"They working on eliminating the stamps and tax on the suppressors and make then available as a simple purchase"
Not quite; they would be the same as a gun; you would still need to fill out the same paperwork and do the NICS check.

Because gun owners are people, just like car owners.
Cars with small children in them get stolen, because the owners leave them parked outside convenience stores with the keys in them, still running, while they pop in for only a minute.
We aren't perfect, and never will be, because we are people, just like you.
Even trained police officers leave their guns in restrooms, their cars, and other places they shouldn't, despite the fact that they are touted as being the only people responsible enough to carry guns.
You point out the exception, and claim it's the rule, which is dishonest. You blame the victim of a crime (theft), also dishonest.
You say you want a discussion, but you demonstrate that you don't know how to have an honest discussion.
Should people be more careful with their possessions? Absolutely. Especially when they can be used in a fashion that is dangerous to others, like cars. And guns. Perfection will never be reached, and safety should always be stressed. But no one advocates taking the car away from the parent who leaves his/her child in that running car. Or in the car not running in the heat of Phoenix. But you want to ban ownership of guns because someone steals them?
And, for the record, yes, I have (and use) a gun safe, as do most of the POTG I know. They value their guns as possessions they use for recreation and sport, just like their cars. People who hide their guns under a mattress are stupid, just like people who leave their cars running in front of a store. Last I heard, you can't effectively legislate against stupidity.

We, the People Of The Gun, are not "100% against any restrictions, and refuse to even discuss it," (as for the latter, the fact that we are in fact discussing it disproves that rather handily).
As I've said earlier, one of the big problems wit the less than 100% solutions offered is that those offering the solutions don't want to hear of or admit to any downside of the solutions offered, including the absolute unconstitutionality of many of them.
You say we won't discuss them, but I see you failing to hear what's said, simply dismissing the problems as not being worthy of consideration.
Take just one example: the "no fly" list(s) being used as "no buy" lists. It's been explained many times that these lists can't be used because they offer no due process to those who would be denied their constitutionally protected rights. Yet, this "solution" is still being offered. Hiow is that an example of the POTG not discussing it? They've discussed it, and been ignored.
When the left is willing to actually discuss instead of acting like a preacher laying down what is not open for discussion, then we can have an actual discussion.
I'm trying.

I have no idea where you got that from what I said.
Could you please be a little more lengthy in your question?
If I parse what you said (that illegal weapons are being produced as illegal weapons), I don't understand what you meant, but from what you said, an answer is eay to come up with. Assuming you mean illegal for an individual in the US to own, there are several. One example would be a real M4, as opposed to the semi-auto M4 sold in gun stores. Another would be a fully functional M1A1 Abrams tank. How about an M249 SAW?
I know these aren't example of what you meant, but as closely as I can parse your question, this is what you asked for. These are being produced (or, in the case of the Abrams, being upgraded), but are illegal to be owned by individuals, and therefore illegal, but not illegal for their intended user.

I think you mean "assault rifles," which actually have a definition that is unique to a certain class of firearm.
"Assault weapon" is defined differently by different political bodies, depending on state boundaries and certain additions to the gun in question which have nothing to do with the actual functioning of the gun. IOW, there's no one definition of "assault weapon," as opposed to "assault rifle."
And outside of certain of those state boundaries, "assault weapons" are perfectly legal to own.

