On top of this, Senate and House appropriations committees are attempting to permanently loosen some gun rights provisions with some classic fancy legislative footwork in the next financing bill.

Although I'm admittedly not crazy about guns in general, I've come to accept the stats I've seen that suggest a widespread curtailment of certain kinds of guns or gun accessories within the U.S. would not have a great impact on rates of gun violence. Lots of people here have lots of guns, and that doesn't necessarily make them dangerous or "bad guys" to borrow a term from the NRA. These articles, however, push the gun-rights debate into the theater of the absurd. Why are groups actively fighting against more careful inventorying of retail gun stockpiles? How could that possibly limit a person's right to bear arms? And why shouldn't individuals who have injunctions against them and demonstrate a certain amount of danger to those around them have limited access to guns? Aren't these no-brainers that don't limit the law-abiding public's right to bear? Wouldn't these measures help reduce gun violence at minimal cost to constitutional right? What the hell?