Gun Grabber: Let’s turn America into a full-blown police state to get guns off the streets

posted at 11:30 am on April 27, 2007 by Bryan

The V Tech tragedy should have been a mostly apolitical event: One lone nut with no obvious or even tentative connections to any larger criminal or political conspiracy went off and killed a lot of people. To be sure, there are side issues that the tragedy does raise, from gun control to how we deal with the mentally ill and the like, but our fundamental rights as law-abiding citizens should not be at issue. Guns didn’t commit the crime, nor did stable, law-abiding citizens. One man’s heinous crime should not become the reason that 300 million Americans lose a fundamental Constitutional right. If anything, I would argue that Cho’s crime highlights the need to increase concealed carry permits. Countering his force with equal or greater force might have saved some lives.

Dan Simpson, a former ambassador writing in the Toledo Blade, doesn’t see it that way. At all.

Now, how would one disarm the American population? First of all, federal or state laws would need to make it a crime punishable by a $1,000 fine and one year in prison per weapon to possess a firearm. The population would then be given three months to turn in their guns, without penalty.

Hunters would be able to deposit their hunting weapons in a centrally located arsenal, heavily guarded, from which they would be able to withdraw them each hunting season upon presentation of a valid hunting license. The weapons would be required to be redeposited at the end of the season on pain of arrest. When hunters submit a request for their weapons, federal, state, and local checks would be made to establish that they had not been convicted of a violent crime since the last time they withdrew their weapons. In the process, arsenal staff would take at least a quick look at each hunter to try to affirm that he was not obviously unhinged.

It would have to be the case that the term “hunting weapon” did not include anti-tank ordnance, assault weapons, rocket-propelled grenade launchers, or other weapons of war.

All antique or interesting non-hunting weapons would be required to be delivered to a local or regional museum, also to be under strict 24-hour-a-day guard. There they would be on display, if the owner desired, as part of an interesting exhibit of antique American weapons, as family heirlooms from proud wars past or as part of collections.

Gun dealers could continue their work, selling hunting and antique firearms. They would be required to maintain very tight inventories. Any gun sold would be delivered immediately by the dealer to the nearest arsenal or the museum, not to the buyer.

The disarmament process would begin after the initial three-month amnesty. Special squads of police would be formed and trained to carry out the work. Then, on a random basis to permit no advance warning, city blocks and stretches of suburban and rural areas would be cordoned off and searches carried out in every business, dwelling, and empty building. All firearms would be seized. The owners of weapons found in the searches would be prosecuted: $1,000 and one year in prison for each firearm.

Clearly, since such sweeps could not take place all across the country at the same time. But fairly quickly there would begin to be gun-swept, gun-free areas where there should be no firearms. If there were, those carrying them would be subject to quick confiscation and prosecution. On the streets it would be a question of stop-and-search of anyone, even grandma with her walker, with the same penalties for “carrying.”

Jaw-dropping stuff, that. Let’s form special police squads to invade every home in the United States and search them for guns. And while we’re at it, let’s have police stop-and-search people randomly on the streets, who haven’t done anything wrong, and lock ‘em up for exercising their 2nd Amendment rights. That’s beyond the pale on the invasive scale. Hand guns are small and easy to hide. To find them, every home in America would have to be torn apart nearly brick by brick. Every car, shed, basement, attic and air duct would have to be searched. Every yard, searched with metal detectors. And it’s laughable to think that even that would work. We’re a big country. There are a lot of place to hide guns.

This unrealistic, draconian, and idiotic solution to the problem of gun violence is the kind of thing only a starry-eyed denizen of US diplomacy could come up with. It won’t work even if we wanted to try it, and wouldn’t stop guns from being here or getting here. It would just fulfill the cliche that if you ban guns, only criminals will have guns, but with a twist: Every gun owner in a America would become a criminal overnight unless they succumbed to a police state.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Gun Grabber: Let’s turn America into a full-blown police state to get guns off the streets

Why not gentle, tolerant Canada did. Door to door war resulted in confiscation, don’t your remember the front page news stories and all the MSN coverage?

Who here believes that the will of the people is the guide our government uses to decide the future of our nation?

