What the hell does any of that mean, with regard to the final shape of the laws they're working to build? Good luck getting a straight answer.
About an hour ago, "high profile" anti-gun blogger MikeB retread that path over at Sebastian's:
Because of you, The NRA and gun owners, any lunatic who wants to get a gun can.
If [Brady Campaign "board member" and general nutbar] Joan Peterson were in charge, that wouldn’t be the case. I think most of you would still be allowed to have your guns, but you’d be inconvienced a bit.
Now, the man's pretty transparently just trolling for reactions. But given an opportunity to nail down some specifics, I thought it might be helpful to point out a reply he made in a thread over at his blog last November:
|From General interwebs|
Anybody remotely familiar with New Jersey's gun laws and our violent crime rates* doesn't need my help seeing how reasonable Mike's idea of "inconvenienced a bit" is, how far divorced from reality his estimation of gun control's effectiveness is, and how much concern he has about the suppression of fundamental human rights by a hostile bureaucracy.
[* - New Jersey has the second "best" Brady rank of any state and, according to the FBI, the 22nd lowest murder rate. Mission Accomplished!]