Upon Further Reflection...

The more I think about the proposed "One Gun A Month" law, the more it vexes me. Even in the most free states, limiting those who would arm themselves to one firearm a month seems to be an exercise in futility. We already have Federal laws against transferring firearms to those who are not eligible to own them; such laws limiting the purchase of arms only serve to hinder and otherwise outright infringe on the law-abiding. If a Federal law - punishable by five years in a Federal penitentiary - won't stop someone from giving a gun to a felon, why on earth would anyone in their right mind think that a law limiting folks to buying one gun a month will?

Not only does it not make sense any way you look at it, but the data themselves don't bear it out. According to the BATFE itself, only 8.5% of firearms used in crimes come from straw purchases. 40% come from family members - think about that; almost five times as many guns are given to criminals by folks related to them as are sold illegally through strawman sales. If the thought of limiting gun purchases in the interest of reducing guns used in crimes appeals to you, think about the next logical step - taking guns away from any and all family members convicted of a felony. Uncle Joe got his third OUI? Kiss your Second Amendment rights goodbye.

The other part to this - the more insidious part - is what my good friend Weer'd Beard calls (and I'm paraphrasing here) the tyranny of numbers. One gun a month is the proposed limit; so if you buy twelve guns in a year you're fine, but if you buy thirteen it's a felony. Does that make any sense to anyone? That thirteenth gun is the one that's going to be used in a crime? Sold to a gangbanger? Shoot up a bus full of nuns and orphans all on its own? It's a number made up arbitrarily and capriciously to start the process of denying all gun sales.

What's the logical (and I use the term loosely) conclusion to be drawn when criminals continue to get guns despite limiting law-abiding citizens to twelve guns a year? Well, to the vast majority of us, we'd say the "One Gun A Month" law was an abysmal failure (much like "Cadillac" Deval himself) and repeal the stupid thing. But if you're a gun-grabber, you seize on this failure like Rosie O'Donnell seizing a Twinkie and you say that it didn't go far enough - that since criminals are still getting firearms, those dastardly law-abiding gun owners are still selling them.

And presto! Now you can only purchase one gun every two months. Or four guns a year. Or one gun a year. Before you know it, you're in England, where you're allowed to own a double-barreled shotgun and a single-shot .22LR, provided they're kept, disassembled, at a gun range under lock and key. What better way to get guns off the street than to slowly but surely limit the number that people can buy over time?

Of course, the criminals will continue to get firearms. As others have shown, time and time again, firearms are not terribly difficult to make - heck, Afghani forges were turning out full-auto AK clones during the Soviet occupation. There are millions of privately-owned firearms in the US and will continue to exist - firearms are durable goods with lifespans measured in centuries if properly cared for. We're not going to legislate away the existence of firearms unless we're willing to go door-to-door - and no one has the political will for that.

It's the creeping incrementalism that's going to get us in the end, unless we are ever vigilant...

That is all.