Does any sane person in America actually believe that the government of the United States is so trustworthy that as citizens we can give ourselves completely into our governments gentle care?

“It is not the function of our government to keep the citizen from falling into error; rather, it is the function of the citizen to keep the government from falling into error.”
Justice Robert H. Jackson

“Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action.” ”George Washington

“Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.” ”Patrick Henry

” When the government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.
Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826)”

The same rules apply now as then.

Speakup on April 27, 2007 at 1:16 PM

Socialized Germans are not scrub Texas police officers. Sorry. My father was a cop. If some politician told him to take Moe’s guns away pop would have left that politican in a cottonwood tree.

Limerick on April 27, 2007 at 1:16 PM

And they scream about all of the so called rights lost under the Bush administration. But, it would be alright to tear through my home searching for a legally owned gun.
Yeah, perfect logic there.

hoosierken on April 27, 2007 at 11:38 AM

Amen, bruddah!!!

Lonevoice on April 27, 2007 at 1:17 PM

Same old GC arguments, I expected as much as soon as I heard the last election results. Even so, I’m buying what I can afford now, ‘cuase if you think this is looking bad, imagine what will happen if the Dhimmicrats own both houses of congress and the white house.

P. James Moriarty on April 27, 2007 at 1:19 PM

” When the government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.
Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826)”

Except in the case of the insane lib moonbats. Their fear of the government is firmly rooted in BDS.

csdeven on April 27, 2007 at 1:23 PM

You know liberals want to remove the second amendment just so they could strip away the first, fourth, sixth, seventh and ninth amendments for conservatives.

Defector01 on April 27, 2007 at 1:23 PM

Good grief! Some of you are going to pull out your rulers and measure your *&*& with all this testosterone flowing around about killing the imagined gun-grabber at your door.

Bradky on April 27, 2007 at 12:58 PM

Actually a tape measure, LOL

americaslaststand on April 27, 2007 at 1:23 PM

Limerick on April 27, 2007 at 1:16 PM

I love Texans!

csdeven on April 27, 2007 at 1:24 PM

americaslaststand on April 27, 2007 at 1:23 PM

Odometer.

csdeven on April 27, 2007 at 1:25 PM

Are you saying they would import the special police force from other countries? THAT’S scary and I wouldn’t put it past them.
csdeven on April 27, 2007 at 1:15 PM

Why would this have been used as an example if this wasn’t some thing that the troop might have to be prepared to do?

Socialized Germans are not scrub Texas police officers. Sorry. My father was a cop. If some politician told him to take Moe’s guns away pop would have left that politican in a cottonwood tree.
Limerick on April 27, 2007 at 1:16 PM

My point is that the liberal politicians keep pointing to Europe as the example and how we should strengthen our ties with them and be more like them. Given another 9/11 level event, how hard would it be for a liberal president to declare martial law and ask the EU/UN for assistance to quell the “uprising”? Local law enforcement loyalties could be moot.

Catseye on April 27, 2007 at 1:26 PM

To those who think this can’t be serious, and that they wouldn’t try it under a communist democrat administration I have one word.

WACO.

Nobody was punished for that atrocity (which led to the Murrah bombing), the law enforcement community charged with protecting its citizens did not do so, and even the governor was complicit in the assault. Remember, among the many bogus charges against the Davidians was their possession of firearms. (Not bogus because they didn’t have any; bogus because possession of firearms cannot be illegal.)

Hiraghm on April 27, 2007 at 1:26 PM

OK let me see if I’ve got this right. We’re going to ban gun ownership, 2nd Amendment zing out the window. Form special “Police Squads” powered to search, without warrant and/or probable cause everyone house, business and vehicle, 4th Amendment, zing out the door. Now let’s look at “their” solution. If I as a gun owner, and yes I have a few being a “right” wing nut case, refuse to turn my guns in then I’m going to jail for a year.

Just where do they plan to come up with all the jail space? Our prisons are already over crowded with criminals. Of course we’re only talking about murders, rapist, robbers and such. I’m sure we can set a few loose to make room.

Why not just quit electing Presidents and just ask Kim Jong-il if he’s free.

SPIFF1669 on April 27, 2007 at 1:27 PM

Catseye…I understand your point about libs/eu/un. All laughing aside……the first ‘black-helicopter’ in Wise county Texas would end up being a BBQ pit.

