[int_19h]

It's not unreasonable to have some lines in the sand, based on one's knowledge of history. For example, I could confidently say that genocide would be a line at which I would definitely consider armed resistance to a government that would perpetrate such a thing a moral imperative, even if I wasn't a target.

And it's not unreasonable for people to ponder such things when they look at history, see the parallels to today, and realize that they _could_ be targets. For example, I'd imagine that there are quite a few Muslims in US pondering these very questions right now.

It's the specific lines that some people state ("registration of all firearms", seriously?) that expose questionable judgment on their part. Or, alternatively, the lines can be reasonable, but their perception of reality is so skewed that they treat absolutely mundane things as crossing those lines in their mind. All the conspiracy theories around Jade Helm were a good example of that.

[Frondo]

Yeah, definitely. You're right, it's not nuts to entertain the thought experiment, "what would be too far for a government?" Genocide, sure, I like to think I'd stand up against that, and defend the people who were the target.

But yeah, either putting nutty things on that list (like firearms registration, as you said), or looking at the state of the country and thinking we're anywhere near the need to overthrow a government, that's what's concerning.

There's a therapy term, catastrophizing, which I think fits here. It's where you take some situation, imagine the worst thing that could happen from it, and assume that is already happening or is about to happen. Like firearms registration leading to, what? FEMA death camps? Enslavement by the Bilderberg group?

And that's the pattern you see in all these overthrow-the-gubmint kind of conversations: X (harmless) leads to Y (not likely) leads to Z (increasingly unlikely) leads to W (totally implausible) and that's why we need to start killing our fellow citizens at X.

It's scary, but at the same time not too scary, since a lot of this stuff just falls under the umbrella of internet-tough-guy talk.

[hga]

How are you going to engage in armed resistance in case of genocide if you've allowed yourself to get disarmed beforehand? You evidently don't know the pattern of registration being followed by disarmament followed sometimes by genocide, with the PRC being the major exception to this pattern (the CCP instead used rifle taxes imposed on the rich to dry up the supply of those not in their hands).

Even in the US mandatory registration has already led to confiscations in California and New York. And more of that will likely happen if enough of the coming "Gunpocalypse" gets enacted in California, although that might await a new governor, Jerry Brown is by no means all bad on this issue.

So you're just as welcome to question my judgement as I your knowledge of history, but neither is very productive when it comes to thinking about what various people will do if pushed too far.

[int_19h]

Gun registration and/or licensing does not inevitably lead to confiscation of all guns. It may lead to confiscation of some of them (as with semi-autos in Australia), but just looking at various countries which have some form of mandatory gun registration - which is most of them outside of US - they have extreme variability in other gun control measures; from legal ownership of "assault weapons" & normal-capacity magazines and concealed carry in Czech Republic, to near-blanket bans in some Asian countries.