Registration has prefaced confiscation in:
Germany
Australia
England
Chicago
Washington DC
New Orleans
Now San Francisco is potentially joining that list, as they have a referendum on the ballot to ban all handguns in the city and require citizens to either get rid of them before Jan. 1, 2006 or turn them in to police without compenstation.
Confiscation and bans follow registration. The facts demonstrate this.
Why are you ignoring historical fact?
Read my lips. It has been proved that guns have been registered. It has been proved that guns have been confiscated. It has even been proved that registered guns have been confiscated. **But that does not prove that registering guns inevitably leads to confiscation. ** If unregistered guns are also confiscated, there must be some other means of locating them, which could have also been used to located and confiscate registered guns. The fact that they are registered, as well as confiscated, is coincidental. Correlation does not imply causation.
Your argument from “historical facts” is completely fallacious. Just because Y follows X on one occasion does not mean it MUST follow X on every occasion. Confiscation is never going to happen in the US. That’s just a scare tactic used to frighten people into opposing sane regulations. As politically demagoguery goes, it’s right up there with, “they’re going to ban the Bible.”
???
…do you understand what logic means?
Your arguement is that gun registration leads to confiscation.
Your citation shows that the police confiscated weapons, a subset of which were registered firearms. From the snippet you quoted, the larger set of weapons could also have include knives, polearms, and unregistered firearms. The article appeared to emphasis registered firearms to show that they were confiscated despite there registration, not because of their registration. For you to prove your case, you would have to show:
That unregistered guns were not targeted for confiscation and that unregistered guns were not confiscated
That registered guns were targeted because they were on a registery
Demonstrate the methodology that New Orleans Police used to determine how, and what weapons were confiscated
The definition of weapon as defined by the authors of the article
My argument is simple actually. This confiscation will only help the anti-gun control groups. Throw all of the logic you want. Fear Itself and I actually agree on this fact. The connection between registration and confiscation may not be as cut and dry as I would like it to be. The confiscation alone however has opened the eyes of MANY gun owners who otherwise would have had no problems at all with registration in their own communities.
Confiscation of private property without just cause is never a good thing.
Confiscation of legaly owned guns is even worse.
I agree on both counts.
We should stop now while we agree! 
Your first sentence doesn’t make any sense to me. Could I get a translation to coherent English?
The system is what enables Japan’s gun control program to function. The two are inseparable. Read the article I linked to earlier. It clearly explains how the strong police, lack of civil rights, and the justice system are linked with gun control in Japan.
I don’t know how long you’ve been living here, but if it’s any longer than about 6 months you should know from first-hand experience that there are a lot of myths outsiders hold about Japan that don’t hold up to scrutiny. The “peaceful society” myth is one of them, along with the gun control fallacy. You’re praising something that you clearly don’t fully understand.
How about this:
Every household gets a rifle and two pistols. In order to stay true to the intent of the founding fathers, this means a muzzle-loader, a brace of flintlock pistols, a barrel of black powder and another of shot. All other firearms are prohibited except for the army and police. Hunters can still hunt. Families can still protect their households and will be on equal footing (vis a vis firepower) with highwaymen and footpads. Citizens can still form a well-regulated militia of about the same effectiveness against the black helicopters as if they were packing conventional small arms.
However, little Johnny will have a much harder time hosing down the elementary school cafeteria. Disgruntled employees will have to stop and reload for every former coworker they wish to execute, and the odd crazy person in the clocktower will have an awfully hard time picking off random strangers with any accuracy.
Everybody’s a winner!
I’d like a cite on this quote please, including the full context of it. I’m pretty sure this is purely in reference to the Assault Weapons Ban, and not some potential confiscation as the result of registering weapons.
60 Minutes 2/5/1995 She was gloating over her recently passed assault weapons ban.
And if I remember her quote correctly, she intended to skip the registration part and just get on with the confiscation or the “turning them in” part of the plan. So in that case I guess it could be sid that registration would not have led to confiscation.
If she had the number of votes needed, registration would have been a needless step in the process.
And then there’s Feinstein and Schumer in 2003, trying to pass a law even stricter than 1994’s so-called assault weapons ban:
These people want bans. They have said as much. I’m tired of giving an inch only to have it not be enough the next time they want an inch. It’s the death of a thousand slices and I’m not buying it anymore.
That fucking Feinstein quote was only about assault rifles, not all guns. I know it’s a favorite quote on gun fetish sites but it’s misleading bullshit. Squawking about gun confiscation is ridiculous, alarmist nonsense.
And the difference is. . .? “Assault Rifle” is a meaningless term made up by politicians. There is no functional difference between many “assault rifles” and other firearms that didn’t have the cosmetic details the law was written about. If you can push through a ban on one class of guns, it’s not that hard to do for the others. If nothing else, it sets a precedent which could make future bans easier to implement.
I have little doubt she was including other classes of guns in her quote anyway. I lived in California at that time and heard quite a lot of her rhetoric.
These guys are as slow as FEMA!
No. The national assault WEAPON ban (AWB) has sunseted because IT was alarmist nonsense.
And she did say it right?
Yes, and good for her. You don’t need an assault rifle and you have no settled constitutional right to own one. You’ll live.