Originally Posted by JCL

Exactly. Controls, not confiscation.

When various people take a discussion of gun controls, such as the above, and claim that someone is taking away their guns, I conclude that that could only be true if in fact they didn't qualify under whatever rules were agreed, for reasons such as not being trained, or whatever. Those who cry the loudest about losing their guns, I suspect, might be some of the same people who perhaps should lose their guns. But if the guns are secured and the owner trained, what is the issue? What would be the point in even wanting to take those guns away?

A separate issue is which guns may be banned under such gun controls. Whole other topic.