Let’s see, ignoring for the moment the simple truth that A before B does not imply causation and any questions about exactly what “established gun control” meant in each instance, is it possible to find other similarities in the cases mentioned?
In 1929, the Soviet Union was ruled by a totalitarian regime.
In 1911, Turkey was ruled by a totalitarian regime.
In 1938, was ruled by a totalitarian regime.
In 1935, China was ruled by a totalitarian regime.
I am not familiar with the details of Guatemalan history. Perhpas someone eldse can supply them.
In 1970, Uganda was ruled by a totalitarian regime.
In 1975, Cambodia was ruled by a totalitarian regime (which in this one case had no part in passing the gun control laws in the first place).
Of course – none of this is necessarily relevant to the question I asked. I asked for support for the often asserted idea that registration will necessarily lead to confiscation.
Hint: if you wish to argue historical precedent you will need data about the population of all countries which have required firearms registration and the subset of those countries which have sunsequently confiscated all registered weapons.
I am not sure why you felt it necessary to post instances in which governments have committed attrocities against populations under their control. I have certainly not argued that no government has ever done bad things to its citizens.
The best lack all conviction
The worst are full of passionate intensity.
*
Thanks, Spirit - I had problems with that list, but didn’t know how to phrase it.
Freedom: You might want to add a number of countries to the list: most West European countries, Japan etc. I still haven’t heard about the Danish Secret Police rounding up anyone - and we’ve had gun control since 1945. That’s 55 years … What I’m trying to say is: It’s possible to run a democratic and free nation without having to arm the citizens. It CAN be done.
I have NO idea whether it’s the right solution for the US - having read some of the gun control threads, I’ve more or less come to believe that it’s not, and that our cultures have bigger differences than I’d imagined. (Damn, I’ve learned something). Anyway, what I think about it is mostly irrelevant, it’s your issue to handle.
Ok, my point: It annoys me quite a lot when people make a broad statement along the lines of: “Every nation with gun control is a tyranny or will arguably become one”. There’s a couple of us unwashed furriners who like to think otherwise and who’ll try to keep our countries free and our societies as unarmed as possible.
Norman
(Oh, and just to make sure nobody thinks I’m a New Age pain-in-the-ass who’s scared of things that go “bang”: I’ve done quite a lot of target shooting, served a year in the regular army and kept a Home Guard H&K G3 in my home since 1984 - except for the two years when I had a light machine gun instead.)
Very good. You’ve gone part of the way, so keep thinking. A before B does not prove causation, but B surely wouldn’t have happened had A not been in place.
The totalitarian governments to which you referred-could they exist in the absence of stringent gun control?
CalifBoomer:
If you have no answer for the questions, it would save time if you simply say so.
Is it your position, then, that there has never been a totalitarian regime that did not enact strict arms control before coming to power? That is an entirely different question, of course, but if you are unable to answer my questions and wish to hang your reasoning on that particular peg we can discuss it.
The best lack all conviction
The worst are full of passionate intensity.
*
Sure, just explain what your point is in making the point the aforementioned were all totalitarian governments. No doubt they had many things in common. Or are you simply denying that gun restriction can lead to oppression?
You just quoted the relevant passage, CalifBoomer. Here – let me highlight it even further:
As to your next post:
I might have a better chance if I decided to demonstrate that CalifBoomer’s were behind the curve in reading comprehension. Will you kindly call to my attention anywhere in this thread (or others) where I have advocated prohibiting firearms to competent citizens?
My initial point was simply that there is a middle ground to this debate, but it is often obscured by the vehemence and fallacious reasoning of the extremes. I appreciate your providing me this support.
The best lack all conviction
The worst are full of passionate intensity.
*
“Middle ground” is the territory occupied by those with neither courage nor conviction.
“Extreme” is a code word used by the left. You think a literal interpretation of the Constitution is ‘extreme’? I think it means what it says. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed
Yeah, the real problem with David Owen, Ross Perot, Nelson Mandela, Jose Napoleon Duarte, and Dwight Eisenhower is that they lacked courage and conviction. (That sentence was intended ironically.)
So the term “extreme left” is only used by leftists?
Yes. Communist agents are people, and nuclear arms are arms. It’s pretty extreme to intepret the U.S. Constitution to mean that the government cannot infringe the right of communist agents to keep and bear nuclear weapons on U.S. territory.
I do too. I also think the Constitution means what it says about Congress having the power “To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia”, meaning all private armed citizens. Licensing, training mandates, and safety requirements seem like reasonable ways to organize and discipline private armed citizens, but I suppose the courts would make the final decision.
Congress also has the power (Article I, Section 8, Clause 15) to create a process for calling out the militia. You can’t call people out if you don’t know who they are, so Congress obviously has a right to create an exhaustive roster of gun-owners.
Yeah, like the Framers of the Constitution, for instance. Those spineless yellow-bellied delegates were willing to give in to having a single president (Jefferson wanted 3 of them, to impose checks and balances within the executive branch itself), a bicameral legislature (to appease both the high-population and the low-population states), and having a slave count as 3/5 of a person. That whole Constitution was just one great big pile of middle-ground compromises. Feh. Let’s burn it to the ground. :rolleyes:
