Since we're talking ideals a little here... I always thought gun laws should pretty much be like your driver's license.
You turn the right age, learn a few laws, and go get your paperwork filled out. Every few years, you get a new picture and pay your $20 to renew it. This repeats UNLESS you do something highly stupid (like get in a drunk driving accident or go on a shooting spree) that gets it taken away.
I think people must know the laws regarding firearms (like what "self defense" and "brandishing a weapon" are), which is the only reason I think it should be licensed at all. Like driving, though, it should not be a hard test to pass or be restrictive at all. So many people have them that it acts as a common form of ID and you're surprised when someone doesn't have one.
If you want to run background checks, do it when someone gets the license and when they renew it, not every time they buy a gun. It's really ridiculous. If I buy a gun a month for 12 months, you don't need to background check me each time. Do I have a license? If so, then I didn't break any laws that would get it taken away.
Like driving, getting caught with a gun without a license means you're really screwed.
Unlike driving/cars, I don't think guns require insurance and registration.
Most states (seem to) assume drivers know what they are doing and will follow the rules until they mess up. I think firearms laws should make the same assumptions.
Most laws that cover firearm usage already exist. It's illegal to kill or injure or strike someone unless they are an immediate threat to you. It's illegal to threaten someone, to damage property, and to overthrow the government. They don't need to add "with a gun" to every law out there.
Ammunition laws? Give me a break. We need that about as much as we need gasoline laws. Maybe, outside chance, maybe, I'd go along with a regulation of quality, but I think the economic market takes care of the really low quality stuff on its own.
Carry laws? As long as you aren't killing, threatening, or damaging anything (i.e., breaking any other laws), there shouldn't be any problem with carrying. Personally, I'd be more likely to allow anyone to concealed carry and license open carry (I live near a major city, though, where open carry pretty much guarantees a cop will be having a little talk with you while you are covered with multiple weapons, perhaps after you are bleeding and laying in the ambulance). Along those lines, I'd require LEOs to have one of those open carry permits. I'm not saying you'd have to be an LEO to get one, just that the same rules apply to everyone. For the most part, I think if you are allowed to own it, you should be allowed to carry it. ANYWHERE. I do think there should be limits on carrying while drunk or stoned (for the same reasons you shouldn't drive in that condition, your judgement and reflexes are impaired).
Machine guns? Just like above, if you can afford one and haven't been any threat to anyone, why not? I'd bet you can do a lot more damage with an SUV if you really tried than you could with a machine gun.
A comparison to speed limits.... OK, no bullets faster than the speed of light. That seems to be covered under the laws of physics already, so no need for the government to repeat it.
For larger hardware, like missiles, bombs, cannons... I think they are in the category as tractor trailers and airplanes that do require a little more control and licensing.... not saying that it's not possible, though.
Should you be required to report one stolen? Yeah, I think so. But I don't think it has to be within the first 20 minutes or else it becomes a felony or something stupid like that.
Should you be required to keep them locked up in an unusable condition with kids in the house? No, I just think there should be a little common sense applied on the part of the owner (see above for "assume people know what they're doing").
Pretty much, I want laws that set the rules in general (no killing, stealing, etc), and leave out the part about how you do those things.
and so it goes on.....