Calling it "common sense" does not make it common sense.
A license or permit is, by definition, paying for permission to do something which is otherwise illegal. It does not guarantee competence, it just creates a revenue stream for government while creating a "crime" of mere non-compliance. Do you believe failure to comply with a regulation where no person or property suffered any injury really justifies fines, imprisonment, or death? That is the necessary and unavoidable consequence of your proposal.
One of the chief reasons to own firearms is to resist governments. A government which registers and traces firearms is antithetical to this purpose. Again, democide is a leading cause of death worldwide. Governments fundamentally do not represent the people as a whole or serve their interests.
Another reason to own a firearm is to defend yourself against two- or four-legged threats. Mandates for locks, separation of firearms and ammunition, etc. are antithetical, and serve only to again make "criminals" out of people who have committed no crime.
Revoking licenses for crimes sounds great until you see, again, how many acts and objects which are fundamentally not criminal are declared "crimes" by governments.
If people can drive safely without a license, and yet be criminals with its absence, where is the crime? I say the crime is with the law and its enforcement.
First principles: no victim? No crime. Simple as. You are advocating violence against people who have done nothing wrong because you imagine it will make you feel safer.
Drugs are illegal. Machine guns without a $200 tax stamp and registration are presently illegal in the US. Criminals manufacture or smuggle drugs anyway, and prohibition creates a violent black market which fuels a demand for guns. Blaming guns for gang violence is dumb.
Back to my initial point of press freedom, historically speaking, printing pamphlets and books without a government license was even illegal. People could face fines, imprisonment, or even execution for printing unapproved literature. How is that just? Sure, it was The Law, but legality doe snot define rationality or morality. You demand similar legislative threats against peaceful people and call it "common sense," when you are (knowingly or not) demanding violence against them. How can you justify this without appealing to emotion or some status quo in other countries?
RE: Come and Take It!