And what of the facts of all the MANY instances where gun registration has NOT led to confiscation?
It is OPINION, not fact, that registration is a slippery slope to confiscation. But what we ought to be able to agree on is the need to fix the Second Amendment so that the Constitution can effectively stand as a bulwark against such slippery slope. And yes, that's my opinion.
I have repeatedly asked you to provide those examples where registration has not led to confiscation. Numerous examples, foreign and domestic exist which refute that concept and show that registration ultimately leads to confiscation of privately held firearms. So, Have at it. Let's have that list of MANY instances where it hasn't (yet).
The Second Amendment exists for the sole purpose of keeping the right OF THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms free of government interference, because its purpose was to ensure that the people retained their power by being capable of altering or abolishing that government if it became abusive and it became necessary. In the 18th century, the carrying and possession of arms for other lawful purposes such as self defense and hunting was a given, so universally understood there was no need to codify such. it was, after all "common sense". (As John Prine put it, "Common sense ain't so common any more.")
In the federalist Papers, it is laid out in the discussion of the standing federal Army, that while each State had its own army (Militia, in the parlance of the day), the Federal Army should be large enough to defend our States' mutual borders, to intervene in military conflicts between any of the several states, but small enough as to not be able to overwhelm the combined efforts of all of the states. While much of that structure was changed due to the War of Northern Aggression, the principle remained that that Federal Army (or any of the States' armies) would be held in check from becoming instruments of tyrannical oppression by the sheer force of arms which could be mustered by the population at large, which by force of individual arms and overwhelming numbers, even in the absence of martial training, would be enough to deter such attempts at that tyrannical imposition.
For that purpose, the 2nd Amendment was crafted, that the People could regulate (control) the actions of the Government, not vice-versa, and that the government would not interfere with that ability.
All that need be done for the Constitution to act as a bulwark against the slippery slope is to quit greasing that slope with the mindless drivel of those who would disarm us all, for whatever motive, with the inevitable (even if unintended) consequence of totalitarian oppression. Liberals are famous for not thinking things out, for having starry-eyed theories that ignore salient points which inevitably have disastrous and unforeseen (by the liberals) results, when implemented. The social experiment of LBJ's Great Society is a textbook case, if the liberals were honest enough to print it for what it is. There is no reason to believe the loose manure of liberalism will in any way improve upon the traction on the slope of social decline, and the meaning of the Founders and their intent is plain for any who wish to read it.
