A storm is brewing — clouds are again gathering over gun rights.

After health care and cap and trade, the next major battle will be gun control. The antis are adept at coordinating news stories to editorials to columnists to the legislature and they follow a predictable pattern. Typically, it starts with a high profile news story. That is followed by media hype through the editorial page. Then the columnists get in gear to demonize the gun, gun owner, the NRA and decry the laxity in guns laws that if only were made more sensible, all the carnage would never happen.

The difficulty is that this strategy consistently and completely misses the mark. None of the laws proposed will have one ioita of effect upon the criminal and serve only to impede the law abiding. And that, my friends, is precisely the point. Gun control is not about guns — it is about control.

Currently, Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) and Congresswoman Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY4th) have introduced The Gun Trafficking Prevention Act of 2009. The bill is enthusiastically supported by New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, his Mayors Against Illegal Guns (MAIG) lobbying group and a host of anti-gun individuals and organizations.

You can track the progress of this legislation at Open Congress, and the website also offers you an opportunity to vote whether you support or oppose the bills:

• In the Senate — S.2878
• In the House — H.R.4298

While professing to protect the law abiding, this bill would ultimately require a National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) background check for every firearm transfer including private sales and gifting to a family member. It would also spend upwards of $370M to fund an additional 500 ATF agents. This would place every dealer transaction under an unparalleled level of scrutiny and red tape. More ominously, it would allow the US Attorney General (Eric Holder) discretionary authority to impose “special restrictions” on so-called high risk dealers. These are sensible and reasonable? I think not. Gillibrand knows that if you can choke off the dealers, you can choke off the supply.

Enter Washington Post columnist EJ Dionne Jr. He not only thinks laws like this are reasonable, he would have you believe large numbers of NRA members disagree with NRA leadership and are in favor of such “sensible” laws.

Beyond the NRA’s absolutism
By E.J. Dionne Jr.  |  Thursday, December 10, 2009

The National Rifle Association wields power that would make an Afghan warlord jealous because the organization is thought to command legions of one-issue voters ready to punish any deviationism from the never-pass-any-new-gun-laws imperative. Many legislators fear that casting a vote for even a smidgen of restraint on weapons sales could be politically lethal.

But imagine if NRA members were more reasonable than the organization’s leaders and supporters in Congress in understanding the urgency of keeping guns out of the wrong hands.

NRA leaders, meet your members.

It turns out that the people in the ranks actually are much wiser than their lobbyists. In a move that should revolutionize the gun debate, Mayors Against Illegal Guns decided to go over the heads of Beltway types and poll gun owners and NRA members directly….

In his survey of 832 gun owners, including 401 NRA members, Luntz found that 82 percent of NRA members supported “prohibiting people on the terrorist watch lists from purchasing guns.” Sixty-nine percent favored “requiring all gun sellers at gun shows to conduct criminal background checks of the people buying guns,” and 78 percent backed “requiring gun owners to alert police if their guns are lost or stolen.” Among gun owners who did not belong to the NRA, the numbers were even higher….

I think these supposed NRA members are what Rush Limbaugh refers to as seminar callers. You know, the ones who say “I’m a Conservative, but I think we’ve really missed the boat on this one.” Dionne would have you believe that a survey company, with no access to NRA membership lists, can randomly survey 832 gun owners and come up with 401 NRA members. If we assume a population of 100 Million gun owners and 4 Million NRA members, the probability is remote that you could draw a 48% (832/401) relationship sample out of a 4% population (100M/4M). You don’t suppose the left would distort and make up the numbers to make their case, do you?

Gillibrand argues that her law would stem the flow of illegal guns to Mexico where our government recently reported tht 90% of crime guns recovered there were traceable to the US. That was clearly an abuse of statistics, a distortion and a lie. The correct number of 17% is still overstated because of a blatantly biased sample.

Doesn’t matter to the left or the state run media. They will continue to demonize, demagogue, distort and demean because the end justifies the means. Make no mistake. The end is your disarmament and their ever-expanding goal of government control. By the way, have you noticed the effort being put forth by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the UN to address international trafficking in small arms?

The storm pressure is building.