Wonderful and productive conversation. Allow me to add some suggestions. Summarizing previous input: why? because they want to disarm population. What for? Yes to be in control. What for they need this control? Here we have multiple answers. I think, they have something in works that will not be popular, to the point of revolt of law abiding population. Logic says this population has to be disarmed beforehand. Criminals don't have to be disarmed, they will help to implement the changes (see Germany and Russia history). That's 1st possibility.
Somebody mentioned our budget. Here is something I'd like to know more about: "The measure would make it a crime to buy guns on behalf of individuals legally barred from possessing guns and would make it explicitly illegal to traffic two or more guns if a person had "reasonable cause" to believe a crime would be committed with any of those firearms. Violations would be punishable by fines, property forfeiture and prison sentences of up to 25 years." Source:
Bipartisan Gun Control Agreement Announced On Background Checks (UPDATE: NRA To Score Vote). Which property will be forfeited? Just the guns? Or the vehicle also? Or also the house? That would take care of the budget in no time. After all, why would you need a house when Big Brother takes care of you for 25 years? That's the second possibility.
Please remember, we have to feed about 55% of world's lawyers. We can't do it without creating adequate number of criminals. That's the third.
And now I tell you how it was in the Soviet block. Hand guns were in possession of police and higher military (on duty). Unlawful possession of any firearm - 5 years, possession of a knife longer than 4" (or one hand operated) - 3 years. Man could be stopped and searched without reason, on foot or in a car. Whole criminal law was about 300 pages in a pocketbook format. Lawyers hard to find and useless. From arrest to sentence rarely more than 2 weeks. Just to think of it, the multitude of our lawyers might preserve some of our freedoms, if not for our sake than for the sake of their well-being.
All which had to be done to prevent Newtown massacre was for mom to follow the law and keep her guns locked. The only logical response from lawmakers would be to increase penalties for people who don't take care of their guns.
"Every nation deserves it's government" - some old Greek's observation.