A few weeks back, I wrote about the list of gun control bills that were immediately introduced during this new session of Congress.

Among those was H.R. 127, filed by Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX), which at the time had only this description:

"To provide for the licensing of firearm and ammunition possession and the registration of firearms, and to prohibit the possession of certain ammunition."

Turns out, H.R. 127 is actually far, far worse than initially conceived. The bill was updated on Jan. 28 and hooo boy is it a doozy.

If passed, the bill would completely obliterate the Second Amendment by making it impossible for regular folk to own a weapon.

First, it would require you to register all your firearms within three months or face legal consequences:

"(1) REQUIRED INFORMATION.—Under the firearm registration system, the owner of a firearm shall transmit to the Bureau—

(A) the make, model, and serial number of the firearm, the identity of the owner of the firearm, the date the firearm was acquired by the owner, and where the firearm is or will be stored; and

(B) a notice specifying the identity of any person to whom, and any period of time during which, the firearm will be loaned to the person.

Second, it would create a public database so that everyone can see who owns what guns and where:

"The Attorney General shall make the contents of the database accessible to all members of the public, all Federal, State, and local law enforcement authorities, all branches of the United States Armed Forces, and all State and local governments, as defined by the Bureau."

Basically, lawful gun owners would be treated like sex offenders. Fun! I mean, could you imagine if this got neighbors to hate each other and allowed the government to know who has the most guns and where? What could possibly go wrong??

Next up comes the real fun, the issue of licensing. Under this law, it would effectively become so time consuming and so expensive to own weapons that the majority of the public wouldn't be able to.

And that's the point.

Here's what you would need to do to have permission from the government to own a firearm:

• Be 21 years old
• Pass a background check
• Pass a government-approved psychological examination (which includes a family and friends survey if you want to own anything "military style," meaning anything larger than a BB gun)
• Buy $800 liability insurance every year

Oh, and that psych exam? The Attorney General gets to set the standard for that.

Did you once have a panic attack in college? Did you get depressed last year for a few months when the government shuttered your business and told you to "stay safe?" Have you ever been angry at anything in the last 30 years? Sorry, no gun for you!!

Finally, the bill also bans .50 caliber weapons – oh, and you can be imprisoned for up to 20 years for violating some of these rules, so that's cool.

Like everything else in the Left's Marxist agenda, this is a clear attempt to accomplish a goal with a thousand and one paper cuts. Sure, you're "free" to own a gun, but it'll require a million hoops to get there.

And if you're thinking of owning anything that could actually be useful for self-defense or to take up arms against a tyrannical government like those dudes in 1776 did, you'll have to be rich with many comrades in high places.

It's worth noting time and time again that this progressive licensing is exactly what the Soviet Union did for half a century before Stalin yeeted 20 million people out of existence. It's what China did before nerfing another 40 million people off the planet. It's what every oppressive empire has done throughout history. A government that has no reason to fear the people ceases to be a government by and for the people.

A bill like this is still, fortunately, nearly impossible to pass. It would also be challenged in the Supreme Court.

The Court's understanding of the Constitution seems fuzzy these days, however. I mean, there's only one part of the Constitution that says "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED," and it's that yucky part pertaining to guns... but what does "shall not be infringed" mean, anyway?

"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?" -Patrick Henry