How liberals/Democrats confiscate guns.

[wehav]

First you register all those who have a gun.

Next you register all the guns they have.

Now you make those guns illegal to own.

Done.  

Now the next time somebody says otherwise just point to California or Connecticut.  Anytime the Democrats want information about you it's so they can use it against you.

[Red Steele]

just thinking, if I was batting from the wrong side of the plate, I would not want to register through a marriage certificate or other document...the pendulum has a very nasty habit of swinging too far each way.

[gough whitlam]

Dear old wehav is off his paranoia medication.

[schnurrbart]

Would like to see you talk to one of the non feminine type gays like that.  In fact I would love that!!

[4wd]

Maybe that is the problem with the gays and their demands. No one has never talked to them like that. Plain and simple english.

[schnurrbart]

The ONLY demand that gays have is to be treated like you or stiely or 20 or any one of the other righties and lefties here and around the country.  THAT IS ALL!  Nothing special or different just the same rights and privileges that everyone else has.  Doesn't hurt you or anyone else one itty bitty iota!  Get over it!

[WCMO]

Let's turn it around and totally separate "marriage" from anything political.  Then it should also be no different if we were to eliminate all laws that give advantages to "married" folks over individuals.  No such thing as "joint" tax returns, no such thing as "marital" exclusions, deductions, inheritance, etc.

[schnurrbart]

But it isn't that way except for gay people.  You and the person you love get extra benefits from being married but gays for the most part don't even if they are married--at least in some states.  The right doesn't even want them to have any benefits and doesn't want them married.  However, they would not be getting anything that everyone else has the chance to have.  You should probably tell your congressman to run with eliminating all the tax bennies for married people.  You might get it passed--I doubt it but you might!

[KNAPPer]

Why would the first two steps be necessary and why would this only be because of liberals/democrats? Could be anyone from any party would confiscate your guns given the right circumstances - politics change. You are overcomplicating it. Pretty much it boils down to if enough people abuse their rights to ownership of firearms, guns might be taken away. Pretty simple. You should fear the abusers the most because they bring about political action and any party, or all, could see eye to eye if there are enough abusers. You think too narrowly. The abusers are the main problem. Stop them and you will keep your rights. Let them run amok and there will be no stopping changes in the laws.

[r3020]

---

@KNAPPer wrote:

Why would the first two steps be necessary and why would this only be because of liberals/democrats? Could be anyone from any party would confiscate your guns given the right circumstances - politics change. You are overcomplicating it. Pretty much it boils down to if enough people abuse their rights to ownership of firearms, guns might be taken away. Pretty simple. You should fear the abusers the most because they bring about political action and any party, or all, could see eye to eye if there are enough abusers. You think too narrowly. The abusers are the main problem. Stop them and you will keep your rights. Let them run amok and there will be no stopping changes in the laws.

---

By abuser you mean the criminals? You don't mean the law abiding people of Connecticut who refused to register the fire arms?