I am sure many of you have seen this on a number of other sites:NRA's slippery slope full of holes

Again we get to the "reasonable controls" and "intelligent compromises" without actually statement of what these phrases mean. The short answer is a new red-tape hassle that doesn't solve the underlying problem, and stands to create new criminals rather than punishing the ones we already have.

Consider a person who has some prohibited weapon, a magazine that is too big, a serial number that is too high, a caliber that is too scary, a grip that is too pistol-like, or some other qualifying feature. Depending on where this person lives this is either a serious crime or a big fat nothing.

Even in the case where such a weapon is illegal, so what? Is this person a danger to society simply because of possession? Would you rather the police spend time on building a case against him rather than building a case against the burglars, dope dealers, or rapists?

This stupidity continues into the realm of machine guns and suppressors. It is not normally a crime to own either, as long as you have all the proper paperwork and have paid the appropriate taxes.

I would also point out that many states issue these same weapons to their law enforcement officers and in many cases there is no law enforcement exemption for these weapons. The arresting officer might be just as guilty by the letter of the law as the guy he is arresting.

If the police do catch him and the courts convict him, they haven't made society any safer, unless he was going to use his weapon to rob, rape or kill innocents.

The Assault Weapons Ban was an example of legislative compromise generating confusion to the point of idiocy. A rifle with a certain number of cosmetic or ergonomic features would be a crime to own, unless it was assembled before a certain date. Not even gunsmiths or armorers could determine if any given rifle was legal or not.

At the end of the day the "intelligent compromise on reasonable controls" is a waste of everyone's time. We know it doesn't catch criminals. We know it doesn't protect private citizens. We know it doesn't save police officers lives. It certainly kills trees to print up all the paperwork, expends electricity to keep all the databases churning, and burns taxpayer dollars to keep it all running.

Every society will have it's criminals. Gun control makes today's honest citizen tomorrows criminal, not because of an assault on another person but because of misfiled form, a database error, or an ignorant official.

The fear of "Sneak liberals taking our guns" isn't some bogeyman in the closet. It is stated goal of a number of organizations. It is already on the books in some states and jurisdictions.

If a total ban were politically viable we would have one, so Eblen's appeasement strategy is simply a rewording of the gun control talking points. The current scheme of the gun control advocates are to get restrictions passed where they can.

I will go Eblen one better. If we are going to make "intelligent compromises" on our rights, perhaps he could surrender his first amendment until has does his research, read his history, and can quit talking in the abstract.