This is what happened in England first. Relatively innocuous licensing and registration laws that started out as [u]"revenue-gathering measures" (which is what the '34 NFA was touted to be[u], though we all know different) progressively made ownership more onerous, so fewer people bothered to own firearms. Eventually, so few were interested that it was a simple matter to convince the public that there was no legitimate need for firearms and confiscation could take place.

Here we have a right to arms recognized and protected by the Second Amendment. Except for the last 50 years the opposition has been trying with various levels of success to redefine just what the Second Amendment protects. In essence, to render it moot on the topic of an individual right to arms.

The courts of this country have been arguing almost since the passage of the Bill of Rights over whether felons can be disarmed, and over whether carrying concealed weapons can be prohibited. This indicates to most people that the right to arms is not an absolute right.

And we're back to the slippery slope. Here registration is being touted as a crime control measure, though we all know that it's useless for this unless the actual purpose is to reduce the number of guns in circulation. (We've all heard the anti-gun cry of "there's too many guns!") And as we've seen in England, the only reduction it accomplishes is the number of guns in the hands of the law-abiding. "When guns are outlawed...