Registration of all handguns.
I support the president's gun control measures, but in order to really bring the levels of gun violence down anywhere near where the rest of the world is, it's going to take licensing and registration for all handguns.
Sadly, even though polls repeatedly show that a majority supports registration, it has no chance of passing congress. Still, it's a good idea to have some longer term goals as well as short term activism. We shouldn't not talk about progressive goals just because John Boehner is speaker of the house. The political right is very good at is hatching conservative ideas in think tanks and generating "buzz" about them even if most of the country is opposed (e.g. privatizing social security). Whereas here is an idea that most of the country is in favor, and it has no "buzz" at all.
From an activist point of view, one thing to do could be write letters both to the media and to members of congress, asking why registration of handguns isn't even being discussed, despite the fact that most Americans agree with it, and that it would do much more than anything currently being proposed to limit gun violence. Or just bring it up while having political discussions with friends and neighbors, just to point out that there's more we can do besides background checks and magazine capacity.
By the way, the reason nobody talks about registration is that gun fanatics fear that a gun registry will lead to gun confiscation, since it gives the government a list of all gun owners, which they can then use to go door-to-door. Of course, only a small fraction of gun owners are this paranoid, but in the gun debate, the looniest 1% right-wingers have outsized influence.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Totally on board with that.
"tag" it, and pay a tax to boot. It's a minor hassle, but it allows my vehicle to be identified and matched to it's owner if it is ever stolen or misused on the highways and byways.
Why in the world we shouldn't do the same for handguns is simply beyond me. Registering my car with the state is not going to lead to "car confiscation," at least it hasn't to date. 
And I've been owning cars since the late 1970s.
The state could - and should - do the exact same thing with handguns, period.
"You may drive it untagged and unregistered on private property to your hearts content"
No, you cannot. In order to obtain a title to the vehicle showing proof of ownership, you must register and tag the car regardless of what you intend to do with it. Without obtaining said title - i.e., registering and tagging it - you cannot obtain car insurance or renew your drivers license. This myth of "you may drive it untagged and unregistered in private property" is a long-time strawman of the pro-NRA crowd, but it has been checked into and debunked repeatedly.
"But that's not how registration with guns would work"
Oh yes it is. And someday, will.
I would think that in the vast majority of cases this is not the situation. 
No, it doesn't.
"Trying to force people to pay annual taxes or fees on guns is just going to result in massive non-compliance"
Then I guess there's going to be some law-abiding gun owners who are going to have to decide whether they wish to remain "law-abiding" or not - just like a lot of Southern school boards had to decide whether they were going to remain law-abiding after Brown v. Board. And we all know how THAT ended up: those "standing in the schoolhouse door" on the wrong side of history are long gone, just like the pro-NRA arguments will be history within a generation. Your grandchildren, and mine, will live in a United States with Australian/Canadian/Western European-style gun laws - and we can all be thankful for it.
"The proposals for massive annual fees and certificates that must be kept with the weapon at all times are just a method to price people out of owning guns. Making ownership financially painful is really a backdoor method of confiscation as people on hard times or the poor (a lot of rural people) would have to give them up. And the certificate idea would require that certificate to be presented to purchase ammo, but you have to have it with the gun at all times."
And?
"What I want to get across is that if you just want registration to track handguns, that is simple to do. If you want to punish lawful owners and force them top get rid of their guns, then the fees and taxes are the way to go. But don't act they are radical if they oppose a $100 per gun/year fee."
I don't think they're "radical," just misguided. And I'm not looking to "punish" anyone. I think registration is a sensible measure, and I would base the registration fee - the "tag" if you will - upon the type of firearm, just like most states do on the age of a vehicle. For instance, shotguns, hunting rifles, and plinking pistols - anything less than .25 caliber - would face the lowest registration fee in a graduated system. The fees would rise from there, depending on the make and model of the firearm, and a formula to determine it's utility in civilian hands. Civilians who want to tote around military-grade weaponry should pay more for the privilege of getting to act out their Red Dawn daydreams.
Besides which, this is a one-time fee, upon transfer of ownership, unlike the annual "tag" fee, so gun owners (like myself) would be getting off easy in the pocketbook compared to tagging and insuring cars every year. If one can't afford to be playing around with guns and these modest fees would tax a few Bobo's out of the AR-15 totin' market, that's just too bad. A lot of us who'd like to drive a Mercedes or BMW don't get that privilege either, but have to settle for more modest wheels.
1. Yes I did. 2. That's nice. 3. Nope.
"Wow! So convincing"
You were the one made an assertion without the slightest evidence to support it, to wit: "But the auto registration argument does fall apart," and then breezed on into another subject (in an attempt to change it).
But, one more time: No, it doesn't.
