Is the NY Times trying to start a Civil War in the United States?

The recent front page editorial called for an increase in gun control laws.

By their own reporting, the strictest gun control laws in the country are in California and those laws failed to stop the illegal sale of firearms to the most recent terrorists in San Bernadino.  The sales were illegal because they were "straw" sales to an intermediary who was not the end purchaser of the weapons involved in the attack. The New York Times report pointed out that some of the weapons used were semi automatic assault weapons which were not illegal in and of themselves in California. 

The New York Times also separately reported that illegal trafficking in guns in the United States begins in the states with the weakest gun control laws.  Gun purchased in states like Alabama are smuggled into and sold in states like California. 

Clearly, the only gun control laws that will be effective will be on a Federal level and must be an outright ban.  Gun control advocates point to success stories in Australia in support of additional gun control laws however the Australia laws completely prohibit the possession of firearms.  Guns there were rounded up and destroyed.

President Obama has made clear his call for "sensible gun control laws" but the definition of "sensible" is unclear and the efficacy of anything short of a complete ban and confiscation is questionable.

Thus gun control advocates are unclear about the end game of their position; is it additional laws or a complete ban and confiscation?

Unlike Australia, the 2nd Ammendment of the Constitution of the United States, along with limitations set forth in 200 years of case law, is universally understood to contain some guarantee of the right to bear arms. The degree of that right continues to evolve, but there is some right under current law. 

If the only effective method of significantly reducing gun violence is a complete ban and confiscation, then a Constitutional Ammendment would be in order. There is no chance of that. It might be possible but not remotely likely that the Supreme Court of the United States would step up.

Failing a Constitutional Ammendment, the clamour for more gun control potentially increases the difficulty in purchasing guns but does not make it very difficult or impossible for the average, honest, sane, non-violent citizen.   It also raises the fear of those individuals that the hidden agenda is a complete ban and confiscation which results in increased gun sales also reported by the New York Times.

What perhaps the New York Times does not realize is that the new sales of arms are not going to first time buyers afraid of losing their chance, they are serving to increase the arsenal of an honest  citizenry who are ready to protect their rights with arms if necessary.

The clamour for gun control laws short of complete ban and confiscation is ineffective. A call for a complete ban and confiscation is hopeless. THe result of the effort is an increase in the arsenal of those who oppose both and are ready to fight.