Limerick on April 27, 2007 at 1:30 PM

Limerick on April 27, 2007 at 1:30 PM

Oh, having lived all my life in AR/TX/NM, I have no doubt of that. It’s just this thread has had so many “There’s no way, I’ll kick their a$$” type comments, I thought a little reality to the possibilities should be introduced. We have politicians that are almost quoting Stalin and are in power now. Well, Stalin starved approx. 20 million people to death to get part of the Soviet Union control.

Catseye on April 27, 2007 at 1:38 PM

On the day following the shooting, I was at my base shoppette (like a 7-eleven) grabbing a red bull. The woman behind the counter was a local (German). She looked at the television and said, “I’m glad we don’t have guns all over the place here in Germany.”

I said, “So was Hitler”

She didn’t like that.

Black Adam on April 27, 2007 at 1:42 PM

Here’s the reason this guy is an absolute pathetic moron deserving of a lobotomy.

Gregor on April 27, 2007 at 1:55 PM

Good grief! Some of you are going to pull out your rulers and measure your *&*& with all this testosterone flowing around about killing the imagined gun-grabber at your door.

Bradky on April 27, 2007 at 12:58 PM

At least some of us haven’t been “fixed”.

There has been talk of gun control for over thirty years now and nothing has moved at all. Lots of rhetoric but never more than a handful of representatives willing to put their name to such a bill or suggestion.

Bradky on April 27, 2007 at 12:37 PM

Some of us believe that 1977 was a very different world than 2007 based on legislative activities and Executive orders in 1986, 1989, & 1994.

There are some of us that believe that a roll back to 1933 and before would present a more palpable environment for our testosterone filled bodies.

Gun Control has already happened (ref 1934, 1968). Vigilance and defiance is the only thing that presents this idiots fantasies from becoming reality.

CZ52GUY on April 27, 2007 at 2:02 PM

What a recipe for disaster. Who in their right mind is going to think people will simply hand over their arms or surrender them to armed “police” squads? Anyone wishing to implement such a plan had better hire a lot of “police” for their numbers will rapidly diminish at the hands of folks like me, and they’d better hire a lot of body guards as well. There are a lot of folks out here who understand that such orders of confiscation originate with someone or some ones.

This isn’t England or Australia. This isn’t criminal syndicalism, either. This is the ongoing fight for freedom.

Woody

Look at your rights and freedoms as what would be required to survive and be free as if there were no government. Governments come and go, but your rights live on. If you wish to survive government, you must protect with jealous resolve all the powers that come with your rights – especially with the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Without the power of those arms, you will perish with that government – or at its hand.

woodcdi on April 27, 2007 at 2:02 PM

On the day following the shooting, I was at my base shoppette (like a 7-eleven) grabbing a red bull. The woman behind the counter was a local (German). She looked at the television and said, “I’m glad we don’t have guns all over the place here in Germany.”

I said, “So was Hitler”

She didn’t like that.

Black Adam on April 27, 2007 at 1:42 PM

F’n priceless, man. And so very true.

Simpson merely illustrates the fact that the only thing worse than what liberals have done to screw up this country is what they want to do to screw up this country.

ReubenJCogburn on April 27, 2007 at 2:05 PM

CZ52GUY on April 27, 2007 at 2:02 PM

Vigilance is great but running out and screaming the sky is falling every time one individual offers some talk like this is hysteria.

Not sure what your fixed reference is about – that was a JOKE about everyone talking about their big guns.

Bradky on April 27, 2007 at 2:09 PM

change guns to “illegal aliens” and the article isn’t half bad, really.

lorien1973 on April 27, 2007 at 2:15 PM

Since Dan Simpson is a member of your editorial board it appears that The Blade is endorsing the repeal of the first, second, fourth, fifth, eighth, ninth and fourteenth amendments to the Constitution of the United States.
Perhaps Mr. Simpson and the editorial board should spend some time in Russia, Bosnia, you pick it, to see what life is like in a police state before cynically exploiting a tragedy to grandstand their leftist politics, smearing law abiding citizens and making an absurd moral equivalence between the murder’s knife and the surgeon’s scalpel.

