Why do you say that? Confiscation attempts? I mean it would be nearly impossible to collect all the handguns that are out there. And because of the plethora of rifles offered in “pistol” calibers you couldn’t stop ammunition from being made.
However, I could imagine gun control advocates arguing for manual loading systems, so that would allow revolvers for hand guns, bolt, lever, pump action rifles. They could argue that didn't violate the 2nd amendment, since the general populace would still be armed. Semiauto rifles and pistols could still be licensed to active law enforcement, (eventually) giving them an edge over criminals... if we assume that the existing semis would gradually wear down and not be easily replaceable.
There are a lot though, so it might be decades before they would decrease significantly.
However, what would eventually happen would be that badguys would still commit crimes with revolvers and other manual loading weapons, and eventually there would be a new call to limit those too. So, if you know where its going to head and you are not for a total ban, it's hard to support the partial ban even if you might otherwise agree with it.
I wouldn't support one at this point. There's no reason to think it's necessary. There are miles and miles of gun regulations we could try, short of an outright ban, to lower gun violence in this country -- universal background checks, universal training requirements, laws requiring firearms to be locked securely when not in use, universal registration, design improvement mandates to reduce accidental shootings, etc. I strongly suspect that implementing those things would gradually capture the vast majority of the improvements that could be captured through a handgun ban, without running afoul of the first amendment the way a handgun ban likely would.
As much as I’d like to delve in to those individually, I’d rather stick closer to the intent of my topic. So I will ask...do you support banning any other types of firearms? Like “assault weapons.” Or do you take the same approach? I’m more looking for thought process if you are wondering on intent.
It is only old because it has been a consistent losing issue for the left. It is disingenuous to pretend that the desire to ban isn’t out there. And that there isnt a motive. They just have not had the means. Obama himself voted for the Illinois handgun ban. So it isn’t really a “bogeyman.” It is a real issue where ambition must be counteracted by ambition.
Stricter gun rules, with or without Congress. (Jan 2014)
Gun violence victims deserve a vote. (Feb 2013)
I believe in 2nd Amendment, but not war weapons on streets. (Oct 2012)
Fast-and-Furious: no prosecutions for Mexican gun/drug snafu. (Jun 2012)
Midwestern "bitter clingers" frustrated over broken promises. (Aug 2009)
Opposed bill okaying illegal gun use in home invasions. (Aug 2008)
Ok for states & cities to determine local gun laws. (Apr 2008)
The difference is both the use and prevalence of semi-automatic weapons. The Constitution allows government to ban certain specific weapons for important reasons, mostly public safety. The fact is, most pistols sold are semi-automatic. They are sold for home protection (and they are quite effective), which is a key element of gun rights that is Constitutionally protected.
You are a black and white thinker, aren't you? Is it just protection? Are you such an extremist that you assume all your opponents are extremists too? You're not worth talking to when you get this way.