I've been giving some thought to what I believe "reasonable" gun control should look like. It goes something like this...

First of all - I accept the possibility that the government has the ability to take away your right to own a weapon; after all, the government has the ability to restrict your other fundamental rights if you violate the social contract. Commit a violent crime, be adjudged insane, etc. The flip side of that coin is that there should be a clear route to having your rights restored - serve your time, be adjudged no longer insane, etc. If you feel someone is too dangerous to own a firearm, why are they on the streets at all? All of the following statements have an assumption that the owners/users are otherwise law-abiding citizens.

• No restrictions on purchase or possession on private property of any firearm that throws a non-explosive projectile. Muzzle-loading single shot musket through fully-automatic tripod-mounted machinegun.
• Purchasers of firearms may be required to go through an instant background check to make sure they are not prohibited persons (see above) - no storage of records.
• To carry concealed in public requiring a certification that the person carrying has passed a basic firearms safety course. This course to be readily available at a nominal cost - not to serve as a barrier to ownership.
• No duty to retreat, and a Castle Doctrine.

Who is a prohibited person? Someone who has been convicted of a violent felony, and is on parole for that felony, or who has been sentenced to being a prohibited person as part of his sentence for a violent crime (IE, 5 years prison and another 5 years of being a prohibited person). Someone who has a medical condition that would make them unsafe to own a firearm (damn rare) or carry in public (somewhat less rare); defined fairly tightly to prevent abuse. That's it.

I'd accept firearms registration, or owner registration, only if there was an iron-clad CONSTITUTIONAL guarantee that there would be no use of the register to disarm or otherwise restrict ownership. Doubt that's going to happen, and given the history of gun/owner registries (it starts with a registry - then a ban and a round-up of the registered and now-illegal guns) it would have to be really convincing.