When you say "stiffer than the current US laws", are you referring to "The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"? or the other laws that infringe?
HCI (or whatever they are now calling themselves) favors eventual complete disarmament of the civil populace.
There's no difference other than how fast total disarmament is accomplished. Those who want more regulation are doing it incrementally, but their ultimate goal is also total disarmament. Basically same end result, different tactics.
I'm going to correct you because you ARE wrong.
While they proclaim incrementalism in terms of controls, they are following the playbook that was invented by the anti-smoking lobby.
Remember how in the beginning they just wanted to ban smoking in the front of airliners?
It's a perfect illustration of Hayek's dictum about attempts to impose central economic planning in "The Road to Serfdom":
The initial attempts at control fail, and so subsequent and more stringent attempts at control must be made in order to retain power.
The ultimate result of this (both in terms of firearms and economic planning) is totalitarianism.
All of those are steps down a very bad path.
Moore is an advocate of steps down that path.
No flames. When you say "gun control advocates are actually seeking some form of stiffer control" what you need to add, is that the ultimate goal is ban private possession of arms. The US Constitution as written does not allow that. Prior to the 14th Amendment maybe the states could do that, but not after it was passed. Notwithstanding the black robed tyrants who will find out too late, that they are not the last word in Constitutional jurisprudence. The people are.
Make no mistake the politicians & hangers on of gun control crowd want gun prohibition but they understand that if they come right out & say it they won't get anywhere. So trying to split hairs as to whether he (Michigan's version of Moby Dick) is a gun prohibitionist or just a "gun control" advocate.
"Is Michael Moore actually in favor of total disarmament or more gun control because there is a difference? I'm not a Michael Moore fan so don't flame me but I think it is important to accurately report a person's position on a given topic. I think, and correct me if I'm wrong, that gun control advocates are actually seeking some form of stiffer control....maybe not as bad as Canada but stiffer than the current US laws."
The point of "reasonable controls" on gun owners is to know who has the guns. Then, later, when you control the government and media better, you can go and take them. The Soviets and the NAZI's both used this tactic, to terrible effect. I side with the no controls at all crowd, personally. Use a firearm in a legitimate manner and you have no problem. Use one illegitimately, and get caught in the cross-fire from all the gun owners around you.