I don't think anyone wants to be shot. Well, nobody sane wants to be shot. My politics lies on the err towards freedom side but I would absolutely not complain about reasonable regulations concerning firearm ownership.

People seem to have forgotten that rights come with obligations. Because of this, it seems the law may need to be used as a tool to enforce those regulations.

I don't have any complaints about a specific type of firearm being owned by a private person. In fact, I have no problem with the idea of making more modern fully automatic firearms available for ownership.

However...

People forget that their right to bear arms comes with an obligation to do so reasonably. I think it is reasonable for ownership of a firearm to require demonstrated proficiency in the use, care, maintanence, and safe storage - for each specific firearm. Not just for each type, but for each one owned.

To own a firearm, you should be able to demonstrate safe use, knowledge about keeping it in functional condition, have a reasonable safe storage system, and you should be able to account for it at all times. This means mandatory notice of sale, including checks to ensure the buyer can lawfully posess a firearm, proper bills of sale, and mandated notification of loss, due to things like theft or accident.

There should be an exception for antiques and firearms that are not safe to fire but kept for collection, things like that.

It is notable that I live in a State that actually, a couple of years ago, removed the need for a permit to carry a concealed firearm. Yup... We straight up removed the requirement to have a permit. This hasn't resulted in a rise in firearm deaths or crimes involving firearms. This hasn't actually resulted in the predicted bloodbaths. Crime is still trending downwards and there has been no increase in violent crimes involving firearms.

That's probably due to the mentality here. They are tools. We use them to hunt, protect our livestock, or to remove dangerous pests that are disease vectors. They aren't special, they are something you'll find in most homes.

I don't expect you to change your views based on a forum post, but I do ask that you give serious thought to taking away liberties from lawful people because you're afraid. Fear is a powerful motivator, after all.

If you're curious, I'd absolutely hand in my firearms if the government were rounding them up. I'd also help you load my stolen possessions instead of trying to harm you. I'm pretty much the definition of responsible firearm owner - as are the majority of firearm owners.

It's not even about defense from tyranny or any of that crap. Nah... It's about enjoying them and about eating. I personally kill and process almost every bit of meat that I eat. I don't have to, but I appreciate doing so. I don't even always use a firearm to do so. This year, I'll harvest my deer during archery season.

Given that I own an obscene number of acres, the odds of my harming you approach zero. If you take away someone else's rights, you'll have taken away mine. So, I ask that you do be careful when you consider what liberties are worth conceding before deciding what routes you support.

Me? I support reasonable restrictions based on individual assessment and demonstrated competency. It will add to the expense, but I feel the additional expense is worth it in exchange for keeping my rights.

Err... Sorry for the novella? I felt obligated to ensure I was clear. The whole debate is pretty muddy and it's difficult to find people who are reasonable. Most vocal people seem to be wildly at one end of the spectrum or the other and both sides appear to envision caricatures of the folks on the opposite side of the debate.