"People will only comply with laws they find just or ethical. It's quite telling that you used the example you chose. It says a lot about you. I would use the example of the lunch counter sit-ins, civil non-compliance to break an unjust law. Or simply choosing to not comply with a seat arrangement. Or the fact that my Great Grandmother sold birth control by going door to door as if she was an Avon lady. Basically, a doctor would ask a woman if she wanted more children and if she said no, he'd dispatch a woman like my great grandmother to covertly sell and teach the use of birth control. If a law was passed that stated that I had to report to authorities any Hispanics that were suspected of being undocumented immigrants, I would simple not comply and ignore the law."
1. Nope: in a democracy, we comply with the laws period, or we accept the consequences of breaking them. What people do in a democratic country (small "D" for the form of government) is work to change the laws we dislike through petitioning our legislators, or supporting candidates for office that agree with our views, or speaking out. When civil disobedience is invoked to call public attention to a set of laws that may be unjust, part of the package that goes with that is sacrificing the verdict of the moment for the verdict of history. On a side note: that you would attempt to link owning an assault rifle with voting rights or desegregation efforts is simply obscene.
2. Cool story, Bro.
3. Non-responsive personal attack, and attempt at false linkage: not worth replying to.
"Most places that sell ammo don't allow guns to be carried inside, like a sports store. You're obviously not a gun owner."
1. Even if true, So what? But it's NOT true: neither Wal Mart nor any of the chain sporting goods stores I've ever seen have the "no guns" sign up prohibiting concealed carry; further, the last gun store I was in people were toting guns in and out openly for the on-duty gunsmith to look at, to offer for trade, etc. You're obviously not a gun owner. 2. Believe what you wish.
"So you intend to use registration to discourage gun ownership. That's why so many gun owners so vehemently oppose it. The base proposal of registration is just to ensure that a gun doesn't fall into criminal hands, but then it gets taken to extreme positions to price out or eliminate certain types. It would be amazing to me that a gun owner wouldn't understand that, BUT"
1. No: it would be used to keep track of all the deadly little toys floating around American society, so that when one was misused, it could be traced to it's errant owner; or to remove same from the vicinity of men who were domestic violence offenders, or, say, just convicted of a felony. See how that works? (
)
2. I don't care how many pro-NRA "enthusiasts" oppose sensible gun legislation.
3. Non-responsive nonsense.
4. Ditto.
"You're not a gun owner. The signature line gives it away. It's obvious that you are not one, so spare me the lie."
1. Believe what you wish. 2. My sig line is a dandy, and 100% spot-on to boot - that's why it invokes such rage from pro-NRA boosters. 3. See #1.
There: I believe that pretty much puts paid to the tab, as the saying goes.
All too easy.
is that I meticulously picked your strawmen and logical-fallacy-strewn arguments and goalpost-shifting apart point by point, methodically.
When you stated in #32 above "Whatever" what that really translates to is: "I have no answer to this body of irrefutable facts."
It really is that simple.
Re: "Go tell that to Martin Luther King Jr. and Gandhi."
And that is precisely what King and Gandhi did: accepted the verdict of the MOMENT to call attention to injustice, to achieve change in the future - the verdict of HISTORY, in other words. Which they did. You do know that King wrote his famous and renowned "Letter from a Birmingham Jail" from...JAIL? Don't you?
It appears not...
But your lack of historical awareness aside, let me repeat it in no unclear terms: that you would attempt to link owning an assault rifle with voting rights or desegregation efforts is simply obscene. Period.
"This said by the guy lying about owning a gun"
Believe what you wish.
That was, like, three replies back.
, indeed.
On edit: now FOUR replies back. Funny stuff.
I highly doubt any of that is true, but if it is you should have no trouble posting the links to prove it.
And I'm not part of the Pro-NRA crowd. The NRA is a republican (Sic) organization to which most gun owners do not belong. I spent years in the south fighting against "their" candidates. You can blow that fucking refrain out your rear. Find another term to dismiss us rural liberals and our ownership of guns."
1. Yes, you are. 2. (a) False. (b) Sorta-true: most gun owners don't, but almost all "RKBA enthusiasts" do. 3. Cool story, Bro.
4. Uh-huh. 5. I've found the perfect term for "RKBA enthusiasts," and it's spot-on - as is my sig line, which sums it up.
"I posted to help the OP understand the opposing view a bit better."
You need to read the SOP: you're "help" is not wanted in this group. Take it back to your NRA playpen over in GCRKBA.
I agree with your theory on the jury pool - I have only the most personally malicious one's on ignore.
The above poster is a mocking troll IMHO.
...although we can't always be online and sometimes it's not so clear. The poster you refer to was the first one shown the door from this group. He will not bother you here.