RC2 on April 27, 2007 at 2:19 PM

I would like to see Mr. Simpson attempt his strategy in the inner city gang turf areas of America. D’OH!

infidel4life on April 27, 2007 at 2:20 PM

change guns to “illegal aliens” and the article isn’t half bad, really.

lorien1973 on April 27, 2007 at 2:15 PM

Niiiice

americaslaststand on April 27, 2007 at 2:21 PM

It would have to be the case that the term “hunting weapon” did not include anti-tank ordnance, assault weapons, rocket-propelled grenade launchers, or other weapons of war.

How am I supposed to bag any deer without grenade launchers?!?

SouthernDem on April 27, 2007 at 2:21 PM

WHY DON’T LIBERALS HEADS JUST EXPLODE FROM THIS KIND OF MASSIVE HYPOCRISY?

Professor Blather on April 27, 2007 at 11:51 AM

Because there’s nothing up there to exert pressure on the skull.

steveegg on April 27, 2007 at 2:22 PM

About these “special police squads”..I wonder what their uniforms would look like?

KelliD on April 27, 2007 at 11:54 AM

Brown shirts, jackboots, and the obligatory H&K submachine gun.

steveegg on April 27, 2007 at 2:23 PM

Perhaps Mr. Simpson and the editorial board should spend some time in Russia, Bosnia, you pick it, to see what life is like in a police state before cynically exploiting a tragedy to grandstand their leftist politics, smearing law abiding citizens and making an absurd moral equivalence between the murder’s knife and the surgeon’s scalpel.

RC2 on April 27, 2007 at 2:19 PM

Acutally, they’re “Mr.” Simpson’s dream, especially the pre-1991 Soviet Union. Perhaps a better trip to send him on would be 1930′s Germany or 1930′s Italy, just to remind him that there are unintended consequences.

steveegg on April 27, 2007 at 2:30 PM

Fred Thompson continues to run away from the pack. Latest AFA poll numbers.

Gregor on April 27, 2007 at 2:31 PM

Why would this have been used as an example if this wasn’t some thing that the troop might have to be prepared to do?

I agree with you.

csdeven on April 27, 2007 at 3:18 PM

Most hysterical statement in the article:

America’s long land and sea borders present another kind of problem. It is easy to imagine mega-gun dealerships installing themselves in Mexico, and perhaps in more remote parts of the Canadian border area, to funnel guns into the United States. That would constitute a problem for American immigration authorities and the U.S. Coast Guard, but not an insurmountable one over time.

Yeah…they have done just a dandy job with drugs and illegal aliens.

Cold dead fingers for sure!

brtex on April 27, 2007 at 3:20 PM

oops…bad quoting. I guess my blood pressure is up…

brtex on April 27, 2007 at 3:22 PM

Not sure what your fixed reference is about – that was a JOKE about everyone talking about their big guns.

Bradky

Whenever someone wants to badmouth members of the gun culture, the gun=penis crap always surfaces. This bit of projection is the equivalent of Godwin’s Law on the gun blogs …

Sorry, Bradky, but we really do know the difference between a firearm and a penis, even if you have trouble with the concept.

When I can kill at 100 yards with my penis, I can discard my pistol.

Kristopher on April 27, 2007 at 3:25 PM

Kristopher on April 27, 2007 at 3:25 PM

Where did I badmouth members of the gun culture? I even said I don’t want changes to the second amendment.

A sense of humor is a wonderful thing.

Bradky on April 27, 2007 at 3:32 PM

Reminds me of Swift’s “A Modest Proposal”.

mikeyboss on April 27, 2007 at 11:48 AM

Honestly, it just reminds me of something a group of eighth graders could cook up as a sociology class project. It’s pure John Lennon “wouldn’t it be nice” fantasy entirely untainted by practical or moral consideration. For fascism, it isn’t even convincing or creative.

Blacklake on April 27, 2007 at 3:41 PM

As a child I played cowboys and Indians with cap guns. I had a Daisy Red Ryder B-B gun.

Was Dan Simpson the inspiration for the Christmas Story? “You’ll shoot your eye out, Danny!” /sarc off

kiakjones on April 27, 2007 at 3:44 PM

Ambassador to where …. the Land of Oz?

