And that's just a start.
A 'gun nut' wrote a piece for Politico on 'gun control that works'. It's nothing new, it's been proposed before: 'Don't license guns, license gun owners.' His has one change: "You only need a license for semi-auto firearms."
I'll skip over various objections to this crap, and go straight to one of his answers:
Objection: Gun ownership is a constitutional right, and we
don’t license constitutional rights. You don’t need a special license
for free speech, for instance.
Me: You wouldn’t need a license to own lots and lots of guns
of different types under this scheme, either. You would just need a
license to own semi-autos, just like you need a license to broadcast
over certain parts of the public airways.
"Hey, we're only licensing PART of your right, not all of it! And this will never be used as a wedge to license everything else, we promise!" Yeah. We can trust that. Sure.
Here's your problem, guy: WE KNOW BETTER. Of freakin' COURSE the control freaks and gun bigots and hoplophobes will use it to extend the licensing: "Hey, you're ok with having a license for those evil full-semi-auto guns, so why not all the others?" And giving these clowns the chance to make the medical/psychological exam both more and more expensive, and intrusive? Fat damned chance.
And saying "We'll have to trust the courts to prevent that"? I repeat: HELL no.
Just because you want to largely surrender to the enemy doesn't make it 'gun control that works'; it's another non-compromise that gives them another piece of the cake while they give up nothing.