Joe Huffman offers further evidence that our opponents were indeed about gun bans, no matter what they may say today. There was some speculation in the comments of the last post that this was meant to keep the money rolling in. I have little doubt that most of our opponents machinations are intended for this purpose, but if having to distance themselves from bans is necessary, what does it say about the viability of their cause? Isn’t that pretty much an admission that only kooks and whack jobs want to ban guns? And what does it say that there hasn’t been a whole lot of leadership turnover since those days when these groups publicly advocated for bans? Just sayin.