I’ve been saying for a long time that any attempt at trying to disarm John Q. Public would be met with disastrous results, but what if it’s really death by a thousand cuts? A thousand small cuts that one segment or another of the pro-Second Amendment group figures isn’t really a big deal. Case in point – bump stocks.

I don’t own a bump stock and, to be candid, they really don’t interest me – but that’s not the point. It is a legal, firearm-related accessory that has been targeted by the anti-Second Amendment cabal for no good reason. These anti-gunners use the Las Vegas shooting, which left 58 people dead and over 850 more injured, to justify their crusade against the device; the shooter systematically brought 23 firearms into his hotel room, including some with bump stocks. But what they conveniently leave out is that no law, even a ban on bump stocks, would’ve prevented this tragedy.

Regardless, as a result of the shooting, about 15 states are considering a ban on bump stocks, and some have already done so. It’s one of those “turn ‘em all in” deals which makes it an expensive, unfunded mandate. For example, Massachusetts’ law-abiding citizens have until February 1st to turn over their bump stock or be prosecuted. It’s just one more cut. Ironically, the unintended consequences are bump stocks, which previously sold in the $150 – $300 range, are now going for upwards of $1500 on Gunbroker.com. And where is the NRA on all this?

Well, the NRA quickly recognized this is one hot potato they do not want to hold. Four days after the Las Vegas attack, a joint statement was issued by the NRA’s Executive Director Wayne LaPierre and the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Affairs Executive Director Chris Cox. Referring to bump stocks, the press release said, “…the National Rifle Association is calling on the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to immediately review whether these devices comply with federal law. The NRA believes that devices designed to allow semi-automatic rifles to function like fully-automatic rifles should be subject to additional regulations.”

The liberal media jumped all over it saying the NRA wants bump stocks outlawed. A Washington Post article led with, “The long-simmering debate in this country over gun rights took a dramatic turn Thursday when the National Rifle Association unexpectedly joined an effort to restrict a device used to accelerate gunfire in the Las Vegas massacre.” Well, that’s not exactly what the NRA said. There’s room for debate on exactly what “function like fully-automatic rifles…” means. And, the NRA didn’t say anything about restrictions but rather regulations which, to be fair, could be paperwork. The NRA didn’t come right out and say they should be banned, but liberals have never let the truth get in the way of a good story. However, that’s not the point.

The point is the NRA has given ground, and the press has jumped on it like a vulture on road kill. Let’s be honest about the war on the Second Amendment – we’re losing. Yeah, I know all the states have concealed carry now, and I know what SCOTUS said about owning a firearm, but in the long run, we’re losing ground. Every time a gun control measure comes up we’re told we should be reasonable, we should meet them halfway and compromise. Here’s a news flash – compromise is just giving up something they don’t have the right to take away. If you want to compromise, you have to have skin in the game. I had some social justice warrior tell me we should be reasonable and compromise on the bump stock issue. So I said, “Okay, let’s compromise then. You get to ban bump stocks, and I get to ban abortion.” She about had a core meltdown. “That has nothing to do with it,” she shrieked. Turns out the left doesn’t really like the concept of compromise.

When I was a kid you could put a gun in your carry-on baggage and board a plane; not that I ever did, but you see how far things have gotten since then. The anti-Second Amendment cabal is like the ocean pounding a beach. You can get a feeling of reassurance by building as many sand castles as you want but the ocean just keeps destroying what you do. Worse, they’ll use any trick in the book, any deceit, any excuse, any opportunity they can and turn it into an anti-gun media event. The anti-Second Amendment cabal lives on tragedy, and, thanks to their bankrupt social engineering for the past 50 years, there is plenty of tragedy to go around.

So here’s the hard, cold truth of the matter. When your state said you could carry a concealed firearm, you thanked them. When SCOTUS said we have a right to own a firearm for personal protection, we cheered because the question was finally resolved. You’re thanking the government for giving you something you are entitled to under the Constitution. The very act of the government giving you something solidifies its standing as the holder of your individual, constitutionally protected rights. That’s not the purpose of the Constitution. The purpose is to limit the control of the government, not make the government the arbiter of what John Q may or may not do. Yet remarkably, over the years, we’ve come to accept the government’s control over our Second Amendment right one cut at a time. I’ve been saying for a long time that any attempt at trying to disarm John Q. Public would be met with disastrous results, but I’m not so sure anymore.