The other post probably got deleted because the purpose of the Activism forum is GUN RIGHTS not GUN CONTROL.
If you really think there is some benefit to licensing firearms owners (which seems debateable considering the number of states that don't even license concealed carry and have low rates of firearm death), I'd just point out that VOLUNTARY programs like concealed carry have successfully encouraged millions of gun owners to get training and licensing.
They did that by removing burdens placed on legal gun ownership, not by creating new ones and forcing people to obey them at the point of a gun. Mandatory licensing hasn't accomplished jack - both because it has wide political opposition and because many people prefer not to comply with it.
Shootingthebreeze, perhaps instead of trying to force more regulation on your fellow gun owners because you think it would be good for them, you should consider what types of incentives could be offered to gun owners to encourage them to voluntarily seek out the training you think would benefit them.
Personally, I seriously question anyone who would side with a Bloomberg-directed group against his fellow gun owners. I think it is extremely naive of you to think that mandatory licensing will not be used as a political weapon - first to limit the number of legal gun owners by making the process burdensome, and then once their numbers are limited, additional restrictions on firearms (including bans) will follow.
Anyone who lives in CT, MD, NJ, NY, or CA just saw this process in action in 2013. I can't imagine why you think it will go any differently for your state if Bloomberg or MDA achieves their goals.