A comment by Uncle on less ammunition being turned in than guns in Argentina reminded me of an article in the New York Times from 1885 that I had come across. It quotes Gen. Crook on the general policy of disarming Native Americans:
"It is not practicable to disarm Indians. Their arms can never be taken from them unless they are taken prisoners with their arms in their hands, while engaged in fighting, by sudden surprise or disableing wounds *** The disarming of Indians has, in almost every instance recorded, been a farcical failure. Let me cite the case of the Cheyennes who surrendered in 1878. They were searched with the greatest care when they were confined, and it was believed with the fullest success; yet when they broke out of prison at Ft. Robinson, Neb, they appeared well armed with guns and knives and ammunition."
The article continues:
The Cheyennes already have learned from their agent and in other ways that the Government would like to disarm them, and if the troops undertake to deprive them of their rifles and ammunitions a collection of almost worthless weapons may be turned in, but their best arms will be hidden for the use of the warriors who will not hesitate long about turning them against the whites.
This was in response to a Gov't program of keeping the entire population on a reservation providing less than 4 acres of tillable land per person (one person nominally needed 10-20 depending on farming techniques) and using the military to force them back onto it if they tried to leave to get food resulting in the deaths of uncountable numbers of Native Americans.
From an article dated 1880:
It is true that the sale of arms to "uncivilized or hostile" Indians is prohibited; but that is another matter. The military forces often disarm Indians on a reservation as a military measure; but the power to take away implies the power to restore. Finally we discover in the dispute about hunting privileges that Mr. Stephans's rule is, that "if Indians wish to go more than fifteen or twenty miles from the agency they are required to obtain a pass." It seems, then, that Indians, having given up vast tracts of country to the whites, and having taken small reservations instead, are not allowed the free use even of these reservations.
Take as many guns away from them as we can, starve them to death, and restrict their movement thereby reducing their ability to fight back when we take even more land and rights from them. If they do fight back, kill them all. They're not white so who cares, right?
These are the types of historically racist and genocidal policies that are followed by gun banners to this day.