When a disgruntled student with a shotgun savagely murdered Claire Davis at Arapahoe High School in December, peaceable gun owners once again found themselves squarely in the crosshairs of gun control activists.

Among the shrill demands for more gun laws came the predictable disparagement of the Second Amendment and the “gun culture.” Sanctimonious letters poured into newspapers castigating gun-rights defenders for opposing “common-sense” gun laws, even though such laws already exist.

Now, gun-phobic liberals are reflexively dismissing a common-sense bill in the Colorado legislature that would allow teachers to arm themselves for protection in their schools. Lost in all the kerfuffle are the facts, which bolster the position of the National Rifle Association.

A year ago, anti-gun media outlets vilified the NRA for arguing that an armed guard in every school, not more gun laws, is the best way to save lives. Much to the chagrin of gun-haters, the Arapahoe High School shooting showed the NRA was right. As tragic and awful as this incident was, it could have been much worse. An armed guard at the school forced the gunman to retreat in a mere 80 seconds, likely preventing multiple fatalities.

Meanwhile, none of the feel-good gun restrictions forced upon Colorado citizens last year did anything whatsoever to stop this attack. Unsurprisingly, none of this matters to those determined to dismantle gun ownership rights. They are all too eager to promote the fiction that they support the Second Amendment and are really only interested in taking “common-sense” steps to make everyone safer.

But opponents of more gun laws have rightly recoiled at seemingly “reasonable” attempts at further restrictions, because they recognize such measures are useless. Even worse, they are dangerous steps down a slippery slope. The same zealous advocates who have strategized for decades to ban guns have embarked upon a new, deceptive crusade to impose what they now call “reasonable, common-sense gun safety laws.”

This deliberate language is intended not only to conceal their extremist long-term agenda to disarm the public but also to imply that anyone who disagrees with their “reasonable” and “sensible” proposals is unreasonable. This is of course a false premise, because there is nothing “sensible” about passing ineffective, feel-good laws which fail to address the things that supposedly justified their passage. There is nothing “reasonable” about using a high-profile crime committed with a gun as an excuse to restrict the constitutional rights and freedoms of millions of decent, peaceable Americans who had nothing to do with that crime.

The language has changed, but the agenda has not.

Enough with the deception, the misleading rhetoric and the disingenuous lip service paid to the Second Amendment. Simple logic and empirical evidence drive us to the conclusion that when today’s “sensible, common-sense” laws are allowed to pass, progressively stricter laws will follow tomorrow until eventually no one will be allowed to own any guns at all. It’s already happened in countries like England and Australia, where the same types of incremental, “sensible” laws we’re now seeing proposed in the United States ultimately metastasized into full-blown, blanket bans on gun ownership followed by confiscation.

It’s happening now in states like California, New York and Connecticut, where the definition of “assault weapon” continues being stretched beyond all reason to outlaw more and more commonly owned types of firearms. As the right to keep and bear arms is incrementally whittled away, the “sensible” thing to ask is, “Where does it stop?” The “reasonable” question to ask is, “If we give gun controllers everything they publicly admit they want today, will they just pack up shop and go home?”

Of course not. Gun controllers won’t admit their real goal is to abolish all private gun ownership, because they know such candor won’t get them anywhere. It’s time to call them out and demand they be honest with the American public.

Reid Lusk of Englewood is a lifelong Colorado resident who works in the financial services field. Colorado Voices, now in its 15th year, is The Denver Post’s guest commentary writing program.