....I do not perceive Registration as Larry's intent in favor of this nor is my objection to it based on this aspect....
Snip or no snip, I do not believe that was Larry's intent either. It does seem like you got my point though. Larry uses examples that have nothing to do with nor do they support the case for a mandatory proof house in America.
I see Larry's justifications as changing and evolving, the ends justify the means. Way back around the biggest of mulberry bushes, he was sure mandating British style proof marks on some guns was going to protect uninformed consumers. Now, there is a consumer education component to contend with. I see another huge problem here, as the the reason for a proof house was because the consumer could not be trusted to acquire the proper education on their own.
Buzz noted he would be the most disappointed of all if the imposition of a proof house was used for anything other than lofty ideals. Trouble is to me, I haven't noticed any possible safe guards against using a proof house to pursuit opposing agendas. The vehicle analogy may not fit completely, but I've noticed how it is much more expensive to drive something that isn't on some pc correct list.
