Let's talk about the article as compared to going off topic as Hso warned. My view is that if a Federal ban is passed you have to consider the following:
1. Sheriffs saying they won't enforce it, is basically a good PR move showing opposition to ban. My law enforcement sources say there is no law that makes states and local LEO enforce Federal law. Thus, a ban would not mandate local enforcement. However, if the Feds wanted local cooperation, a jurisdiction may not supply such. The was the case in the Fugitive Slave laws debate.
2. The article uses the MSR euphemism. The goal of this is to make the guns sound less dangerous and 'nice'
This is a subtle point. It is good to point out that the guns are not fully auto. However, this throws lightening up the NFA restrictions under the bus as you just said those guns are too dangerous.
The article says that semi auto guns aren't that useful militarily. That's not true as full auto is not always a recommended usage. The semi auto Garand was the finest battle rifle ever - Patton. So you are not going to make them look less dangerous. Look at a carbine competition and the rate of semi fire is not slow in the absolute. The rampages with semis show how dangerous the guns are.
Thus, you are not going to make them nice. It is true that guns which look not as military styled have the same lethality. That's why researchers who found the AWB did nothing to crime rates suggest stricter bans. A new one if well drafted by antis will take out the guns that were missed, such as the Mini--14s and pistol caliber guns such as the Rugers. Folks have noticed the massacres in Canada and Norway with Minis - and they are getting banned.
A sports emphasis is useless as an RKBA principle argument as the RKBA is not about sport. Pushing that we own them for sport suggests regulation. They are dangerous for misuse. But you want to play with them. Solution - have them locked up at the range and checked out for usage. This is done in some countries. Rachel Maddow, who would have thunk it, is a gun fan. She shoots ARs and 1911s. She takes her significant others to the range on first dates. However, she says the guns should be locked up at the range for recreational purposes.
Practically, I agree with the view that gun control will be pushed on a PR level but not much will be done on the Federal level unless we have a moral panic as after Las Vegas. Recall the NRA has stated that enough of the GOP and Trump were going to go with an inclusive ban until they diverted Donald to the bump ban.
The state ban level is more of a risk - unless Scotus acts. Roberts was the traitor to the RKBA. It remains to be seen if the current court takes a real case or two on carry and bans. I'm not sanguine about that. It would be years anyway.
The self-defense argument is problematic as it leads to restrictions also. Practically, one might say three shots at three feet or 5 is enough. That is a common debate here but the problem is when some in the gun world denounce those who might want a 30 round mag in an AR or a Glock 17 with 17 rounds as gun lunatics or psychos. Yep, a revolver is a fine gun but if you push that in terms of denouncing the others, why not ban the higher caps as they are too dangerous in massacres or other higher intensity crimes. Joe - is good with a 2 shot double barrel. Unfortunately, Heller emphasized SD and gave an opening for bans on the lower and local levels. Quite a few cases denied the necessity of higher cap weapons for self-defense. IIRC, expert testimony by folks like Gary Kleck was dismissed by anti judges.
Instances like the officer using 12 shots on the attacking guy that we discussed in Strategy are countervailing. But every person who denounces carrying a higher cap gun or extra mag (as compared to discussing the dress concerns) is a friend of Uncle Joe.
3. Confiscation - I doubt because of the numbers involved and various legal issues that we would see door to door confiscation. The effect of the bans would be:
a. You get busted as an example
b. The guns become useless for hunting, and competition. No organized venue or range will put on a massive show of illegal weapons. In TX, we had carbine matches with 60 shooters. Quite a few local AND federal law - that isn't going to happen. My fond memory is shooting 5 stages with only 3 points down. AR with an Eotech. Time not so hot as I am old and slow.
c. A risk in self-defense - use an illegal gun, you get negative vibes from the jury and gun charges on top of shooting charges.
d. The after market industries disappear. Massive hit on civilian sales of all kinds of things.
e. A problem for your heirs. They might not be gun folks and all of a sudden they are criminals because of your stash.
f. You get turned in - your kid blabs at school. Your neighbor who is anti and used to see you going to the range blabs. EX marks the spot. So now you are going to the lawyers. How about the property and support numbers - hmm? Or they just squeal on you for spite. Look at some of the 1/6 idiots. Folks couldn't wait to turn them in.
4. Demand a conservative monoculture - as is surfacing in this thread. Terrible mistake. We need to have an inclusive view of the RKBA from the general and diverse population of the country. The rise is minority purchasing is not for their supporting Conservative viewpoints. It is in part because of the most unpleasant aspect of that viewpoint and perceived LEO discrimination. You may go hair on fire but if you want just a club with only your politics, you throw away more than half the country.
The RKBA has to be presented as a good thing for the general public and with reasons. Appeals to authority, such as God give right, won't work. Modern times demand modern reasoning. My view is that self-defense (including extreme incidents) and defense against tyranny (which is NOT the conspiracy world's view but ecletic for threats from the right, the left, religious extremists or any other liberty deniers) are the reasons to be put forth.
