It is commonplace to respond to the fear of gun confiscation, (virtually universally voiced by anti-registration zealots) with a soothing tut-tut, coupled with strenuous oaths forswearing the passage of any law which might reach into the extant stash of any armed citizen in order once and for all to rid society of a manifest source of misery.
One need look no further than Australia to see that it is by no means outside the bounds of imagination that a people might make a reasoned decision to live unarmed, and in so doing require the surrender of those weapons currently abroad.
We might, after all, amend the Constitution to remove the Second Amendment. Hard cheese, gun nuts, but there you are.
I find it curious that even as they thump their chests and declare themselves "the law-abiding and responsible gun owners", these same individuals (and their associations) assert, implicitely, their right to disobey a democratically enunciated law (should one issue) that eventually declared the private ownership of firearms forbidden, and furthermore, feel perfectly empowered to assert an interest in facilitating their disobedience to such a law by resisting the salutary (for so many reasons in addition to possible confiscation) practice of registration.
Consider, after all, that their strident objection to registration is couched in terms that really say this:
If a law were duly passed that required me to sell my gun to the government, I would consider it my right to disobey, and I further assert that in order to make it easier for me to break that law, I will fight any system of registration, notwithstanding all the benefits it might have vis-a-vis crime prevention/solution, because it might make it harder for me to break the law.
But I am a lawful gun owner, you betcha'.