I get the point, but now my counterpoint...
While aircraft (not just private aircraft) are registered, owning an aircraft is not a constitutionally protected right. Go through the constitution, and see all the rights it protects...
Some are: v****g, adhering to a religion, petitioning the government, associating with your friends, voicing your opinion, being secure in your person and effects, owning and using guns...
But only one of those is subject to the idea that registration of the 'thing' is necessary (try advocating a poll tax, or saying that only one political spectrum can be discussed, or you must petition the government to speak out on a street corner, and see what happens). And that thing is the only one that the constitution specifically says "shall not be infringed." For most, "Congress shall not..." is enough. Is the "thing" (the gun) so evil that it somehow seduces people to commit violence? I say no, since violence overall had dropped recently, while gun ownership has soared.
And no, the idea isn't left field in the way you meant it, but notice it does come from the left. Confusion possible but I get what you said.
The whole "We must control the "thing"(gun)" comes from a l*****t idea that personal responsibility isn't as good as some people think. Instead, government is needed to make sure we all have the right thoughts (a****a) or do the right things (student loans surpass credit card debt, for something that most graduates can't use - how does that make sense? Yet, we are still told that a college degree is necessary to "get ahead"). But trhe government simply can not protect you (and doesn't - the baseball shooting should make that perfectly clear, as well as the UPS shooting, and indeed all shootings - the government only shows up late to the party unless they are already on the scene, as in the baseball shooting, but they are still reactionary only, not preventative).
The idea that registration will somehow reduce violent crime is, on its very face, wrong - how would it do so? Those who want to commit these crimes far too often demonstrate that they are willing to lose their lives to do them, or demonstrate that they are simply so dev**ed to their particular ideas that they are willing to face the consequences, because they know in their hearts that they are right. Martyrs, if you will. Registration won't - can't - stop such things. We aren't dealing with the "thing" (aircraft or guns) but rather with the person doing the act - and there's the problem. A simple refusal to understand that the gun isn't the actor; the person is. Until we recognize and act on that fact, no amount of "gun safety" will work.

I have a problem with the "we should be doing all we can" idea.
I "can" cut down all the trees on my property. "Should" I? No.
Just because we "can"do something that someone says is reasonable doesn't mean that person has actually considered why it shouldn't be done.
At first blush, it sounds "reasonable" to require a registration of certain guns. The problem is that the very guns that most think it's reasonable for (so-called "assault weapons") are only used in an extremely small percentage of all shootings. They are only a small part of all rifles, and rifles are used in only about 5% of all shootings, according to the FBI. So those 'super dangerous' guns account for much less than 5% of all shootings, but are singled out as needing "reasonable" restrictions. How is that reasonable?
A discussion is indeed needed. But the problem I see is that the antis only want a discussion if that discussion agrees with their ideas. When someone like me brings up problems with their "reasonable" measures, they can't handle it.
I'm open to discussion. Let's actually have one.

You're right, no solution is perfect.
The problem I have, as a gun owner and an advocate of the 2A, is that that imperfection should not mean the restriction (indeed, the abolition, according to many leading politicians) of a right that the constitution says can not be restricted (understanding that no right is unconditional).

Here's a thinking game:
Considering the two things involved in violence involving guns (people and guns), neither can be eliminated. That's a given.
But which one, if it could be eliminated, would end violence? (Remember, there was much violence before there were guns)
The obvious answer is: People.
So, which is the real problem?
Yes, if we could get rid of guns, there would be no violence involving guns, but does that mean guns are the problem? I think not, because the root problem would remain: People. Violence would continue.

Something else to consider: about two thirds of deaths involving guns in the US are suicides. And that's tragic. The suicides, that is. But Japan's suicide rate is higher than ours, and gun ownership there is far more restricted than it is here, so suicide by gun is very rare. It's obvious that easy access to guns is not a factor to one actually considering suicide.
And Japan isn't the only country with a far higher suicide rate not using guns, because so many countries have much more restrictive gun laws. But suicides find ways other than by gun.

Plus, if gun "safety" was really a goal, what must be considered is just how would "safety" programs be effective? Considering that accidental death by gunshot is extremely low, but accidental death by auto is far higher, why the emphasis on "gun safety?" Wouldn't the resources be better spent on auto safety?
It seems obvious that the switch from "gun control" to "gun safety" is little more than a change in label with the goal left the same.

Having been on the other side of the counter for years, I can state categorically that the customer is not always right.
It's my opinion that ties should always go the customer, though.
In this case, it seems that by checking one box, the customer would have received the extra items, and I would think the business should step up and recognize that mistakes are often honestly made, and supply the extra items if asked.
Of course, if the items in question are included by simply being asked for, it is my opinion that they should simply be included, and advertised as an "Added Extra."

I agree with Jack: Give it a try, and find out. It won't cost you anything but a little time, in fact less time than checking back here.
I think that with that shutter speed, the anti-shake isn't doing much, though.

