Assaulting the Ban
 
Hat tip: WindsOfChange
 
Matthew Yglesias - while trying to underscore the WaPo view that the assault weapons ban should be renewed - actually helps underscore not only why the assault weapons ban is irrelevant, but also why it might be unconstitutional.
 
"...the point of the second amendment is to protect the right to "military-style" weapons, it's not some kind of hunter protection act."

Yes, the Second Amendment was designed to give The People the ability to overthrow a tyranical government.
 
One of the things he says, which should also be noted:
 
"If gun owners had assurance that liberals are trying to establish a gun registry so that we can keep track of guns so that we can stop felons from buying them rather than trying to keep track of guns so that we can know where to find them in your house when we finally get enough votes for that nationwide gun ban, then it would become a lot more politically feasible to improve current policy."
 
Sorry, Matthew. Gun owners will not accept limitations on an inalienable right. There is no need to track guns to stop felons. The answer is to keep track of felons to stop them from purchasing guns and throwing them into a dark hole when they commit a crime with a gun. That is already being done with the waiting period and background checks.
 
When an individual purchases a weapon from another individual, there is a risk the purchaser is a felon, yes. However, criminals are generally not interested in a high-cost, hard to conceal weapon. To sell a weapon you bought at a dealer or gun show and still have your name attached to it is idiocy. Anyone who has an "assault rifle" for sale will generally know enough to get identification of the buyer in order to write up a firm bill-of-sale.