Yes, thus Wash DC trued to ban guns. No one said “ban ALL guns”, but handgun for example are a very significant %, a large majority.
No cities have banned automatic rifles for the simple reason all automatic weapons are heavily restricted by Federal law.
Now if a City banned so called “assault weapons”, that is not such a broad category as to call it a “gun ban”.
Really? Since Biden pushed thru a broad gun control bill with some Republican support. Perhaps you are thinking about the 5% or so of gun owners that belong to the NRA, the extreme right wing?
NRA, GOA, etc but also MAGAs and adjacents of the “Loud” RW who go on about how the normal Rs betray them, and advocate unrestricted, permitless carry. I do agree that a majority of actual conservatives support reasonable rules … but they’re not really the ones controlling the public discourse now, are they?
True, but there is a huge difference between unrestricted, permitless carry (I dont mind open carry of holstered pistols (sometimes), and the idea of granting CCW to any qualified person* is fine, but this goes too far) and no background checks, buying machine guns thru the mail, and no age restrictions. I have not seen anyone serious promoting those ideas.
you pass a serious background check, and they grant you the permit.
You said Washington DC tried to ban guns. That’s what those words mean. If you meant Washington DC was trying to ban handguns, you should have said Washington DC tried to ban handguns.
Indeed; trying to pass a ban on a specific type of guns as a ban of all guns in general deserves more eyeroll smileys than the world contains.
As you’re so fond of reminding us, isn’t it handguns - rather than rifles, assault or otherwise - which are used in the majority of gun crimes? Seems like it makes a lot of sense to restrict access to those guns, much like how Britain did…