I didn't say I would tolerate no discussion. I am discussing. You are the one dismissing and mis-characterizing the points and arguments of people like me and groups like the NRA.

What invention? I gave you numerous concrete examples of laws, proposed legislation, and policies that solely penalize lawful ownership and use of firearms. That you dismiss these and pretend they are not there doesn't mean they were invented…only that you have no response to them that doesn't reveal your anti-gun as…

What's sensible legislation? Would you characterize bans on semi-automatic so-called "assault weapons", mandatory "liability" insurance that forces law-abiding gun owners to pay for the criminal acts of others, punitive taxes on guns and ammunition as sensible?

Then I dismiss your position because it all comes down to "why don't you just let us regulate, restrict, and impose costs on the exercise of your rights?"

Well, if you're OK with punitive taxes on the exercise of constitutionally protected rights, don't care if burdens are placed on rights you don't personally approve of or care about, care more about placing additional burdens and restrictions on law-abiding gun owners than you do about going after criminals, and…

But that's already on the books and not at issue here. I asked about "PROPOSED gun control policies or legislation". Proposed.

A lawsuit can be used as a weapon to frustrate the free exercise of rights. Legislation that is not enacted demonstrates intent and may be enacted in the future, given the power to do so. The NJ law required a very rapid phase in, and required all firearms to come equipped with this extremely expensive and unnecessary…

1) We impose sales taxes on other products, but not additional PUNITIVE taxes. That is, gun and ammo purchases in several places (most recently, Seattle) are subject to an additional punitive taxes or fees, that do nothing more than financially penalize those exercising their right.

OK, I've pointed out many examples of legislation and proposed policies that support my statement in this thread. Let's see if you can supply some examples of proposed gun control policies or legislation that directly target the criminals and does not primarily restrict or regulate law-abiding gun owners.

Bans on some semi-automatic firearms, or so-called "assault weapons", exist in several states, and there are renewed calls for such a ban at the federal level. CT is currently in court over their ban. Hillary Clinton, the presumptive Democratic presidential candidate no less, even advanced the idea of an…

1) Do we impose costs on other rights like voting, speech, etc.? If you are so concerned and think background checks are so effective, why not have all citizens pay for them through taxes?

The system is easily circumvented, error-prone, and not aggressively enforced. Perhaps keeping people convicted of violent crimes incarcerated, where we can better control their access to weapons, makes more sense than releasing them onto the streets and restricting the rights of law-abiding citizens in a round-about…

Well, there are already punitive taxes and fees on firearm and ammo sales in several places, bans on commonly owned firearms, several attempts to forcibly require that gun owners surrender banned guns, proposals to compel gun owners to purchase expensive and unnecessary "safety" equipment, proposals to impose…

I, like many others, am not opposed to expanding background checks in theory. It's where theory meets practice that things become very risky and often burdensome. To start with:

People, including active duty and retired military, are generally not allowed to carry firearms on base. Please inform yourself before you comment.

So it's biased, relies on anecdotes and emotional reasoning, and fails to confront the fact that virtually all gun control policy is aimed at restricting, penalizing, and regulating legitimate, lawful use of firearms by law-abiding citizens rather than criminal use of firearms by law-breakers. Think I'll pass.