I think there has to be a "middle-of-the-road" solution to the gun control conflict. I am all for legislation that makes it harder for criminals to get their hands on guns, but I don't think that law-abiding citizens with clean records should be restricted from owning or purchasing anything. I read the entire Brady proposal and I have to say that, as the owner of more than a few guns (including an XCR), about half of the proposals make sense. Unfortunately the other half would restrict the privileges of law-abiding citizens.
The parts I don't mind:
If the government wants all new guns to be manufactured with microstamping, fine. It has no effect on me other than it might raise the cost of the gun by a few dollars.
If there is a requirement to report if my guns are stolen, fine. I'm going to do it anyway.
If dealers have their license revoked because they abuse the privilege of being a dealer, then I think it is totally reasonable to make it illegal for them to transfer their inventory to their "private collection" and sell the guns without any background checks to anyone they please. You don't reward people for abusing their privileges or breaking the law. "Hey, liquor store guy, we're taking away your liquor license because you keep selling alcohol to minors. Now you just take your $30,000 worth of booze home and sell it to whoever you want, but pinky swear you won't sell to any more kids."
If the government wants to access more information about me when I go to purchase a firearm, I don't care. They can already tap my phone without a warrant.
I also want to say that there are some scummy dealers who make bad decisions and have no conscience about making transactions that will ultimately jeopardize everyone's freedom to posses firearms. Let some of these people be weeded out by regulations. This will reward responsible and reputable dealers with more business, and will reward gun owners with not having to read so many news stories about illegal firearms transactions.
The parts I do not approve of:
If the government wants to force manufacturers to put more safety devices on firearms, I say horse$#!t. You can't protect the whole world from stupidity. The only real safety is proper training and respect for the weapon.
Banning carry in national parks is mind-boggling to me. There are animals that can eat people. Enough said.
Restricting the number of purchases within a period of time is ridiculous too. It only takes one gun to fire a bullet so I'm not sure what this restriction accomplishes. If a person passes a background check this month, they're probably gonna pass it next month too.
And, of course, the Military-Style (assault) weapon and high capacity magazine ban. This is foolish. Way more people have had their lives ruined by drunk drivers. Every person in this country can be trusted to not drink a gallon of whiskey and jump into a 6000 pound SUV that they will drive down the road at 70MPH, but I can't be trusted to own a military style weapon or a pistol that holds over 11 rounds? Nonsense. Until there is a breath-alizer in every car I can't imagine a valid argument that would convince me that assault rifles should be restricted for law-abiding citizens.
Anyway, rather than stand in opposition to any and all restrictions I have decided that I will only oppose restrictions that affect my right, as a law-abiding citizen, to own and carry. Somewhere in the middle of this issue lies the compromise that will please the largest amount of people on both sides. Unrestricted purchasing and ownership is as unreasonable as no ownership.