Why not? It's a basic argument regarding reasoning. If you can reason for one thing, there has to be a limit on how much you can use that reasoning to justify a position.
Not it is not it is a flawed argument that assumes a series of linked events that has not been proven. Slippery Slope in an Informal fallacy For instance If I want to ban say steak knives or child porn there is not a series of causal links that lead to a totalitarian state. Banning one type of weapon does not necessarily lead to the banning of others.
assault weapon bans could lead to more gun bans but not necessarily.
in Australia they banned assault rifles in 1996 this is what happened
Very interesting. I'm going to do some more research into this. You've given me some things to think about. Thank you JakobVirgil.