The Commonwealth of Virginia is on the verge of repealing its one-pistol-a-month law, and the Washington Post is dribbling in its didies.
But to tell the truth, I'm disappointed in the Post. Once upon a time, any favorable mention of rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment gave it a fat oaken erection, and you had an exhilarating fight on your hands to stave off hoplophobic rape.
Today, not so much. When an editorial resorts to a lame and frankly hysterical question to make its point, you know the Cialis has worn off and your once-feared enemy has become a pansy, hardly worth your attention.
Does the Second Amendment guarantee a right to purchase dozens, hundreds, maybe thousands of deadly weapons each month?
Why, yes, in fact it does. If it were otherwise, Amendment One could easily be interpreted to limit insipid editorials to one a month. Useful, perhaps, but unconstitutional and therefore out of the question.
As to this business of "hundreds or thousands" of illegal handguns per month, simple economics refutes the possibility. No private thug could afford it -- or find it a profitable venture. (Cf. any respectable supply/demand treatise.)
In fact, the only major multiple-purchase thuggery we've heard much about these past few decades is that of Eric Holder, gun runner to the Mexican drug lords.