You keep making that false claim, I'll keep pointing out it is false.
It doesn't matter how you use it. It only matters where. And then your false analogy falls apart.
If you don't use it on public roads, you don't have to register; you do not have to insure.
But you want all guns, anywhere for any reason registered. In spite of the fact that ~97% of guns used in crimes were illegally obtained in the first place.
Yes, @thackey, I know you keep making that argument. And it continues to make no sense to me. Carving out an exception from registration for vehicles that aren't used on public roads is analogous to carving out an exception from registration of firearms for historical/collectible weapons that are rendered inoperative. The intended use of 99% of all cars is to drive them on public roads, where they can potentially cause mayhem. Just as the intended use of 99% of all guns is to fire them, and maintain them in condition where they can potentially cause mayhem. What is the "false analogy" you're so hung up about?
Drivers must take responsibility. Why not gun owners?
The fact that most drivers obey the rules of the road doesn't excuse them from being licensed and registering their vehicles. So it is for gun owners - sure, most obey the law, but the purpose of registration is to help make sure that
all transfers and dispositions of firearms are documented. That legitimate law enforcement purpose for registration, as noted in the Heller II case, creates only a di minimis burden on the lawful gun owner.