JR: Asserting, as you do, that all gun owners are murderous freaks who hold irrational beliefs, only betrays the irrationality of your own position. There is absolutely no factual basis to anything you imply in your post.
The truth is that Bush did not tap your phone, gun owners are not crazies with wacky fears, and they are not proud when criminals misuse firearms. The overwhelming majority of gun owners are law abiding, peace loving citizens who wish only to hunt lawfully and protect their families. Certainly criminals own guns, but they are criminals first, and only incidentally gun owners. Gun ownership did not drive them criminally insane.
Finally, you are apparently not much a legal scholar. You have swallowed whole the liberal canard that the 2nd Ammendment somehow limited gun ownership to militia members, and consequently is no longer needed. In fact, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in 2007 (District of Columbia Et al. v. Heller, SCOTUS, 2007) that the right to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes is an individual right not dependent on militia membership. It also held that a total ban on handguns such as the one it struck down in D.C., and even the requirement that they be stored dissasembled or trigger-locked (as the Rush bill would mandate), was unconstitutional. Before you start typing, gather a rational argument and learn your constitutional history. If you would like to read the opinion, it is here.
I guarantee that if this bill ever became law, and it almost certainly will not, it would be invalidated by the court. Licensing people to engage in an activity explicitly protected by the constitution would be held unconstitutional on its face. A license to own a gun — not one to carry one concealed, mind you, but to own one — would place in the hands of the Executive the arbitrary power to de facto decide who gets to exercise his or her 2nd Ammendment right. Imagine that same licensing process applied to the First Ammendment, and you start to get the picture. Would you tolerate licenses for speaking freely, or worshiping freely, or writing freely? Of course not, unless you are some kind of tyrant. Let’s assume for one minute that you are not. Why would you support the government’s right to abridge a pre-existing, inalienable right, no matter what it is?
You can keep writing, and I won’t try to outlaw your right to do so. Just don’t try to outlaw my right to own guns.