No disrespect intended, but I think most reviewing this thread understood Lagopus' insinuation in comparing an aircraft airworthiness certificate to the properly standardized and certified proofing of guns. Many comments have been made in this thread which question the necessity, feasibility and the sagacity of instituting a proof house in the United States. I think this is understandable considering many Americans fear of the ulterior motives of our government, especially during a time when extreme liberalism has control of the government. And because of this sentiment many Americans are unusually fearful and frankly terrified the government is going to break it's promise of the 2nd Amendment and take guns away from the lawful citizen. I for one do not believe this will happen with sporting guns nor do I believe a Proof House, like that instituted by an organization such as SAAMI, would increase the likelihood of our guns being taken away. The reason being, more gun control is coming with or without a Proof House....and you can count on that despite the maneuvers of the NRA. It boils down to this for me. The proper proofing of guns has absolutely nothing to do with gun control. It's primary goal would be that of consumer safety and to prevent fraud. It's cost would be offset by the increase in value of a gun as 'in proof' as compared to one 'out of proof'. Manufacturing companies in the US such as Mossberg, Ruger, Kolar plus many others would undoubtedly have their liability reduced because much of the onus would be placed with the Proof House in terms of liability. And, a legitimate Proof House would and should share reciprocity with foreign Proof Houses.
