You&#x27;re welcome.<p><i>Do you at least agree this country has been taken over by an elite intent on disarming citizens via piecemeal policy implementations?</i><p>Not exactly.  The history roughly goes:<p><pre><code>  Actions to suppress dueling
  Actions to keep guns out of the hands of freedmen&#x2F;blacks post-Civil War.
  Actions for&#x2F;against different immigrants, e.g. Sullivan Law for the Irish.
  End of discrimination, enforced against all, guns are icky!
</code></pre>
Well, the first of the latter Federally was more against the non-wealthy, the 1934 NFA required a $200 &quot;tax&quot;, at minimum $3.5K in 2015 dollars (owning gold was outlawed around the same time, and the people&#x27;s gold confiscated at $20 and change&#x2F;oz was repriced to $35).<p>However:<p><i>It would be interesting to hear your opinion on Sandy Hooks as well. Many politicians and law enforcement officers had to be silenced and it was a more obvious excuse to pass legislation.</i><p>I&#x27;m not sure what you&#x27;re getting at here, but there&#x27;s always been serious pushback.  E.g. the NFA originally proposed including handguns, and that was zapped in a Congress that was generally giving FDR what he wanted.<p>I believe that the &#x27;70-80s represented the high water mark of gun US control.  Vicious enforcement of the GCA of &#x27;68 was spiked with the FOPA of &#x27;86 (albeit with new machine guns banned to us), the nationwide sweep of concealed carry started with Florida in &#x27;87, the gun grabbers had a lot of fun with &quot;assault weapons&quot; bans, but they&#x27;re now not an issue outside of &quot;communist&quot; states like California and Massachusetts, etc.<p>Pretty much all the 21st Century &quot;progress&quot; in gun control has been in traditionally anti-gun states, even post-Sandy Hook, with the notable exception of Colorado.  And that, and the new angle of laws that ostensibly outlaw temporary sharing and renting of guns, are happening because it&#x27;s a pet cause of billionaire Bloomberg.  Either through initiative in Washington, or the legislature in Oregon, but the rest of the gun control apparat is on life support.<p>However, the <i>Zeitgeist</i> is such that the enforcement authorities are quick to say they won&#x27;t enforce the unconscionable parts of those laws.  So who knows, those Jim Crow laws weren&#x27;t enforced against white until say the &#x27;50s or so, &#x27;60s especially.<p>The situation mostly seems to be in mostly in stasis, with small gains and losses in the various pro- and anti-gun states, the Supremes seem to have decided we only have a right to keep arms, we guess that&#x27;ll be the result of the appeal of <i>Peruta</i> to the 9th Circuit (California and Hawaii), but the 7th Circuit ordered Illinois to go shall issue (!) which they did (!).  Ah, this is still be fought out in D.C., and that might put the Supremes on the spot, we&#x27;re currently winning the courts albeit not on the ground.<p>For the foreseeable future I don&#x27;t see any major changes.  Maybe California will go from iffy to horrible (Jerry Brown is sane here (!)), but much of the rest of the country thinks the state is generally going that way in all areas....  Me, I feel the best I have since way back in the &#x27;70s when the BATF was stamping out gun culture ... through atrocities which resulted in a fierce reaction.  I expect that pattern of attack and counter-attack to continue, and in the meanwhile, Americans have been arming themselves like never before, soaking up pretty much every rifle of military utility available.  If worst comes to worst, we&#x27;re prepared.