Noted hunter and gun owner Mike Thompson, whoever that is, decries the evil of "assault magazines"

Someone claiming to be a Democrat Congressman from California named "Mike Thompson" got a forum in today's Wall Street Journal. He was there to market a purportedly "centrist" brand of gun control.

His op-ed, entitled "A Middle Path to Reducing Gun Violence", makes the preposterous claim that Americans support "universal" background checks and "limits on ammunition".

Mike Thompson: A Middle Path to Reducing Gun Violence

Remember, whenever a statist uses the term "gun violence", he really means "gun control".

As a hunter and gun owner, I believe that we should protect the Second Amendment right of law-abiding individuals to own firearms...

But...

...Yet our laws allow people to buy firearms privately or at some gun shows without going through a background check...

Yes, that's right: a young man can inherit his grandfather's hunting rifle without running afoul of the ATF or having to register in some DHS database.

Government registration -- in every case throughout history -- is a precursor to confiscation. I suspect most Americans will have a four word reaction to registration: No way. No how.

The same goes for illegal gun trafficking. Many law-enforcement officials say that illegal gun-traffickers are most often charged with mere paperwork violations...

So when are you going to demand Eric Holder come clean about Operation Fast and Furious, Congressman? After all, that was the biggest gun-trafficking operation in American history, which sent thousands of military-style weapons to Mexican drug cartels and left more than 300 dead, including two U.S. law enforcement officials.

And the Democrat attorney general and the Democrat president both refuse to release the documents related to this patently illegal operation. So where's the outcry on this egregious example of gun-trafficking, Mr. Congressman?

A majority of Americans also agree (according to a Pew poll released this month) that assault magazines have no place in our society. These magazines hold more than 10 rounds and allow a shooter to inflict mass damage in a short period of time without reloading. Banning them will save lives.

"Assault magazines"?

Oh, my. Tell me, "Mike" -- if that is your real name -- did the last ban on military-style weapons and "assault magazines" reduce these incidents of mass shootings and gun violence? Oh, that's right: it didn't.

On the issue of reducing gun violence, there is a path between extremes. This debate isn't a choice between protecting the Second Amendment or reducing gun violence. It is about the willingness of a responsible majority to do both.

Here's a prescription for avoiding "gun violence" on the most important scale of all. Let's enact policies that prevent millions of deaths. After all, we have experience with your policies.

A quarter of a billion children, women, and men were slaughtered by their own governments in the 20th century alone. Letting any government have a monopoly on force over its citizens is a recipe for disaster.

Which is why the Second Amendment protects the rest of the Bill of Rights.

Tell you what, Mr. Congressman: why don't you find out what the gun-trafficker-in-chief did with the thousands of weapons lost in Operation Fast and Furious before you start infringing on the rights of actual law-abiding citizens?