I've thought the same way recently, in fact the anti-gun "zero compromise scorched earth policy" is part of the reason why I've grown to like the right to bear arms. Amongst other ideas that would be considered conservative.
Gun control has always been the appetizer for gun confiscation.
EDIT: for those who think I'm misinterpreting:
Clinton made the comments during a campaign stop in Keene, N.H., when an attendee asked about Australia’s 1996 and 2003 buy-back programs that collected roughly 700,000 banned semi-automatic rifles and other firearms.
"I think it would be worth considering doing it on the national level, if that could be arranged," Clinton responded.
dublinben, please show me how I'm misinterpreting what she said rather than just accusing me of doing so.
""I think it would be worth considering doing it on the national level if that could be arranged," she said in response to a question about Australia's nationwide buyback initiative that began in 1996."
I, uh, would have to say that checks out?
Unlike the voluntary buybacks in the United States, Australian buybacks of 1996 and 2003 were compulsory, compensated surrenders of particular types of firearms made illegal by new gun laws.
The financial compensation was paltry; that for being converted from a citizen to a subject...?
One reason for the general failure of gun buybacks in the US is two responses from the gun savvy:
1) Go back a bit from the front of the line, and if you see a valuable weapon held by a noob (vs. a likely crime weapon), buy it on the spot for a lot more than what's being offered.
2) Gather up clunker weapons with values much less than the $100 or whatever they're offering and make out like a bandit.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/01/24/firearms-enthusia...
As far as the feds are concerned, as long as you're not "in the business", you're OK, and these buybacks tend to be rare and one offs. In practice and from their viewpoint, the first case of valuable guns is OK because there don't tend to be too many of them and there can be many different people doing this for any one buyback, in the latter case it tends to be FFLs who play that game since they can easily have a collection of junker guns they've bought but that didn't sell.
In some non-free states, you cannot legally transfer your property to another private individual.
The truth may be ugly, but it does no one any good to pretend it doesn't exist.
Same people, different generation, different government.
Is it perfect? No, but nothing human is. Is it accessible? Oh yes. Is it something I, and everyone else, can work to be a part of and make better for all citizens? Of course. Do guns play any role at all in that work? Not a one. This--the discussion of the role of government in a democratic society--is a place for words and ideas, not weapons.
We are past the might-makes-right attitude of "I have guns so I'm OK". Now we talk.
While attempting to do that you might realize that you in fact do live in a world where might-makes-right and that the "democratically-enacted rule of law" paradise they sold you through your TV is just that.
You might also realize that you are wrong in thinking that the US government is made up largely of people like you, neither wealthy nor well-connected. This is the epitome of naivete, to think US politicians aren't wealthy and their careers aren't a game of who-knows-who.
You said that the democratically-enacted rule of law "paraside" is something that TV sold me.
I don't own a TV set, and I spend the occasional evening and weekend being part of that democratic process. I engage with the other folkspeople in my community, and with our elected officials, some of whom I'm already on a first-name basis with. We talk about stuff, upcoming new regulations, the state of the city and neighborhoods.
I get that you feel pretty disempowered, but I can't really think that that's anything but your choice. I also get the sense that guns give you back that sense of being empowered, like "even if no one listens to me, at least I have a gun." That's not any meaningful sense of power, though, you're not going to persuade people to come around to your point of view with a gun. A gun in your pocket just doesn't give you any democratic legitimacy.
Which, it's funny, buying your way into a false sense of power, while relinquishing your own actual legitimate political power, that's the sad thing.
Oh, but I'm naive. Yeah, getting out there and engaging politically is hard. I'll just go buy my way into a meaningless sense of power, and stay at home instead. King of my castle, while democratic society passes me by.
This justification is how the U.S argued for its independence - the "Right of Revolution" [0]. Which has since been codified as illegal in US law [1] yet remains protected under many state constitutions [2]. I'm not sure how the conflict is resolved.
On a larger scale - look at your countries' history - look at your current influence on the world - look at how many military bases you have around various points in the world. Your country has the largest military spending in the world by a large amount [3].
The U.S of A is the living, breathing definition of "might makes right". It won its independence by might-makes-right. It became a global superpower by might-makes-right. It enacts treaties and forces embargoes because might-makes-right. It aids in overthrowing foreign governments to prop up agreeable leaders for their own benefit - and they can do this because might-makes-right.
Rest assured that "might makes right" is how things are done to this day. It's just that nobody tries to overpower the USA, so you don't notice it as often as the countries the USA plows through.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_revolution
[1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2385
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_revolution#Examples_a...
At best (e.g. the land-use fee scammer Cliven Bundy situation in Nevada) you can delay enforcement of your obligations, but that doesn't make you "free," it just means you're reneging on your part of the citizenship bargain wherever you live.
Why that's considered a good thing, I have no idea. I certainly don't want to live in a might-makes-right world. I'd rather live in one consisting of a democratically-enacted rule of law.
You're wrong, because—without hyperbole—historically the difference between a citizen and a slave has often been arms-bearing. The ceremony for manumission of a slave in some areas included a gift of a weapon.
There are also other categories than citizen/slave.
Related, I was just reading something about the history of the fall of the Roman Republic, about a threshold where a class of men without significant economic means were allowed to enlist, which lead to them being dependent on their general's largess, and developing allegiance to him instead of the Republic.