---

Well there's the documented history of Cuba pre-Castro and their extensive gun registration and restrictions which left the populace helpless as Castro over threw the government.


Then there's also the well documented history of Germany pre-Hitler and their extensive gun restrictions, all though it probably wouldn't have stopped the NAZI party from rising in Germany.


Then there's the pre-Soviet Union era where the Bolsheviks attempted to disarm all the peasants. After the civil war Lenin allowed only hunting rifles to be owned by peasants (sounds familure only reason to own a rifle is to hunt?) Stalin went a step further and actively disarmed the peasants during collectivization.


The United Kingdom in 1921 created it's handgun registration and then every decade after instituted stricter laws until present day guns are essentially non-existent in the UK.


New Zealand in 1921 created a registration of revolver owners in the 1970's that list was used for confiscation.


Canada in the 1990's used the registration list to confiscate guns grandfathered in without compensation to the estates.


1996 Australia used their registration list to confiscate all semi-automatic rifles.


Let's bring it home,


In Chicago during the 1990's the long-rifle registration was used to confiscate all semi-auto long guns owned in the Chicago city limits.


In California they had a fun issue with the SKS after the registration period was closed they went back and forth every few years if the SKS was covered or not. Eventually many counties used the registration list to confiscate registered SKS rifles and without compensation to the estates. Later they offered to compensate the owners of SKS rifles with receipts of confiscation only twist was they didn't give receipts when they where confiscated.


that's a short list, I'd challenge someone to find me a registration list that hasn't been used to confiscate or restrict ownership of firearms.

Wouldn't the example for the UK though actually help the argument for those who want stricter gun regulations?

---

I'm not sure that means anything. Crime is actually down from when he grew up, no?

---

Wouldn't the example for the UK though actually help the argument for those who want stricter gun regulations?

 

The question was when has registration precluded confiscation, I'm just giving the history of registration leading to confiscation. Now the debate about gun ownership and the consequences of a disarmed society is a different topic.

---

Sure if you want to ignore every tyrannical regime in historically just about every other region of the world guns in America is the root of all our problems.


I guess you also have to ignore the highest crime rates in America are in the areas with the strictest and therefore lowest amount of legally owned guns.

 

If Guns prevented crimes, wouldn't America (the country with the largest concentration of guns by far) have the lowest crime rate?  That seems like common sense to me.  Ergo, guns don't prevent crimes.  


You say you're okay with 1000 criminals owning guns if it means not registering your gun.  How about 2000?  3000?  10,000?  At what point do you say "You know what, we need to stop criminals from having guns."  When gun violence actually affects you?

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

If Guns prevented crimes, wouldn't America (the country with the largest concentration of guns by far) have the lowest crime rate?  That seems like common sense to me.  Ergo, guns don't prevent crimes.  


You say you're okay with 1000 criminals owning guns if it means not registering your gun.  How about 2000?  3000?  10,000?  At what point do you say "You know what, we need to stop criminals from having guns."  When gun violence actually affects you?

 

When criminals start obeying laws I'll consider passing laws about gun ownership, in the mean time you're only making it difficult for law abiding citizens to arm themselves.

 

As for guns effecting crime rates, yes the areas of America that have a high number of gun owners have a drastically lower crime rate then area's with strict gun laws. You see the high crime concentrated in the North East with draconian gun laws. You don't see mass shootings in the South, why because as the two ISIS members found out, we shoot back.

---

I don't think the guns are the problem. It's the idiots with the guns. I'm pretty sure the next step is electing Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho as our next president..

---

When criminals start obeying laws I'll consider passing laws about gun ownership, in the mean time you're only making it difficult for law abiding citizens to arm themselves.

 

As for guns effecting crime rates, yes the areas of America that have a high number of gun owners have a drastically lower crime rate then area's with strict gun laws. You see the high crime concentrated in the North East with draconian gun laws. You don't see mass shootings in the South, why because as the two ISIS members found out, we shoot back.

 

Actually reports show that states with most gun deaths are the states with the weakest gun laws.  On the other side, the states with the largest gun restrictions (Massachusetts, Hawaii, New York) also have the lowest gun deaths.  

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

Actually reports show that states with most gun deaths are the states with the weakest gun laws.  On the other side, the states with the largest gun restrictions (Massachusetts, Hawaii, New York) also have the lowest gun deaths.  

