it all with the help of the attorney general and the rest of the Cabinet members, as well as legislative action that we believe is required,” he said.

With talk like that at the highest level of government, it is no wonder that gun and ammunition sales have gone through the roof and that concealed-carry permits are being issued like hot cakes.

Many people are not entirely confident that our government will always be a benevolent guardian of their best interests, if they believe it still is. Instead, a government that is on track to being well beyond $16 trillion in debt may some day be vulnerable to collapse, or even worse, become an oppressive, confiscatory overseer. Ultimately, that’s what the Second Amendment is intended to guard against. It is not about protecting duck hunting and deer hunting.

It is about having an empowered citizenry, with law-abiding and mentally sound people able to defend themselves rather than being helpless “sheeple” who depend on government to respond after they are victimized.

Cities, states and countries with the most restrictive firearms laws have some of the worst gun-crime records for a clear reason: The deranged and the criminal class in those jurisdictions are the only people who do not follow those laws.

Conversely, in places like Montana that have less restrictive gun laws (emphasis: there still are gun laws), there are abundant stories regarding citizens defending themselves and others with guns, but they don’t get widespread attention.

There’s a strong case to be made that Second Amendment advocates and our armed citizenry are the ones who are “reasonable” and effective in preventing crimes rather than the impulsive and ineffective gun grabbers.

Editorials represent the majority opinion of the Daily Inter Lake’s editorial board.