"...I can control my new gun just fine without your meddling. I have no intention to violate the life, liberty, or property of anyone else; and declaring my purchase or ownership "illegal" only harms me while protecting no one."

So can I, control my guns if I owned one, and well might one day, and millions of others and who by all means have and should have a gun if they so wish. I would want to reserve that right. This article seems reasonable until it is critically examined. The questions I have is:

1. Why are proposals to simply perform a background check implicitly equated to banning guns or making gun ownership by law abiding citizens "illegal"?

2. In the past 12 years we have heard whinings and wranglings about someone taking guns away but in that time pretty much no guns have ever been taken away and instead ownership is at an all time high. Could it be some psychological link between those who feel like that right is been threatened when all outcomes show the opposite and some that recognize that human fear and exploit it or even sow those fears either to enrich themselves or use it to psychologically enlist the same people to the same ideological cause politically to gain votes?

3. If I as a gun owner have a right to protect myself and can, but do have a job I go to, should I be happy that the violent teen next door that has been in and out of institutions and ties cats together by their tails in the neighborhood has guns and exercises it in the backyard? All while I leave my kids at home sometimes so I can provide for them? Should I be happy they can avail themselves of a private sale? Or any other mental case? Where should the line be drawn? Am I a busy body to want to have only balanced law abiding citizens around my home having guns? Or driving cars around me? Or the kids in school my kids go to be mandated to be immunized from measles or any other harm that could be passed?

The point is that these issues are not as represented in this article at all. We all wish human liberty were absolute but they are not wherever we have shared resources and environment. If I lived in some homestead in Alaska would anyone check my gun rights? Or ask for my driving license when I drive my ATV around or on my ranch? Now that would be encroaching on liberty to the extreme. And a guy was once arrested from inside his house, even after it was established that he lived there, for been angry and rude and some normally in the liberty crowd cheered it.

Yes there are people on the extremes that want no one to have guns but they are in the minority, and there are extremes who would want side arms placed along school hallways just like fire extinguishers, (from this article clearly you don't go that far) also in the minority. And then maybe those less extreme allowing anyone to just buy or get guns from private sales, and perennially being worked up over some focus on someone taking their guns or making gun ownership illegal. In fact, as was demonstrated in NZ, its when there are no reasonable limits then greater chances of outrageous things happening, which then leads to some overreacting and going too far on the control side.