Earlier quoted context omitted.
> common sense regulations make sense See, and like that you've lost me. That's exactly the sort of politicized weasel-wording that has been used repeatedly to pick away at gun owners. State what precise regulations you mean, and then we can have a productive discussion.
You're not off to a good start in a debate when your opening salvo includes the phrase "politicized weasel-wording". I'm not a politician. I'm a gun owner who thinks it's okay for there to be some restrictions on gun ownership that I would also have to abide by because I genuinely believe it would make things safer. Think for a second about why you chose those words instead of simply asking, "what do you consider to…
Now, to tackle them in reverse order:
> as opposed to the minor inconvenience it would be for law abiding citizens, so I doubt it would ever be possible.
There is no concrete benefit for law-abiding citizens above the system we already have in place here. Like, it's not immediately obvious that the proposed changes clearly make things better (unlike, say, requiring seatbelts in cars).
> you can simply say that if you are the registered owner of a gun and it's used in a crime, even if you didn't fire the gun, unless you processed the transfer you're personally liable.
This fails (badly) to account for firearms that have been stolen. See also: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/07/27/new-e...
If you want to make the argument that "gun owners need to keep better track of their guns"...it's their property, so that should be their choice. We don't require people to know exactly where their car is, or to know where their bicycle is, or where their axes are (even though all of those could and are used to wound others).
> Private party transfer and gun shows would be a bit trickier to regulate
Again, it's unclear that there is good reason or precedent for regulating the transfer of property here.
> you're a fool if you think they don't already have this information.
One could make the same argument about requiring people to cc the NSA on every email they make to people outside the continental US: just because it's happening doesn't mean we should set legislative precedent.
> Currently if you're a convicted felon you can't own a gun.
There has been a lot of work in the last few years to try and restore that right, actually. This makes sense given the arbitrary enforcement of non-violent felonies.
It's hardly assumed that felons (given our current judicial system) have any moral obligation to be unarmed.
> You should need to present this permit when making all further firearm and ammunition transactions, including private party transfer and at gun shows.
Why, exactly? What is the purpose of this?
What benefit or supposed safety do we get from having this?
And if the benefits are so great, shouldn't we just make this near-mandatory training during schooling, as we do with driving?