Conversley, if the populous never believes that certian weapons are so much trouble or so bad that they should be removed, registration will never lead to confiscation. There is no casue and effect — they just represesnt different degrees of the same notion.

Nope, not a lawyer. The biggest problem was with your use of “always.” Sure, registration has led to confiscation in many places, but in other places, it hasn’t. The more honest way to state the objection is not that “registration always leads to confiscation,” but that registration makes confiscation somewhat easier, should society decide confiscation is prudent. And this is every bit as true with cars and computer software and anything else as it is with firearms. It’s just that since the stated purpose of most firearms is inherently violent, society is far more likely to demand confiscation of these than of cars or computer software or anything else.

What your fears tell me, frankly, is that you expect to lose the debate. You don’t have confidence that you can convince the general population that gun ownership is a good thing (or, at least, not a bad thing), such that the public turning against you (the gun owner) is inevitable. And that, to me, seems like a pessimistic attitude.

Ben:

By your standard, what Yosemite said can never be disproved. We could go two millennia without gun confiscation, and his statement still “could” be true, because they could come and take the guns “tomorrow.” I was limiting the scope to something more practical. All I need is an example of somebody who registers their firearm, and lives a long and productive life, and goes to the grave without ever having their firearm confiscated, and Sam’s point is essentially disproved.

And I’d argue that registration isn’t necessary for confiscation, although it does make things a whole lot easier.

Last, when did taxation enter the equation? That was never part of the argument. I suspect you injected taxation, because without it, your last sentence would have been silly, since there are lots of examples of private property registration that haven’t led to widespread seizure. So you introduce “taxation” to the picture, but that makes you look nearly as silly, since very few would seriously argue that mild-to-moderate taxation is anywhere near in the same ballpark as seizure.

I still am eager to be furnished with example of .gov registration of private property that failed to lead to taxation and/or seizure down the road.

:p

Stupid country, see why I left and will never go back.

But as it is, all I need to do is produce one person who owns a registered firearm and hasn’t had it confiscated, and the “point” is disproved.

There are plenty of other examples. Owe taxes you cannot repay? Involved in a drug-related offense? Owe back alimony? Your vehicle can be confiscated. (Unless, of course, you are among the privileged (cite: http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/03/384.asp).)

There’s also the matter of the constitution explicitly singling out firearms ownership (and perhaps carry, too) as a protected right. No other property is afforded this protection.

I would be glad to know of cases in which government registration of property did not lead to (increased) taxes on that property and/or outright confiscation.