But Mousie, thou art no thy lane,
In proving foresight may be vain:
The best-laid schemes o' mice an' men
Gang aft agley,
An' lea'e us nought but grief an' pain,
For promis'd joy!
-- "To a Mouse, on Turning Her Up in Her Nest with the Plough," by Robert Burns
For those who do not remember the last time the right to own firearms was abridged by this Senator...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_Violence_Offender_Gun_Ban
The act bans shipment, transport, ownership and use of guns or ammunition by individuals convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence, or who are under a restraining (protection) order for domestic abuse in all 50 states. The act also makes it unlawful to knowingly sell or give a firearm or ammunition to such person.
It has long been illegal for a person convicted of a felony, or adjudicated mentally ill, or addicted to illegal drugs, anyone dishonorably discharged from the military, etc, to own firearms.
The
"Lautenberg Amendment" added those convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence to this list of people who no longer have the legal right to own a gun in the USA, as well as those who are under a restraining order. While it no doubt sounds like a good idea to keep crazed wife-beaters from owning guns, the catch-all nature of the law also means it has been applied to high school sweethearts who slapped each other in an angry moment and the police got called or otherwise got involved. Their right to own a gun is gone, forever, just like that. It also means that anyone who has ever been involved in a domestic dispute is liable to lose their rights as well - many police jurisdictions now mandate that if the police respond to a 'domestic' situation, someone must be arrested; experience has shown that if they don't end it immediately by removing one of the participants, they'll just get called back. A catch-all charge of 'misdemeanor domestic abuse' once meant a $50 fine and many drunk husbands (and wives) were happy enough to plead to it after a night in the can sobering up. Now they lose their gun ownership rights for life.
http://www.issues2000.org/domestic/Frank_Lautenberg_Gun_Control.htm
Frank Lautenberg is not a fan of private gun ownership. The gun-grabbing lobby long ago realized that they could not simply ban all private ownership of guns - people would rise up and smite them right out of office. They have chosen a 'divide and conquer' approach that breaks it down piece-meal. First they go after the ones that make people go
"Hey, that's a bad thing, right?" For example, the fact that the 'terrorists' had not yet committed any crimes they could be charged with, therefore they could have legally owned guns.
Sounds great as long as the list of
'terror suspects' are the guys we think of - long robes, arabic names, pray to Allah, etc. And when that net gets expanded?
Currently, the list of prohibited people is basically felons and those who are mentally incompetent. They added MISDEMEANOR convictions for domestic assault, and now they want to ban ownership for people who have not been convicted of anything at all - have not even been in front of a judge or jury - just because someone wrote their name down on a list somewhere.
Besides - I thought the list of 'terror suspects' was secret? If you don't know you're on it, how can you be held accountable for breaking the law?
I don't like secret laws; you're held responsible for following it, but you are not allowed to know if you are in violation or not until you break it. Screw that noise.
Nor would I want to live in such a nation. I think alot of it still comes down to common sense though. Of course we know how that goes. LOL. But I think that if it was going to happen, it'd have happened already. The scumbags will get guns no matter whether they're legal or not. But the article is talking about terrorists, not the average Joe. Do you have any reason to be on a list? I doubt it. I have no reason to be on one either. 
