I notice that the left has recently changed their tactics on gun control.
They know fighting the second amendment is a loser, so they say it is OK to have guns, just not “assault weapons”.
They say they support the right to keep and bear arms, but with “sensible” restrictions.
Having unfortunately lived my entire life in California, every year the legislature finds several more “sensible” restrictions they must impose. There is no end to it.
Partially true. In recent times it is couched in terms of they aren't needed for hunting as if the word is one of rights.
Speaking of hunting, in England that was one of the pretexts to limit the bearing of arms by the little people over 200 years ago:
1803 - St. George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries 1:App. 300
This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty. . . . The right of
self defence is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the
study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible.
Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep
and bear arms is, under any colour or pretext whatsoever, prohibited,
liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction. In
England, the people have been disarmed, generally, under the specious
pretext of preserving the game: a never failing lure to bring over the landed
aristocracy to support any measure, under that mask, though calculated for
very different purposes. True it is, their bill of rights seems at first view to
counteract this policy: but the right of bearing arms is confined to
protestants, and the words suitable to their condition and degree, have
been interpreted to authorise the prohibition of keeping a gun or other
engine for the destruction of game, to any farmer, or inferior tradesman, or
other person not qualified to kill game. So that not one man in five hundred
can keep a gun in his house without being subject to a penalty.