I did a half hour ago post a long response to various members because I had time but the site blocked me posting even though I had signed in.
I hope you will take the time to re-post it when you can.
I very much want to know whether you support restrictions on civilian "assault weapons", and if so, your rationale for banning the most popular civilian rifles in the nation, when rifles are consistently the least misused of all firearms.
I'd also like to know whether you support restrictions on over-10-round magazines (given that 15-round rifles have been mainstream since the 1860s/1870s, and over-10-round handguns have been mainstream since the 1930s).
And since you bring up "universal background checks", I'd be curious to know specifics. For example, do you believe it should be a crime to allow one's domestic partner to access the firearms in one's gun safe, if neither partner is a prohibited person (or heck, if your partner has a CCW and owns other guns)? Should it be a crime for a gun owner to go on a 10-day business trip without moving his/her guns out of their home or making their domestic partner leave the premises? Because those two scenarios are precisely what UBC proposals tried to make into Federal felonies last year, among other things.
The entire gun control movement since the late 1980s has been based on bait-and-switch tactics---talking up a rosy facade of safety and responsibility, while actually putting forward very ugly legislation that targets lawful and responsible ownership rather than criminal misuse. The proposals advanced in 2013, including the NY SAFE Act and the Colorado bans, are Exhibit A. Generalities can always sound good, but I'd like to know specifics.