As far as I know, all of them - USSR, Cuba, China, Vietnam, NK etc, implement gun control. Why should their governments do that? The people of these states genuinely support(ed) socialism, if they are/were all armed they can protect socialism far better than the 1% of the population that makes up the military.
I don't understand how you're extracting from that the idea that OP thinks the government should put a gun in every civilian's hand. They were replying to a comment which said, more or less, that there weren't enough guns to arm everyone who wants a gun. OP replied, more or less, that they could have armed everyone, regardless of whether they want a gun.
I don't know anything about this topic and am not offering any opinions, but your interpretation of their argument is bizarre and as far as I can tell clearly mistaken.
OP said it was possible to put a gun in everyone's hands, blamed socialist countries for not doing so, and equated universal gun ownership with freedom.
I'd be on board with this if they responded: "Oh no, you're mistaken, I didn't mean to suggest everyone should own a gun." They didn't respond with this, though; they responded as if I was addressing what they meant to say.
They responded by saying that these states should, "just make a law that says 'anyone can own a gun now go crazy'"
That does not sound to me like they're saying that every person should be given a gun ... by force.
They responded with:
As if freedom was equivalent to the rate of gun ownership. Even "anyone can own a gun now go crazy," in context, suggests that they think this law would result in high rates of gun ownership.
What sounded like them suggesting everyone should own a gun is the "they had the capability to put a gun in every civilian's hand" language followed by the suggestion that you're not free unless tons of people own guns. It's as silly as suggesting New York City bans cars because vehicle ownership rates there are so low.
OP doesn't seem to understand that tons of people might just not want to buy guns. Aside from the obvious safety issues, they're expensive, they can make you a target for crime, you have to practice with them and maintain them to have them be useful at all, and there are plenty of situations where having a gun would do you no good whatsoever.
I maintain that you have completely misunderstood the meaning of this sentence. I still don't understand where in it you got the idea that there is an implicit, "And therefore they should have, by force" tacked on to the end.
When someone says "they had the capability to put a gun in every civilian's hand," it's pretty reasonable to assume they're talking about putting a gun in every civilian's hand.
Even if the context is that they're responding to someone who said, "There weren't enough guns to arm everyone who wanted one"
Gonna have to agree to disagree on this one, I guess.