A couple of days ago, I saw an article on Infowars.com (also available on the Daily Paul.com) about Mississippi’s Lt. Gov. Phil Bryant introducing a new law (SB2036) that would allegedy “protect” Mississippi gun owners from gun confiscations in the event of martial law being declared in Mississippi.

My first question, upon reading this was why Lt. Gov. Bryant was anticipating martial law, in the first place. Does he know something that most Mississippians don’t know?

Then I saw that he had said the bill would “restrict” confiscations and that was, for me, the ultimate tipoff. If the intent was to truly protect gun owners from gun confiscations, then the operative word should have been “prohibit,” not “restrict.” There is a huge difference, but, apparently, the distinction is subtle enough for most people that many have not caught onto this semantic sleight of hand.

Sure enough, as you can see by reading the law as it was passed by the Mississippi legislature, the law gives the state of Mississippi complete carte blanche to decide exactly how it will “restrict” itself from seizing guns. As history teaches, governments never willingly relinquish their power.