Unbelievable.

fogw on April 27, 2007 at 11:41 AM

URANUS

sdd on April 27, 2007 at 3:53 PM

We just found Rosie’s replacement.

Tantor on April 27, 2007 at 4:10 PM

Where did I badmouth members of the gun culture? I even said I don’t want changes to the second amendment.

A sense of humor is a wonderful thing.

Bradky

Gee … it might have been you’re bashing of gun-culture folks here for supposed alarmism. The reason the Dem-Cong does not attempt gun control ( right now )is exactly because of folks like me very deliberately flying off the handle when some socialist twit makes noises about gun-grabbing.

I am quite capable of humor … the last sentance of my last post is an example.

It is quite possible that neither of us find the same things humorous.

Kristopher on April 27, 2007 at 4:10 PM

I’m still just in awe here of the incongruity between liberal hysteria about fascism … and this eagerness to truly abandon our freedoms in favor of a police state.

I’m not going to debate the specifics of Second Amendment law, but there is at least an argument to make that it was never intended to guarantee a right to self defense; it is a fair debate to suggest that the framers did not have individual citizens with handguns in mind. I’m not supporting the argument – but its a valid discussion.

But there is NO QUESTION AT ALL what the fundamental purpose of the amendment was: to guarantee the people (usually meaning the people of individual states) the right to bear arms in order to protect themselves FROM THE GOVERNMENT.

The rest is debatable. This is not. The British disarmed parts of the population – and the colonists understood exactly how important an armed, organized citizenry was. The WHOLE POINT was to give citizens, if absolutely necessary, a means of overcoming tyranny from their own government.

Short aside here: the irony of this is that arguably you could regulate handguns – since they’re generally useless as military weapons – but local and state militias should really constitionally be permitted to arm themselves with military weaponry … tanks, planes, and machine guns, oh my. That was clearly the sort of “well organized militia” the framers in mind. But I digress.

The point here is that liberals who embrace the gun grabbing are ALSO embracing that which they claim to fear most: absolute surrender of their self-determination to a government that has all the power and – now – all the weapons.

It is mind-boggling. To abandon the Second Amendment is to abandon the Constitution, to abandon freedom. What the editorial writer is saying is that – even as he preaches Bush hatred – that he ABSOLUTELY TRUSTS the government not to abuse the ABSOLUTE power he’s willing to give it.

It’s completely baffling that ANY American would be willing to make that trade-off. But frankly, liberals – if they believe what they claim – should be the very last ones so eager to surrender their rights.

I’m never going to understand this. Yes, I know liberalism is, by definition, cognitive dissonance. But this is like claiming your a Cowboys and Redskins fan – at the very same time. And that’s impossible.

By the way, anybody watching “Jericho?” I’m finding the way guns are treated in the show to be fascinating. Apparently, if Hollywood realizes there just might be a day when armed citizens would really need weapons to defend themselves.

Go figure.

Professor Blather on April 27, 2007 at 4:20 PM

Are you saying they would import the special police force from other countries?

I hear the Republican Guard is looking for work.

BacaDog on April 27, 2007 at 4:20 PM

When I can kill at 100 yards with my penis, I can discard my pistol.

Kristopher on April 27, 2007 at 3:25 PM

Is it okay to say “You will take my penis when you pry it from my cold dead fingers” ?

Bradky on April 27, 2007 at 4:25 PM

I’m sure that Rosie O’Donut would approve, except the part where the police go through her bloomers looking for guns.

Hilts on April 27, 2007 at 4:30 PM

I hope this lunatic doesn’t believe himself to actually be an American, in any patriotic sense of the word anyway, considering that any one of the Founding Fathers might have actually put him in stocks in the center of town for spewing such nonsense.

But he DOES sound like a typical mindless liberal democrat/socialist wannabe…

NRA4Freedom on April 27, 2007 at 4:53 PM

Ace over at Ace of Spades makes the good point that this tyrant’s fantasy involves not only the discard of the 2nd amendment, but also of the 4th. I’m wagering that if you pushed him for more information, he’s probably not a huge fan of the 1st, either (all those conservative radio nuts brainwashing the stupid armed masses away from recognition of statist utopia and all). I daresay I question his patriotism.

