Upon enlisting in 1949, I spent my young adult life being intimate with military weapons and was required to be proficient in use of them, as were all military men of that era.

I volunteered for a tour in Korea, 1951-1952, mandating a Colt 45 being strapped to my body or an M1 rifle slung over my shoulder everywhere I went.

Holding a civilian aviation rating, I even volunteered for Vietnam (helicopter training) in 1964, but that war needed younger pilots than me. Good thing, too. I likely would have been one of the first killed.

This brief intro is not meant to point out my attraction to war, only that it qualifies me to talk the talk, and walk the walk. The value of my military background, though it made me familiar with weapons, also made me appreciate their value and recognize their necessity during peacetime.

Nevertheless, I don't own a gun, never have in my adult life. And I don't have any future plans on buying a gun. But guess what? I recently joined the National Rifle Association (NRA), anyway, to help bolster the Second Amendment -- one's constitutional right to own and/or carry a gun.

Now take notice. The antigun people, (Democrats, liberals, leftists, however you wish to label them) whom want to get rid of guns (and the Second Amendment), are gun-control zealots. They have an obsessive-compulsive attitude about getting rid of guns of all kinds and seem to live in a fool's paradise, a utopia that doesn't include firearms and violence.

Consider the following excerpt from Wayne LaPierre's reply, CEO of the NRA, who spoke in response to President Obama's inaugural address.

"Obama wants you to believe that putting the federal government in the middle of every firearm transaction -- except those between criminals -- will somehow make us safer. ... He wants to put every private, personal transaction under the thumb of the federal government, and he wants to keep all those names in a massive federal registry. There are only two reasons for that federal list of gun owners -- to tax them or take them."

Comments that Obama made as a state senator in 2001 bear his position out. In an interview with the Chicago Defender, he stated, "I'll continue to be in favor of handgun law registration requirements and licensing requirements for training."

Let's take a look at the history at what happened in some cases over time -- people who registered their guns to government in democratic societies.

(1921) New Zealand, registration of revolvers required -- ownership allowed in the name of personal defense. In 1974, this list was used to confiscate all revolvers.

(1921) The United Kingdom instituted handgun registration. About every 10 years or so, they further restrict what can be owned and use the registration rolls to collect what is illegal.

(1967) In New York City, a registration system enacted for long guns was used in the early 1990s to confiscate lawfully owned semiautomatic rifles and shotguns. The New York City Council banned firearms that had been classified by the city as "assault weapons."

(1989) California revoked a grace period for the registration of certain rifles (SKS Sporters) and prohibited certain semiautomatic long-rifles and pistols. Upon the death of the owner, they are either to be surrendered or moved out of state.

(1990) Chicago enacted registration of long guns and used that same registration to confiscate semi-auto long guns.

(1995) Canada prohibited previously legal and registered small-caliber handguns. The guns are to be forfeited upon death of the owner with no compensation to the estate.

(1996) Australia banned most semiautomatic rifles and semiautomatic and pump shotguns, then used its list of registered semi-auto hunting rifles to confiscate all those weapons.

Moral of this story: Gun registry of any kind is a smokescreen for eventual gun confiscation and violation or abuse of one's Second Amendment rights. Government will always lie about true intent when it comes to gun registration. It's the nature of the beast.