ROBIN ROBERTS: Under the Bush administration, you pretty much said the ball was in their court when it came to reinstating the [assault weapons] ban. Now, it's a Democratic President, a Democratic House. So, is the ball in your court where this is concerned?Note that Pelosi wasn't talking about the assault weapons ban in particular. She brought up the D.C. case, which dealt with handguns.
NANCY PELOSI: Yes, it is. And we are just going to have to work together to come to some resolution because the court, in the meantime, in recent months, the Supreme Court has ruled in a very -- in a direction that gives more opportunity for people to have guns. We never denied that right. We don't want to take their guns away. We want them registered. We don't want them crossing state lines as this legislation would do in the District of Columbia. We wouldn't tell any other state what to do. But Congress wants to tell the District of Columbia. So, in any event, there's tremendous work ahead on this. And we have to rid the debate of the misconceptions that people have about what gun safety means.
(See video of the interview here.)
Here's my question: Why bother registering guns if the government has no desire to confiscate them in the future? It simply doesn't make sense. Sure, there currently may be no "official" plan for confiscation, but if it ever came to that, you and I both know that it's the registered guns (i.e. those belonging to law-abiding citizens) that will be targeted first.