That (the high fees required for legal gun ownership) is exactly the technique that many of the more-pragmatic gun-control activists are trying right now. It's clear that there's too much opposition amongst the rest of us to push through many more actual bans or obvious laws, so they're taking a hint from the anti-tobacco forces. That tactic involves a three-pronged approach: first, stigmatize the product and users of the product. Anti-smoking people have done this quite well, as have many of the anti-gun folks in certain parts of the country (where I live, for instance). Second, fire class-action lawsuits at the manufacturers. This has worked fairly well for the anti-tobacco folks, relatively poorly for the anti-gun folks. Third, raise taxes to change behavior/price people out. These taxes may be in the form of the ever-popular 'sin tax', such as those that make a pack of cigarettes out here cost $5, or in the form of 'stealth taxes', like the aforementioned $350 in fees to purchase a firearm.
Sad thing is, it's pretty effective. It requires a lot of scaremongering, but scaremongering works often enough. It's the classic slippery slope. But as soon as you've got something demonized, people don't seem to have many problems with taxing it into submission, even if it does make self-defense the sole province of the rich (who can afford the fees) and the powerful (who can swing the licenses).
For what it's worth? I agree with The Reaper's version of the Second Amendment.
Oh, hell, I'm getting ahead of myself. First post. Been lurking a long time. Let me introduce myself. My name's Dan. Got out of the Army after four years as an 11B in Korea and Campbell, currently attending UC Santa Barbara to get my history degree, with an aim of re-enlisting under 18X. Pleased to meet y'all.
--Dan