 

Gun Deaths can mean suicides, accidental shootings, murder or police involved shootings so that's a pretty broad stroke to use to support an argument.

 

According to CBS the District of Columbia which has a total gun ban has the highest rate of gun deaths

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/states-with-...un-deaths/

---

Gun Deaths can mean suicides, accidental shootings, murder or police involved shootings so that's a pretty broad stroke to use to support an argument.

 

According to CBS the District of Columbia which has a total gun ban has the highest rate of gun deaths

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/states-with-...un-deaths/

 

Yes, and Hawaii, New York, and  Massachusetts are among the lowest.  Alaska on the other hand is among the highest, and has some of the weakest gun laws.  So is Alabama, Tennessee, Nevada, New Mexico, Louisiana, Montana, Wyoming, Mississippi, and Arizona. Most people in DC just go to Virginia or Maryland to get their guns. It's that easy. 


 

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

Yes, and Hawaii, New York, and  Massachusetts are among the lowest.  Alaska on the other hand is among the highest, and has some of the weakest gun laws.  So is Alabama, Tennessee, Nevada, New Mexico, Louisiana, Montana, Wyoming, Mississippi, and Arizona. Most people in DC just go to Virginia or Maryland to get their guns. It's that easy. 


 

 

That is all based on "gun deaths (criminal and accidental) per capita, there's no way with a straight face you can tell me you're more safe in New York or Massachusetts then Montana or Wyoming.

 

You want to compare apples to apples compare New York (high population strict gun laws) and Texas (high population relaxed gun laws) and their crime rates.

---

"Whether or not you buy that reasoning, and it does make sense to me, what about the notion that tougher gun laws have or would make any difference? With the toughest gun laws in the nation, Chicago saw homicides jump to 513 in 2012, a 15% hike in a single year. The city’s murder rate is 15.65 per 100,000 people, compared with 4.5 for the Midwest, and 5.6 for Illinois.

 

Up to 80 percent of Chicago murders and non-fatal shootings are gang- related, primarily young black and Hispanic men killed by other black and Hispanic men. Would tightening gun laws even more, or “requiring” background checks, change these conditions?"

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/20...s-plummet/

---

Well there's the documented history of Cuba pre-Castro and their extensive gun registration and restrictions which left the populace helpless as Castro over threw the government.

 

Then there's also the well documented history of Germany pre-Hitler and their extensive gun restrictions, all though it probably wouldn't have stopped the NAZI party from rising in Germany.

 

Then there's the pre-Soviet Union era where the Bolsheviks attempted to disarm all the peasants. After the civil war Lenin allowed only hunting rifles to be owned by peasants (sounds familure only reason to own a rifle is to hunt?) Stalin went a step further and actively disarmed the peasants during collectivization.

 

The United Kingdom in 1921 created it's handgun registration and then every decade after instituted stricter laws until present day guns are essentially non-existent in the UK.

 

New Zealand in 1921 created a registration of revolver owners in the 1970's that list was used for confiscation.

 

Canada in the 1990's used the registration list to confiscate guns grandfathered in without compensation to the estates. 

 

1996 Australia used their registration list to confiscate all semi-automatic rifles.

 

Let's bring it home,

 

In Chicago during the 1990's the long-rifle registration was used to confiscate all semi-auto long guns owned in the Chicago city limits. 

 

In California they had a fun issue with the SKS after the registration period was closed they went back and forth every few years if the SKS was covered or not. Eventually many counties used the registration list to confiscate registered SKS rifles and without compensation to the estates. Later they offered to compensate the owners of SKS rifles with receipts of confiscation only twist was they didn't give receipts when they where confiscated. 

 

that's a short list, I'd challenge someone to find me a registration list that hasn't been used to confiscate or restrict ownership of firearms.

That does not answer how it is plausible. Gun ownership has become to most Americans a basic tenet of what it means to be an American. No bans would ever become legal and no Military coup would be even remotely successful, IMO

---

I disagree it's not the lack of individualism that has lead to our crisis of culture if anything it is the focus on the collective.

 

Focusing on the collective has let generations of families ignore the reality they are ultimately responsible for their well being and that of the generations to follow. focusing on the collective good of society has lead to the erosion of individual responsibility, accountability and ultimatum initiative to better ourselves. I love how everyone (not focusing this at you just ranting here) wants to point at how well things are done somewhere else, and yet this is the only place in the WORLD that has been free of tyrannical rule since it's founding.

