Andy Williams wrote: How is my response disingenuous?

It's disingenuous because it's been written in this thread by people who support gun ownership and not by "rabid anti-gun nuts".  One would hope that you've been following the existing thread and not just jumped in without taking a couple of minutes to see where everyone stands.

What if we treated gun registration the same as a driver's license?

To get your drivers license, you have to pass a written test, a vision test and a road test. To maintain your driver's license you have to pass the vision test and show no emergent medical ailments that make you unfit to drive. You have to license your vehicle annually, and you cannot get your license unless you are able to document your vehicle is road worthy by passing the smog test.

What if you needed to pass a similar drill to maintain your firearm?

"THIS is what I love about these discussions....there's as much back and forth about semantics as there is the subject at hand. "

Of course it's about semantics. An idea or argument that cannot be clearly expressed is an idea or argument that has not been clearly thought out.

The "why do you have to be so difficult, you know what I mean" argument simply doesn't wash.

It's as though the gun advocates don't even recognize that there are compromise alternatives which have far less potential for misuse and harm to innocents. They don't recognize the risks of theft and abuse of their weapons, the fact that it's impossible to police the responsible ownership of guns (until the point at which someone is purposely or accidentally shot). It creates a nightmare scenario for law enforcement in general. None of these concerns matter - they're for someone else to worry about; I want my guns!

If it's all about self-defense, then why is it gun advocacy groups like the NRA are so firm about the right to own assault rifles? It's not enough to own a handgun, ostensibly to protect your family against violent home invaders, gun rights must be extended to the point where the average person can have a weapon capable of killing multiple people - because of the Second Amendment of course!

There is a reason why the State has a monopoly on the use of lethal force, and it's because at least the State has some checks and balances in place (as inadequate as they may sometimes be), whereas the average individual has nothing to prevent them killing or injuring others in their blind pursuit of "personal safety".

If it's all about self-defense, then why is it gun advocacy groups like the NRA are so firm about the right to own assault rifles? It's not enough to own a handgun, ostensibly to protect your family against violent home invaders, gun rights must be extended to the point where the average person can have a weapon capable of killing multiple people - because of the Second Amendment of course!

See, this paragraph is where I differ on some points and I'm probably branded as a gun nut here.

Weapon (hunting guns here, rifles and shotguns) for defense of home and family, yes,

hangun for said use, errr, maybe, under certain circumstances (single, live alone, definitely no children on the premises),

assault rifles in john q publics hand, no.

Hell no.

edit, can't type for crap.