Registration ==> Confiscation?

[44 AMP]

is anyone aware of a country that has had a national registration that has not confiscated firearems using that list?

Quite a few, I would think, although I am only vaguely familiar with European laws (and less so with the rest of the world) I do know there are places with full registration that have not (yet) moved to full confiscation. Yet.

Switzerland comes to mind.

The problem with these nations is the "yet" part of it. You can have guns, under the existing restrictions, fully registered (them and you) with the authorities. Every thing is fine, right?

Until a charismatic "LEADER" is elected, who believes guns in hands outside his are a threat to his power. IF/when that happens, a ready made list simply delivers the guns, and you directly into his hands.

The most famous case of this happened in Germany, from 1933-45.

[CowTowner]

The most famous case of this happened in Germany, from 1933-45.

And also happens to be the root of the GCA of 1968. Coincidence?

[thallub]

The most famous case of this happened in Germany, from 1933-45.

There was no right to gun ownership in the 1919 Constitution. The Law On Firearms and Ammunition was introduced in the Weimar Republic in 1928. In 1938 Adolph Hitler announced the Weapons Law. By 1938 the Nazis were in complete control of Germany.

Violent extremist movements (of both the Left and Right) were actively attacking the young, and very fragile, democratic state. A government that cannot maintain some degree of public order cannot sustain its legitimacy. Nor was the German citizenry well grounded in Constitutional, republican government (as was evidenced in their choices at the ballot box).

Gun control was not initiated at the behest or on behalf of the Nazis - it was in fact designed to keep them, or others of the same ilk, from executing a revolution against the lawful government. In the strictest sense, the law succeeded - the Nazis did not stage an armed coup.

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcnazimyth.html

[doofus47]

jerserf101:

Now that is the question to ask your buddies who own fire arms and still support UBC's.

So, here's how I explain UBC to my sister who thinks they make sense.

Me: Ok, we know that child pornography exists. We know that many pictures of child pornography are sent via email.
Therefore, to combat this scourge and save the children whom we know are affected every day by this scourge, I suggest that the government be allowed to look at every email that you, I, everyone send, b/c THEN they would be sure to catch those who are supporting this evil market.
Sister: "They can look at mine, I have nothing to hide."
Me: so, it doesn't bother you that people can look at, copy, maybe retransmit w/out your will, all the info that you think is a private, first amendment-protected discussion with someone else, like your lawyer?
Sister: no.
Me: I bet people who are witnesses to crimes; people who are trying to invent new-wave technology; people that might be wanting to share intimate secrets might have other opinions.
Sister: They can find another way.
Me: do you think that the child pornographers will find another way?
Sister: yes.
Me: So why do you think that UBC will stop criminals dealing in guns any more than criminals dealing with pornograpy?
Sister: it will help a bit.

There is no arguing with people who don't want to see the connections.

[44 AMP]

Using the recent law in WA as a basis, consider this analogy,

To combat drunk driving, we are now requiring you to take, and pass a blood alcohol test, each time, before you get behind the wheel of your car. you have to go to the hospital (without driving) to get the test. Doesn't matter that you have a driver's license. Doesn't matter that you have 3 cars. To prevent drunk driving everyone will have to do this. Oh, and the hospital can only charge a fee set by law.

And the hospital is under no obligation to give you the test, either.

Until a charismatic "LEADER" is elected, who believes guns in hands outside his are a threat to his power. IF/when that happens, a ready made list simply delivers the guns, and you directly into his hands.

The most famous case of this happened in Germany, from 1933-45.

My point wasn't that the Nazis instituted gun control, it was that when Hitler was elected, the framework was already there, waiting for him to use it.

And, yes, the GCA 68 was an almost word for word copy of the German 1934 law. We found out much later, but it turns out that the bills sponsor (Dodd?) had a copy of the German law, and a translation in his possession when he "wrote" the bill.

Don't think for a minute that it can't happen here. We are better protected in our rights than other nations citizens, thanks to our Constitution (bless the wisdom of the Founding Fathers) but we aren't "bulletproof", by a long shot.

[JimDandy]

To combat drunk driving, we are now requiring you to take,

The problem with that analogy is that driving is not a right. Travel is the right. Much like Concealed Carry isn't a right, carry IN SOME FORM is the right (or probably is, SCOTUS has skirted an outright statement on that)

Free Speech is a right, and- generally- photographs are speech. - To combat child pornography, every time you take or transmit/transfer a digital photo, you have to show it to the desk sergeant at the local police station and get his permission. Especially those boudoir photos your wife took for your anniversary present. And you thought the i-cloud phone hacking thing was bad.

[44 AMP]

I understand about driving and rights, and I admit its not a perfect analogy. But I choose driving because it is something that people feel is a "right" and something with a direct DAILY impact on the average person.

The point was to take something that everyone does, all the time, and restrict it. They consider restrictions on our guns rights as an abstract matter, because it doesn't really affect their lives. DRIVING is something that does affect their lives. That's the only way they can see the impact of what these laws do to us, is to show something in their lives that the same sort of restrictions would impact.

The coffee drinkers don't care much when the govt, adds a nickel or a dime to the cost of beer and soda.

But add that tax on their coffee, and they scream bloody murder.

Because it affects them, personally.