Blacklake on April 27, 2007 at 5:07 PM

When I can kill at 100 yards with my penis, I can discard my pistol.

Kristopher

Is it okay to say “You will take my penis when you pry it from my cold dead fingers” ?

Bradky

When they come for your penis, try not to be there.

Kristopher on April 27, 2007 at 5:20 PM

Kristopher on April 27, 2007 at 5:20 PM

lol

Bradky on April 27, 2007 at 5:40 PM

Those tactics sound fine to me…for rounding up illegals.

JackM on April 27, 2007 at 5:48 PM

Wouldn’t it be funny though, seeing all the gang bangers lining up to buy hunting licences so they can withdraw their “hunting” weapons.

JackM on April 27, 2007 at 5:51 PM

The whole thing reads more like it was written by a teenager trying to sound clever than by an adult who, furthermore ‘used to be a diplomat’.

Aylios on April 27, 2007 at 5:58 PM

Is it okay to say “You will take my penis when you pry it from my cold dead fingers” ?

Bradky on April 27, 2007 at 4:25 PM

Now that’s funny.

And gross.

Professor Blather on April 27, 2007 at 6:00 PM

The whole thing reads more like it was written by a teenager trying to sound clever than by an adult who, furthermore ‘used to be a diplomat’.
Aylios on April 27, 2007 at 5:58 PM

Why do you think our foreign policy has been so abysmal for the last few decades?

Catseye on April 27, 2007 at 6:48 PM

This is the kind of physical and intellectual coward that would rather duck and run than stand up for his fellow man. In all the stories contained in one of the links above, it was not just the gun that saved lives, it was the bravery of the people holding the gun that made the difference. Each of them could have run away leaving their fellow citizens in harm’s way. Instead, they chose to act and saved others. Crappy, anti-gun legislation would have negated their bravery and cost lives.

Guns don’t kill people. Weak, ineffective, intellectually dishonest, windbags who are too scared to stand up to idiots pass legislation that allows criminals and insane individuals to kill people.

Like the amps in Spinal Tap, this guy’s idiot volume goes to 11!

lawman2 on April 27, 2007 at 7:43 PM

GUN CONTROL MEANS HITTING YOUR TARGET!

sonnyspats1 on April 27, 2007 at 8:43 PM

Mr. Dan Simpson should take a long walk off a short pier.

Zorro on April 27, 2007 at 9:10 PM

Over his cold, dead hands!

drjohn on April 27, 2007 at 9:18 PM

It took nearly an hour and a half for one you guys to say “Molon Labe”? I’m deeply disappointed.

I agree, I’ll be gone to the hills before they start knocking on my door. I’m gonna need a bigger truck just to carry my ammo.

Barntender on April 27, 2007 at 9:46 PM

ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ!

G. Mason on April 28, 2007 at 11:19 AM

Why, Bryan, don’t you remember? Amerika is already a police state! I mean, Bush is manipulating public opinion to put his support in the double digits, people are committing Abu Ghraib at Guantanamo, and dissent is viciously silenced. Look what they did to Rosie! Mr. Simpson just wants to make sure that as long as we already live in a police state, no one is going to get hurt….

calbear on April 28, 2007 at 11:54 AM

And secondly, once in office, with all the guns gone, what makes you think they would relinquish control through free elections ever again?

Catseye on April 27, 2007 at 12:10 PM

That’s the money question. Every forced disarmament in history has been followed by a totalitarian state, because the incumbent administration had NO ONE TO FEAR. Since they are in control of the military and police, the only persons authorized to bear arms, the form of government is now their’s to determine.

Can the libs not see that?

Bradky,

You spend much effort on how paranoid people sound, when all they are doing is voicing their passionate opposition to having liberty put at risk. You know where you’re posting, you know you’re in the minority, you know that trying to tell people that they shouldn’t be worried about a major infringement of their rights is pointless.

I’d tell you to give it up, but that would be in the same league; I know it’s all you have, so you don’t dare.

Freelancer on April 28, 2007 at 1:23 PM

Just a note to those that think that this would never happen in America.