 

We need a revival of radical individualism we don't have an excess of it, individualism requires ownership of ones decisions. There is no ownership in our society today, it's someone else fault, someone else built it, and someone else owns it. Give me individualism over collectivism all day every day. To hell with the collective.

I think our idea of radical individualism is different and I'm on some strong meds right now to combat a serious sinus infection so am not even going to try to form the thoughts necessary to explain it to you. I will say I agree with your last paragraph to a point. 

---

That does not answer how it is plausible. Gun ownership has become to most Americans a basic tenet of what it means to be an American. No bans would ever become legal and no Military coup would be even remotely successful, IMO

The same way the left does everything, creeping encroachment over decades. They play the long view better than the right does, that's why their modern day successes find their beginnings more than a hundred years ago.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

The same way the left does everything, creeping encroachment over decades. They play the long view better than the right does, that's why their modern day successes find their beginnings more than a hundred years ago.

What you call encroachment I call progress.

 

That still does not explain the plausibility of the country just up and banning guns and seizing guns. Forgive me but I just don't see gun lovers letting that happen let alone the rest of the rational population as it's a direct violation of the constitution that needs no interpretation. Not without an amendment that requires the voice of the people.  

---

What you call encroachment I call progress.

 

That still does not explain the plausibility of the country just up and banning guns and seizing guns. Forgive me but I just don't see gun lovers letting that happen let alone the rest of the rational population as it's a direct violation of the constitution that needs no interpretation. Not without an amendment that requires the voice of the people.  

 

It's been done everywhere else to think because we're "Americans" it won't happen here is to say we are immune from the historical evidence that registration has lead to confiscation. I believe it would be a slow progress, first cross checking the database for anyone in the home that is deemed "mentally ill" anyone with PTSD, any household where perhaps the mother or father are taking medicine for depression any home where a child is take Ritalin or another behavior modifier. Next you would see a move to limit the amount of weapons or the capacity those weapons can fire, a registration could cross check how many firearms are in each home. Next you'd see legislation forbidding the passing down of weapons upon death they are turned over to the state.

 

It would be very easy to eliminate 80% of the public from the ability to own a weapon, it wouldn't take long at all it never has. Just because we're American doesn't make us immune from the threat of tyranny, that's why we where given specific protections but history has shown the state will only limit itself in the regards that we the people demand.

---

That does not answer how it is plausible. Gun ownership has become to most Americans a basic tenet of what it means to be an American. No bans would ever become legal and no Military coup would be even remotely successful, IMO

 

The idea that guns protect us from tyranny is a bit funny.  I mean the government has drones.  So good luck dealing with those with guns if the government were to ever decide to go tyrannical on us.  

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

The idea that guns protect us from tyranny is a bit funny.  I mean the government has drones.  So good luck dealing with those with guns if the government were to ever decide to go tyrannical on us.  

 

No one's saying it would be a fair fight

---

It's been done everywhere else to think because we're "Americans" it won't happen here is to say we are immune from the historical evidence that registration has lead to confiscation. I believe it would be a slow progress, first cross checking the database for anyone in the home that is deemed "mentally ill" anyone with PTSD, any household where perhaps the mother or father are taking medicine for depression any home where a child is take Ritalin or another behavior modifier. Next you would see a move to limit the amount of weapons or the capacity those weapons can fire, a registration could cross check how many firearms are in each home. Next you'd see legislation forbidding the passing down of weapons upon death they are turned over to the state.

 

It would be very easy to eliminate 80% of the public from the ability to own a weapon, it wouldn't take long at all it never has. Just because we're American doesn't make us immune from the threat of tyranny, that's why we where given specific protections but history has shown the state will only limit itself in the regards that we the people demand.

I understand the concerns gun owners have I really do. I do not think they are warranted but I understand them.

 

Trying to defend gun ownership people with mental instability is.... sketchy at best. Can't get behind that and is a terrible example to use IMO. 

 

As for the bolded, I stated those protections as my basis for the implausibility of government seizure of guns. Let's be honest the fervent owners would die before letting it happen, the American people would not stand for that. I guess I understand where you come from in that you think the people have no power over the government and in same cases you are correct. This is not one of them IMO. 

---