Some gun regulation doesn't mean total confiscation (A new meme?)

The Reporter-Herald ^ | January 10, 2013 | James Ure

[2ndDivisionVet]

To the editor:

A recent editorial called for unlimited gun ownership to defend against the government. I hear this argument a lot, but what good is your AR-15 when you're fighting the full force of the United States military? All they have to do is drop a smart bomb on your house from high above and you're done. You wouldn't even see it coming. Alternatively, they could simply run over your house with a Kevlar-plated M1 Abrams tank, or shell your dwelling from cannons positioned far away.

I support the right to bear arms to protect your home and family against criminals, but your shotgun isn't going to do much against the U.S. Marines. It seems some gun advocates think any gun regulation is the first step to total confiscation of all weapons held in private hands. This is ridiculous and paranoid. Just because some want to limit gun ownership to non-semi-automatic weapons, doesn't mean the next step is a total ban on all guns. Even if there were enough people to support such a drastic measure, which there are not, they'd have to scrub the U.S. Constitution of the Second Amendment. As a historian, I can assure you that such a task would be nearly impossible...

[RetiredTexasVet]

Tyrants always act out of fear. Remember when the Food Stamp President visited Afghanistan .... he not only has the Afghanistanis disarmed (his fellow Muslims) but also the military personnel present. Only those military leaders whose meteoric rise to the top was through anal smooching can be counted on by his pond scum administration. He needs that civilian force (armed and trained as well as the military) to carry out his plans because the military cannot be counted on to perform unconstitutional acts. You see the same thing throughout history from the Roman Praetorian Guard to Hitler’s Gestapo to Russia’s KGB to the Food Stamp President’s Homeland Security & Justice Dept.

[Figment]

Machines don’t like fire

[Blue Collar Christian]

This writer doesn’t know that a big ol’ bunch of Marines and other military, along with commandeered tanks, fighter jets and smart bombs will be fighting alongside us, and that the action to defend against tyranny is not going to just stay defensive.

[Axenolith]

“Our military does not do well when fighting people who are fighting for their freedoms on their own turf. We lost in Vietnam...”

I take respectful issue with that, at worst we left it as a draw with never a lost battle, and promised to supply the south with munitions which CONgress subsequently reneged on. Not to mention the fact that high level policy whonks admitted publically that they never intended it to be a “won” war (which, in a just world, would have had them rotting from a lamppost in an iron maiden).

[Axenolith]

bump to that...

[SWAMPSNIPER]

This ignorant turkey doesn’t know or chooses to overlook that any rifle projectile suitable for hunting deer will overcome standard police vests.

[Travis McGee]

Tell it to the Armenians, Russians, Jews, Chinese, Cubans, Guatemalans, Ugandans, Rwandans, Cambodians, etc.

1. Registration 2. Confiscation 3. Extermination

Question:
Did the Turks, Nazis and Soviets treat their scapegoat enemy populations better, or worse, after they were disarmed?

THINK!