Well, guns get stolen. Registration wouldn't stop that, just like car registration doesn't stop cars from getting stolen. Gun owners are people, just like other people; being a gun owner doesn't make one a more responsible person. So, guns, like other property, get stolen. That's a fact that has to be "factored in" to any discussion on guns.
We already have a method of tracing a bullet back to a particular gun; the grooves in a barrel are, for legal purposes, unique. They aren't actually unique, though, especially in a new barrel. (Something I bet few readers know). But, barrels are easy to buy; a cunning criminal could easily use one barrel for a crime, then swap barrels when he stores the gun, and, if checked, would not be recognized as the gun involved in the crime.
There is also California's requirement of "microstamping," which is a scheme of requiring gun makers to mark, on two separate places, details of the gun, including serial number, in such a way that the marks will be left on any cartridge case used in the gun. One problem with this is that even the inventor of microstamping says iy isn't workable, and no manufacturer has found a way to do it reliably. CA's rules say no new handguns without microstamping ("new" includes any "substantial" changes to a current gun, like, for example, a change in the trigger profile) can be sold, therefore CA's list of pistols that can be sold there is decreasing. This fits nicely with CA's stated (by its leading politicians) to do away with guns. Another problem is that it's easy to police (collect) the brass from pretty much any gun fired at a range, then drop that brass at a crime site, thus incriminating a random innocent person.

I, also wish we lived in a world with unicorns and free housing, food, medical care, education, candy and salads, but we don't. We live in a world that is, for the most part, safe and a welcoming place for those willing to work hard and prosper, but also has the stinging and biting insects and vermin (including the two-legged type) who must be swatted when they show up. Thus the need for fly swatters, mouse traps, and guns.

No, they don't. And that's a problem, and you enable them.
There is absolutely nothing in the constitution that gives congress the right to let them exempt themselves from the laws they make the rest of us have to follow.
Unfortunately, the v**ers have let them get away with it for so long that you are convinced that they get to do it. They don't get to do it, they just do it, and illegally. V**ers who are too wrapped up in identity politics, and ignorant of what's really going on fall right into the schemes of crooked politicians, on both sides of the aisle.
As you can tell, people who don't quite know what's going on are on my naughty list, because it's not really hard to find out how things are supposed to be done. The fourteenth amendment is quite clear that the congresscritters aren't allowed to pick and choose what laws they follow. Being citizens, they must follow the same ones we do.
I understand we, as individuals, have little to no control at the federal level, but these i***ts usually start at the local level, where we have a much bigger voice. And I am constantly amazed at how little people seem to care about ethics.

You missed what I said about cars and guns: The analogy isn't valid.
And, in case you didn't know it, guns already have safety features. There are few fewer accidental gun deaths than accidental car deaths, which means they are much safer. (Do not confuse deliberate acts with accidents.)
True assault rifles are not illegal, just highly controlled. Did you know that some early M-16s are now C&R eligible?
The name given to gun control by antis is "compromise", but they don't compromise, they just take. Where does the gun control crowd ever give? They lie (the whole "We just want common sense safety laws" is a lie from the start) constantly, they dance in the blood of victims (do you really want examples?) while claiming gun owners are unfeeling, and generally have no ethics in their quest to do away with legal guns. Notice, though, they never work for stronger sentencing for those actually convicted of crimes with guns. They don't care about crime, they care about control. Their actions prove that.
Not many illegal guns that weren't legal once? Are you serious? Look at the NFA.
I don't mean this is a demeaning way, but you really should do more research.

That might work, if the owner is stupid enough to leave his gun at the crime scene.
And if the gun wasn't stolen.
Even speed cameras need to have a pic of the *driver* to get money; contrary to what you see and hear, the car's license doesn't say who was driving.

But, seriously, did you ever see how quickly a gun's history can be traced now? It doesn't require any state legislation. Which kind of makes the idea of a national gun registry being illegal a huge fail.
What are the wto reasons for a registry?
Taxation (and you can't tax a protected right, despite what you may have heard. Poll taxes are illegal.) and confiscation. New York has already done it, and California will start soon.
Sorry, gun registration is only about restricting rights, not solving crimes.

https://www.google.com/search?q=equal+protection+under+the+law&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

In our country, under the law, some people are not more equal than others.
Ethics demands that our elected officials do not see themselves as more equal, yet many still do.
Rights (especially those protected in the constitution) should apply equally to all, and just not based on your zip code.