joeschmoe: you're both right and wrong. You are correct that incrementalism is their primary weapon. They take just enough as they can to continue to seem "reasonable" for the time being, as they know taking too much* at once could be the end of their jobs. The current Feinstein AWB is such a classic trick it should be obvious. Just like any used car salesman or junk dealer sets the price on something far higher than he knows it's worth, just so he can be "talked down" to a more reasonable price. The buyer then feels like he's getting a real deal and that he won something, even though the shady seller planned on lowering the price all along. It's a classic sellers tactic. High-ball the price and then come down to the price you really planned on all along. Feinstein proposes this massively unrealistic and imposing bill that we freak out about. Then a short while later a more "reasonable" bill is proposed so that it can look like they're compromising. When they're still really just taking something and we're getting nothing in return. Getting robbed of $5 instead of $100 is not a win for you. Losing less than you thought you might is not a gain. We need to pay VERY close attention to the bills and proposals that are coming out after the Feinstein proposal. That's their real game.
*But you're wrong that they just "can't". You're right, they don't have the legal authority to ban all guns. But neither does a criminal have the legal authority to steal from your house. That doesn't stop them from trying and succeeding. They're only stopped after the fact if they get caught. A successful robbery is a successful robbery, whether it was legally prohibited or not. And similarly, the Feds do indeed have the ability to ban guns if they choose. They can physically type out a bill, physically vote on and pass the bill, and the physically send out orders to their agencies to enforce the bill. And with enough agents willing to go along with it, they can certainly make it happen. A SCOTUS ruling would only make it illegal far after the fact. Just like a cop catching a thief weeks after a crime. The SCOTUS being able to deem a bill unConstitutional only matters after the bill is passed and enforced. Only then can it be brought to their attention through a long process. And by then the damage could very well be done. hso made some very good points about gun dealers and distributors going out of business whether a bill is found to be legal after the fact or not.
Don't confuse their lack of Constitutional authority with a lack of desire or physical ability.
Anchorman, 1911 guy, othera: It is somewhat correct that this is not a Left/Right, Democrat/Republican issue. But it IS an authoritarian/libertarian(small L) issue, and even an individualist/collectivist issue. The right to own firearms for the defense of yourself, your family, and your freedom is very much an individual liberty. Collectivists are opposed to this because they see individuals as cogs in the greater social machine. Police and soldiers who are selected and mandated by the "People" are the ones who should be carrying guns, not you the individual. And authoritarians see firearms use as very dangerous to their own machinations. An armed people is not a people easily subjugated. But there is a "correlation not causation" factor in this. One cannot deny that members of a certain political party vote against gun rights more often than the other. That is just fact backed up by public voting records. Did they vote this way because of their party? Just as are all members of a party in favor of or opposed to gun control because of their party? No. Correlation, not causation. But the mindset that pushes one towards their political leanings also influences their individual policy choices. Someone who is very much in favor of individual rights, personal responsibility, and smaller government controls over the people would find gun control deplorable. Whereas a collectivist and authoritarian sees gun control as essential because it makes it easier to fit individuals into their mandated place in greater society. These people are also the ones who see government solutions to many many other issues as favorable. So no, it is not a "Democrat/Republican" issues per se, but it is no coincidence that certain mindsets, such as learning more towards collectivism vs. individualism, are found in large amounts on one side of the spectrum vs. another. The use of lethal force is the final physical act in enforcing ones will. The individualist sees an individual enforcing their own will through the individual use of arms as paramount. The collectivist sees the collective will being enforced through agents of the collective society, police and military, as paramount. But it still comes down to whether one sees the individual as a sovereign end of his own, or just a component means to a collective end. The rhetoric spouted by one end of the political spectrum vs. the other can easily demonstrate these views. Collectivists spout views and champion legislation that places the collective good first. Individualists do the same but with legislation that places the individual will first. The fact that the political party platforms tend to fall along these same lines is easily seen, and quite telling