Reply #104: In practice, it's either-or... [View All]

[benEzra]

because the party that tried to ban even a small fraction of the guns owned by 80 million voters would quickly be out on its ass, and hand the trifecta to the other party.

In 1994, merely raising prices on replacement magazines for civilian handguns, and requiring minor cosmetic and name changes to some popular civilian rifles, cost at least 20 House seats, unseated the House Speaker for the first time since the Civil War, turned the Senate red, and monkeywrenched real progressive social policies for a decade and a half. All for a law that banned no guns whatsoever. Care to speculate the political ramifications of an actual confiscatory ban, enforced at gunpoint?