= new reply since forum marked as read
Last edited Wed Nov 1, 2017, 05:55 PM - Edit history (1)
legislation with the end goal being to pass laws similiar to those in Great Britain. It has also been described as the "camel nose under the tent" tactic. If you allow the camel to stick its nose under the wall of the tent soon the entire camel is in.
This tactic no matter how described has a long history dating back to the days of the National Council to Control Handguns (NCCH) which later became Handgun Control Inc (HCI) and eventually became the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. In 1978 Nelson "Pete" Shields became the organization's chairman.
In July 1976, Shields estimated that it would take seven to ten years for NCCH to reach the goal of "total control of handguns in the United States." He said: "The first problem is to slow down the increasing number of handguns being produced and sold in this country. The second is to get handguns registered. And the final problem is to make the possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition – except for the military, policemen, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors – totally illegal.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brady_Campaign
From above in my post:
Gun owners are well aware of this tactic and therefore oppose any and all bans of firearms let alone confiscation of said weapons. Many gun owners also go to the polls to vote out any elected politician or candidate who supports such bans. Since there are at least 80,000,000 gun owners in our nation and a high percentage own semiautomatic firearms those who vote make up one BIG voting block. Of course politicians who come from states where gun rights are restricted and gun ownership is not as common as other states that have gun friendly laws, still can win elections with ease. Each state gets two Senators and only two. For that reason it's extremely difficult to get gun bans to pass in the Senate.
As a gun owner I oppose any gun bans as I am well aware of the path this would take us down. I do not oppose gun control legislation to insure that only sane, honest and responsible people can legally purchase firearms. I also favor legislation that targets the criminal misuse of firearms and legislation to better control the straw purchase of firearms and the smuggling and illegal sale of such weapons. I oppose any federal registration of firearms as that could be used as a tool to enable gun confiscation , to harass gun owners and might even been used if accessed by the criminal element to target the homes of gun owners for burglary.
I see no problem with the civilian ownership of semiautomatic AR-15 style rifles which are targeted by the gun control advocates because they appear similiar to weapons used by militaries all over the world. Military assualt weapons are capable of fully automatic or burst fire unlike semiautomatic firearms. AR-15 style rifles function the same as less evil looking semiautomatic rifles, the difference being merely cosmetic. Ar-15 style rifles are also commonly used for hunting and are not made as only weapons for mass murder.
I do not favor magazine bans or limits on the amount of rounds a magazine can hold. That legislation would accomplish little as there are millions and millions of these magazines already in the hands of gun owners.
The Brady Campagin felt it had won a great victory a good first step on the road to banning firearms when the first Federal Assault Weapons Ban passed. Many gun owners at that time disliked the AR-15 as they felt it was unreliable and inaccurate. Of course the Federal Assault Weapons Ban really didn't ban the sale of such weapons and the manufacturers simply modified them to fit inside the limits imposed. A few gun owners bought them just to see what all the fuss was about and found they actually were quite reliable and acceptably accurate and soon they became extremely popular. The AWB also imposed a ten round limit on the capacity of magazines manufactured after a certain date. Manufacturers went to a 14/7 schedule to manufacture as many "high capacity" magazines before the cut off date. Consequently it was possible to buy magazines that held more then 10 rounds throughout the entire 10 years the assualt weapons ban was in effect but the price was quite high.
Your question is missing some words, but I'll assume you mean the people with mental instability. Here in the US, people that have been involuntarily put in for mental treatment are (supposed) to be put on the no-buy list. The recent kerfluffle about "mentally handicapped people being allowed access to guns" was the denial of US veterans (reporting through the VA admin) of owning firearms if they needed assistance balancing their checkbooks, for one example. Supposedly, as rumor goes, Einstein had trouble keeping his checkbook balanced. I don't recall anyone crying for denial of his rights.
The reporting to NICS/FBI is spotty, at best (see recent church shooting in TX), and getting past HIPPA laws for mental reporting is a fight, also. The laws are there, but bureaucrats have to get their game together, too. No law is going to stop a determined attacker, they will just go black market (see gun/explosive attacks in Europe), or find another "vehicle". (See what I did there?) No one is 100% safe, anywhere, and no law ever prevented a crime. Laws only spell out what IS illegal, and proscribe a punishment for those who choose to ignore it. Murder has been illegal for millennia, but it still occurs.
Your turn!!! 
ETA: Welcome to DU!
