This feature appears in the February ‘16 issue of NRA America’s 1st Freedom, one of the official journals of the National Rifle Association.
As President Barack Obama and Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton continue to push gun control schemes that would affect only law-abiding gun owners—not criminals—I truly believe their overreaching goal is completely banning individual firearm ownership. They just won’t say that, since doing so is not politically expedient. (Clinton did mention that she thinks Australia-style gun control, which included bans and confiscations, is “worth looking at.”)
Yet it is always interesting when an anti-gun politician does let everyone know where he or she really stands on this critical issue, even if by accident.
Enter Maryland Deputy Attorney General Thiruvendran Vignarajah. Speaking with an undercover journalist—and we really mean “undercover,” as Vignarajah had invited the female reporter to his hotel room and was lying on the bed during the discussion—he expressed his opinion that “We should ban guns altogether.” Truth is, there are likely many more anti-gun politicians and gun-banners in the media and academia who would like nothing more than a complete ban on private firearm ownership, side-by-side with confiscation of firearms that were previously owned.
When asked about what type of gun control regime he would impose, Vignarajah replied, “My complete answer, off the record, is that we should ban guns altogether, period.” Elaborating, Vignarajah stated, “If you want to go practice with a gun, you can go to the gun range, pick up your gun at the gun range, fire it there, and then you leave it there and you go home.”
Vignarajah then went on to explain a scheme under which he might allow individuals to keep a firearm in the home—subject to an “extensive licensing scheme,” taxation, mandatory insurance and “fingerprint trigger locks.”
As NRA News host Cam Edwards recently pointed out in a “Cam’s Corner” column on the A1F Daily website, calls for gun bans and confiscation by anti-gun politicians and many in the media are becoming more common. In December, The New York Times, in its first front-page editorial in 95 years, pushed for sweeping gun bans and confiscation. As the paper’s editorial staff opined: “Certain kinds of weapons … must be outlawed for civilian ownership. It’s possible to define those guns in a clear and effective way, and yes, it would require Americans who own those kinds of weapons to give them up for the good of their fellow citizens.”
Less than a week earlier, the fringe National Gun Victims Action Council (NGVAC) called for Obama to declare the “gun violence epidemic” a national state of emergency and begin instituting corresponding gun bans. If we had more space available, we could cite numerous other similar plans that include banning guns, not simply “controlling” them.
Truth is, there are likely many more anti-gun politicians and gun-banners in the media and academia who would like nothing more than a complete ban on private firearm ownership, side-by-side with confiscation of firearms that were previously owned. That’s one more reason we must work diligently over the next few months to ensure we elect a president who will recognize and embrace our Second Amendment-protected right to keep and bear arms.