Banning guns is the 'easy' part - enforcement and removal is the hard part

[genxlib]

7. No doubt

However, it backs into a whole lot of other controls that are desirable

-no new sales without the strict requirements. Which alone would have stopped Uvalde

-no open carry since they won't be legal

-no taking to a range since there could be serious problems for ranges and dealers

-could restrict ammo sales to only licensed individuals with stiff penalties for any ghost buying.

-automatic red-flag law since they could be confiscated when unregistered.

-no more stupid gun culture bullshit like instagram and xmas cards for those unwilling to comply. Clearly, that alone will discourage a lot of the small penis assholes since they won't get to act like tough guys.

-no more openly running around in the woods with your tough-guy militia buddies since the ATF could track that better.

-if caught, both the illegal guns and the owners would be out of circulation for awhile

-over time, the number of properly license guns would increase while the illegal ones would hopefully decrease. As they say, the best time to plant a tree is 30 years ago. The second best time is now.

Yes, a lot of ARs would stay illegal but that is true of any ban as well. But for me, if they are required to stay off the grid they seem a lot less dangerous to me. It won't stop everything but it certainly gives us a lot more control of the situation.

The argument for this version is easier to make (easier-not easy). 'We aren't adding any new gun laws. We are simply recognizing that ARs have more in common with machine guns than they do with all other weapons and are reclassifying them to fall under the rules accordingly.'