Your post fails as a slippery slope fallacy because it’s baseless speculation.
Lying about something that ‘might’ happen doesn’t mean it will happen.
As for O’Rourke, he’s a single individual expressing a subjective, personal opinion – he neither ‘represents’ the ‘left’ nor ‘speaks’ for the ‘left’ – to claim otherwise is a classic hasty generalization fallacy.
Firearms have been registered for decades – and not once has there been a case of ‘confiscation’ the result of registration.
Moreover, government cannot confiscate private property absent due process and just compensation.
There are well over 300 million guns in the United States – it would be impossible to adjudicate and compensate for every firearm, the process would last centuries.
To avoid Fifth Amendment Takings Clause court challenges, government would need to pass legislation making the possession of firearms illegal – with firearms rendered as contraband, the Fifth Amendment would no longer apply.
But legislation making the possession of firearms illegal would be pointless – the courts would invalidate such a measure pursuant to Heller/McDonald.
And with legislation making the possession of firearms illegal invalidated, the Fifth Amendment comes back in play.
This is why the notion of firearms being ‘confiscated’ is a lie; as ridiculous as it is wrongheaded.
Your post fails an an appeal to hysterics, fallacy. You failed to note that my post wrote out specifically, “Registration would be an obvious first step used by the left to identify firearms owners and to use that information for their hoped-for, Beto O'rourke style confiscation program.”
Nothing in my post speaks to absolutes. That’s in contrast to you insisting you know with certainty that registration cannot lead to confiscation. That is something you obviously cannot know with certainty.
While a repeal of the 2nd Amendment is highly unlikely, we know from the leftist politburo mouthpieces that such a repeal would be enabled and welcomed by leftists and their Constitution loathing minions.