As if it weren’t bad enough to have Democrats all over the country lecture us on guns when they’ve shown they know nothing about them, the proposals they’ve put forth really, really stink.

Since President Obama is leading the anti-gun crusade, it’s especially frustrating to listen to him prattle on about banning this or that when he has no clue what he’s even trying to ban. In a presser last month he focused on limiting access to “magazine clips with high capacity.”

A magazine and a clip are two completely different things. A clip holds cartridges together before they’re loaded into a gun. A magazine is the container that holds the cartridges and is usually detachable from the gun. A clip can be used to load magazines, but whenever someone today discusses such a high-capacity ban, they are talking about magazines. In the words of Emily Miller, such a ban would be like banning “motorcycle cars.

Obama concluded his speech by saying this is the type of “[thing] I continue to believe [makes] sense.”

Another anti-gun apologist, Jesse Jackson, put the gun debate in perspective when he told Fox News that the assault weapons ban is important because semi-automatic firearms can blow up airplanes and railroads. How Adam Lanza managed not to annihilate the buildings at Sandy Hook Elementary with his anti-aircraft-semi-automatic gun, I’ll never know.

But ignorance aside, what are the merits of their latest gun control proposals?

Universal background checks

In an effort to curb gun violence, this would accomplish nothing. We already have background checks for the vast majority of gun sales. If you buy your gun at a retailer, a gun show (in most cases), or online (with the help of federally-licensed dealers), you are subjected to a federal background check that looks at your criminal and mental health history.

What a universal background check (called that because everyone — even criminals — would be compelled to participate) would do is require private sales or transfers between family members and friends to pay for the expensive background check. The goal here isn’t keeping guns away from the criminally insane, it’s to have every gun in the country registered. Registered things are more easily taken.

Banning high-capacity magazines (or “magazine-clips” for those Obamanese speakers out there)

A magazine capacity of 10 rounds is the magic number to which Democrats like California Senator Dianne Feinstein have chosen to limit gun owners. This is only a way to accomplish their main goal: ban big, scary, black assault weapons.

Why 10 rounds? Experts have already shown how 1. gunmen who aim to kill do just fine firing off less than 10 rounds, and 2. such capacity restrictions don’t reduce crime.

It’s true that murderers like Adam Lanza, James Holmes, and Jared Loughner committed their crimes with the assistance of firearms with high-capacity magazines, but we have no evidence that a ban against them would have prevented it. If we want to stop multiple victim public shootings, concealed-carry laws are the only proven solution. Read all about it here.

High-capacity magazines can be lifesavers to fearful marksmen who can’t guarantee that their assailants will be taken care of with 10 rounds. Melinda Herman was home alone with her two nine-year-old children when a man with a crowbar entered the home and chased them to their attic. Herman was armed with a .38 revolver and she fired all six of its rounds, hitting the intruder five times. The man was even able to get away alive.

What if she had missed more than once? What if there had been two or three intruders? No, the Hermans didn’t have an AR-15, but why should they be unable to posses one? Sometimes more than 10 rounds is needed when you’re defending your life and the life of your family.

Under the high-capacity magazine ban, the 15-year-old boy who used his dad’s AR-15 to keep two home intruders from murdering himself and his little sister would have been unable to do so.

The governmental solutions to gun violence are so poor. No talk of concealed-carry. No talk of reforming our mental health system. Anything that would genuinely help reduce gun violence is ignored because it doesn’t go with the agenda of scaring Americans into agreeing to gun confiscation.

Keith Fierro | California State University | @kjfierro