"Reasonable regulation" as has been noted every single time through history finally winds up with subjects having no access to arms period.
What is "reasonable," and who defines it? An anti-gunner will say no firearms is a reasonable amount. If we budge one inch, they will take them from us- completely down to the last one.
That's why the people that shoot EBR's need help from the muzzleloading, rimfire, shotgunners, hunters, antique firearm collectors and pistol shooters. There is no part of firearm ownership that is isolated or insulated from the reach of the nefarious, underhanded and dastardly people that wrongly believe that prohibition is the answer. These same people do and will play the different factions of gun owners against each other whenever possible.
Take a look at the films from Australia and England- unbelievably to me, there are actually people out there that are happy that those firearms are cut up and citizens now have extremely limited access to firearms.
It starts with EBR's- no matter what kind- especially .22's cause they are cheap. Then the .50BMG rifles because no one needs one of those. Then, since your shotgun is larger than 16 gauge- it's an assault weapon. Handguns are dangerous because a criminal might steal it and it holds more than five rounds. Oh, while we're at it, ammunition is dangerous because children might eat it or a terrorist might get one round- so we have to get rid of that too. Now, the remaining hunting guns are too dangerous because criminals are stealing Winchester 94's and collectibles to do their dirty work, so now those have to go. Now, we are gun free and now we have to work on other countries that have gun ownership because that's where our problems are coming from.
Does the above sound familiar???
United we stand, divided we fall.
Actually it started a long time before there was such a thing as an EBR. It started with the National Firearms Act of 1934. The general consensus at the time by gun owners, politicians and the NRA was to throw the owners of such weaponry to the dogs. From the standpoint of the anti-gunner this law had it all. It didn't flat out ban anything but it did put a prohibitory tax on it. In those days $200 was like $3,300 today. This law had taxation and it also required registration of the weapons subject to it. Registration from the cradle to the grave and registration to whoever inherited it. NFA 1934 also set a precedent for taxation and registration of firearms accessories due to the fact that Silencers AKA suppressors came under the provisions of this tax/gun registration law. And it is a law not a regulation. In the future I do not find it far fetched at all to think that other gun accessories and firearms could be added to the restrictions of this this law that has stood for 77 years. Congress could add .50 cal rifles and pistol grip shotguns just as they did with the Striker and Street Sweeper.They could also add magazines, scopes, holsters or anything else they want.
A very, very bad law has been allowed to stand for all of these years and a bad legal precedent has been set.
But for most people including most gun owners that is OK as long as their handgun, rifle, shotgun, scope, sling, hunting vest, (heck there isn't anything safe) isn't subject to tax and registration.
