What's this "we", Spike? I ain't trying to ban anything. "We" can't let the antis define terms, or "we" get made up terms such as "assault weapon" (something that maybe looks military, but has no additional function) and "high capacity magazines" (standard capacity magazines that hold some number higher than a person that has never fired a gun in her life feels that "we" need.)
If "we" let them define the terms, "we" get distracted from the facts:
It's not about "need", we are talking civil rights. (Late last week I started hearing arguments along the lines of "I need an AR-15 for the same reason Rosa Parks needed to sit in the front". The back of the bus is going the same place, I could use an SKS or a Garand, but we're talking about basic human rights, not needs.
God given (or, if that term makes you nervous, "natural") rights. Not given by the constitution, we were born with these rights which are protected by the constitution.
Registration always leads to confiscation. I think that there is a lot of smoke and mirrors going on right now, with the left demanding stuff that they can't hope to get through congress so that they can settle on universal background checks. If we let them distract us from the above, and the fact that the federal government should have no say over who I sell my personal property to, we still have the details of implementing universal background checks on all sales. Namely, it won't work w/out a list of all the guns and who has them and once we need the governments permission to buy and sell personal property what is to stop them from changing the rules about who is permitted?