The Ultimate Goal of the Gun Control Lobby is to Ban and Confiscate All Guns

Thank You emanfman, you had some pretty good comments. I would like to remind you however, that we are establishing goals or agendas. Just because someone denies being "anti-gun" does not mean they are not, it could mean that they don't want to be labeled as anti-gun because its unpopular in America. Next, it is without a doubt that completely eliminating gun ownership is unfeasible, they haven't even managed that in Britain. However recall that a total gun ban refers to making gun ownership ILLEGAL. People can still possess guns after a gun ban and confiscation, they simply can't do it legally. Also, of course there will be some people in the BradyCampaign who want a strict gun ban and some who want only some gun control. However it is the gun-control lobby's leadership from which I am mainly referencing. The leadership controls the direction of their proposals, and I still argue that the proposals and efforts of the gun-control lobby's leadership is moving toward a complete gun ban and confiscation. Responses"The first one, with Ben Shapiro, very much helps my argument, rather than yours.Piers makes it clear that a gun ban is a ridiculous proposal. Nowhere does he say he wants to take away all the guns. He says that control is a necessary measure, and that it wouldn't work in America."In the video, around 5:50, Ben Shapiro asks "...your from the UK why don't we just go with a full gun ban," then pierce goes on to talk about how Britain has 40 or 50 gun murders a year, then he says "why don't we try our way."(Shapiro) "...why don't we just go with a full gun ban." (Piers) "Why don't we try our way."Britain had a complete ban on guns, Piers's "our way" is a complete gun ban. In 1997 Britain passed the 1997 firearms act which enacted a mandatory confiscation of the few remaining guns in their country. The British way is a complete gun ban, Piers is British, "why don't we try our way" translates into a complete gun ban and mandatory confiscation (with extremely rare and very few exceptions).In the Colion Noir video, he talks about the slippery slope of the magazine capacity limits. Here's what he didn't tell you that the New York magazine limit was an indirect method of banning most semi-automatic handguns. Currently in New York, your allowed to own 10 round magazines but your only legally allowed to load 7 bullets in the magazine (with some .22 caliber exceptions). The limit is meant to lead to a ban on any magazine with a capacity larger than 7 bullets, which would effectively make it illegal to buy most guns on the market because gun manufacturers don't make 7 round magazines. Then, if given the chance, they'd probably decrease it past 7 and eventually we wind up with a complete gun ban, at least in New York.Granted, gun companies could eventually make 7 round magazines. There problem here however is that in order for this law to be remotely effective, they would also need to ban magazines that can be converted to hold more than 7 rounds, which would essentially ban all firearms excluding revolvers. http://legalinsurrection.com...http://nymag.com...The fourth video was meant simply to show the disproof of the Kellerman statistic. The original article literally said "gun ownership is a risk factor for homicide in the home." The statistic proposed by the BradyCampaign was, again, "Although guns can and have been used successfully in self-defense in the home, a gun in the home is 22 times more likely to be used to kill or injure in a domestic homicide, suicide, or unintentional shooting than to be used in self-defense."http://guncite.com...The term "domestic homicide" refers to guns being a potential risk to the homeowner. This implies that guns are effectively a health risk to anyone who owns them, therefore the underlying implication is that guns are bad for your health and safety. Since they are (supposedly) bad for your health and safety, no one should own them. If the BradyCampaign leadership TRULY was solely about controlling guns, they would remove this statistic, especially since it's been disproven. By the way, the article from the Atlantic was an article I was referenced to DIRECTLY from the BradyCampaign website. Therefore I'm pretty sure its accurate, and the original agenda of the BradyCampaign was to ban and confiscate all handguns. Has this agenda changed, or was there not enough support so they're shooting for smaller goals? http://bradycampaign.org...I understand the third video was extremely biased, but nonetheless it does contain some videos damning many members of the gun-control lobby. Feinstein's "Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in," the failed confiscations proposals in New York (granted those were only Assault Weapons, but still), and of course the DC vs. Heller case where right to private firearm ownership was challenged. "Now, in one of the videos (I can't remember which) There is someone claiming that in a personal conversation with Obama that Mr. President himself doesn't believe Americans should own guns. Once again, this does not mean that he will ban them! In fact, in another video he explicitly states in a public speech that he doesn't want to pass the legislation to take them away."I would like to remind my opponent that we are discussing ultimate goals or agendas. Obviously Obama will not be able to ban and confiscate all guns during his presidency, but he can still take steps to move toward this goal so others can. And just because politicians publicly say something does not mean they're being truthful. Politicians lie to get elected all the time, and that speech where Obama said he didn't want to take away your guns was during his 2008 presidential run. Was he saying that just so he could get elected or did he sincerely mean it...?Lastly, the Assault Weapons and Saturday Night Specials. There are obviously some people who (falsely) feel that assault weapons are deadlier than other firearms, however it was abstract enough to ban nearly whatever they wanted. The Saturday Night Specials basically targets any firearm cheap enough for the average person to own. Both of which failed, like you said, for a reason. However once again remember we are arguing what the ultimate goal of the gun-control lobby is. Both the Assault Weapons ban and the Saturday Night Specials Ban were excuses to begin banning some firearms, from which they would no doubt pursue further bans later. They failed, but nonetheless the gun-control leadership tried to use them to subtly ban, and in the case of assault weapons, confiscate guns.