>>>>That said, I must reiterate, my primary concern with this is not my own safety. I've engaged in the "safety" discussion because you are bringing it up. My primary concern lies in liberty and the deterioration of my constitutional rights.
>>>
>>>Ok your "primary concern" is not your own safety - or anyone else's for that matter. Screw everyone else, the hell with 32,000+ victims per year - I want my AK-47 and the hell with ya'll cause it's me me me my liberty...
>>
>>You continue to demonstrate that you haven't a clue what you are talking about.
>
>I disagree. Look - if everyone was like you with guns then I have no problem. As matter of fact all the guns made at one time fell into hands of law abiding people. All I'm asking for is a paper trail.
>You are afraid your gov will come take them away...others are afraid it will be used to amass and army. Perhaps this is what our friends have been telling us about addressing the social/economical problems... There is no doubt in my mind that somewhere in here we agree on pretty much all of the core principles.

AK-47 can legally be owned after going through stringent BATF background check, paying annual fees, local regulations, taxes, proving the weapon is securely stored, etc. It is a full-auto weapon and is not part of any of the discussions.

Personally I wouldn't have a problem licensing people to have a weapon (like a drivers license). Prove you know how to handle it, pass a check re: not a felon, not mental, etc. Renew it every few years. Automatically revoke if you become unqualified. All at prices equivalent to drivers license. Drivers license should also have a background check and should require driving test at least a couple of times a decade.

Don't do a background check when someone buys a weapon (so the government knows what weapons you own).