On December 10, New Republic issued a call to ban the ownership of any gun—be it a single-action revolver, a muzzle loader, or an AR-15—and they suggested this ban should include police officers as well.

The call for a ban was framed by intimating that orthodox calls for gun control are simply too lax—that they are often only calls for a ban on this kind of weapon or that kind of weapon. The New Republic believes it is time to take the next step and simply ban every kind of weapon in every situation—whether those in view are law-abiding citizens or the criminals who cannot wait to prey upon unarmed, law-abiding citizens.

According to the New Republic:

The national conversation needs to shift from one extreme—an acceptance, ranging from complacent to enthusiastic, of an individual right to own guns—to another, which requires people who are not politicians to speak their minds. And this will only happen if the Americans who are quietly convinced that guns are terrible speak out.

The New Republic then shows that it believes a necessary certain aspect in the shift in conversation is to openly contend that the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) got it wrong in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008). Here the New Republic simply expresses the same position the Los Angeles Times and New York Times have been expressing for seven years—namely that there is no individual right to keep and bear arms. Rather, SCOTUS misinterpreted the amendment.

In other words, after 224 years of armed American citizens—the New Republic is contending that the individual right for those citizens to be armed never existed and, therefore, does not exist now. It simply gets airtime because SCOTUS referenced an individual right in striking down the D.C. gun ban in 2008.

The column concludes by being sure nobody missed the point—the New Republic wants all guns banned, period. They explain:

It’s not about dividing society into “good” and “bad” gun owners. It’s about placing gun ownership itself in the “bad” category. It’s worth adding that the anti-gun position is ultimately about police not carrying guns, either. That could never happen, right? Well, certainly not if we keep on insisting on its impossibility.

Follow AWR Hawkins on Twitter: @AWRHawkins. Reach him directly at awrhawkins@breitbart.com.