The New Orleans Police and National Guard did go house to house confiscating guns in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina. The order to confiscate the guns were given by FEMA and New Orleans’ police superintendent Eddie Compass.

I am surprised nobody here has pointed it out.

It took a emergency motion for a restraining order filed by the NRA to get a preliminary injunction to rescind the gun confiscations occuring in New Orleans.
After the City of New Orleans failed to comply with the court’s ruling and dishonestly claimed that the gun confiscations never occurred, NRA filed a motion for contempt that included an order directing all seized firearms be returned to their rightful owners.

To this day, people that have had their guns confiscated are having trouble getting them back
After strenuously denying the illegal confiscations for months, on March 15, 2006, Mayor Nagin and the New Orleans Police Department (NOPD) finally conceded in federal court that the seized firearms were stored in two trailers. The city then agreed in court to a process by which law-abiding citizens would be able to file a claim to receive their confiscated firearms. However, few firearms were returned because the NOPD never notified gun owners how to claim their guns, and turned many away citing impossible standards for proof of ownership.

Today’s ruling sets the stage for a continued legal fight in which NRA will be forced to expend additional resources to fight back the anti-gunner’s blatant and shameful attempts to ignore the Second Amendment. The case will now move to discovery and pre-trial preparation.

Chuck Schumer and his fellow gun grabbers in the Congress have every intention of implementing Dan Simpon’s plan for disarming America.They know they cannot do it in one broad stroke but they intend to implement it by incremental unconstitutional legislation.

ScottyDog on April 28, 2007 at 3:59 PM

Bradky,

You spend much effort on how paranoid people sound, when all they are doing is voicing their passionate opposition to having liberty put at risk. You know where you’re posting, you know you’re in the minority, you know that trying to tell people that they shouldn’t be worried about a major infringement of their rights is pointless.

I’d tell you to give it up, but that would be in the same league; I know it’s all you have, so you don’t dare.

Freelancer on April 28, 2007 at 1:23 PM

It’s all I have? Really? I’d venture to say that my life experience and willingness to read extensively on the whole gamut of issues from a wide variety of sources makes me better able to discuss a subject rationally than the right and left partisans who are rather myopic in regards to their sources.

Had you really read my posts you would have seen that I said in no uncertain terms I have no desire for gun control. That make me a liberal? Hmm And it certainly doesn’t put me in the minority of posters on this issue as much as you would like to say so.

You would have also noted the comparison to the failed ERA amendment to the constitution which had far more support than any gun control proposal, which by the way has never even made it to proposed amendment status.

You might also have noted that in most elections Democratic candidates in all but a couple of instances will go out of their way to court left of center voters who enjoy owning guns. Heck, Michael Dukakis took it a step further and rode in a tank.

What you can’t see is that I’ve been around for a much longer time than many of the posters here. Which means I’ve lived through the attempts to curb guns and seen them all fall short.

Which means that I don’t get hysterical because one person suggests gun control. And I don’t think I used the word paranoid at all.

Bradky on April 28, 2007 at 9:01 PM

Heh. Pity the Special Squad that comes for Mrs Redneck’s guns.

What’s interesting to me is that so many of ya’ll think we still live in a free state. We live in a police state framework has been forming for years. Now it is time to tighten the noose. Another crisis or two, and it will happen.

The Colonial Williamsburg Foundation took a survey back in 2002. The statement was “If we need to relinquish some of our personal freedoms and privacies to protect the country, we should all be prepared to do that.” 49% agreed (Washington Times 6/29/02 P A2). The same group thought that afforable health care and the right to an education we more important that the freedom of speech.

Sure are alot of sheep out there just ready to line up.

Free state? The goverment started with gun control back in the early part of the last century. Now the government tells you that you must wear a seat belt in a motor vehicle and how much water your toilet can use per flush. Now we have secret subpoenas and law enforcement personnel that think they aren’t civilians anymore and dress like jack booted thugs.

AZ_Redneck on April 28, 2007 at 11:24 PM

law enforcement personnel that think they aren’t civilians anymore and dress like jack booted thugs.

AZ_Redneck on April 28, 2007 at 11:24 PM

Right on…..one of my pet peeves.

Jeff on April 29, 2007 at 7:22 AM

AZ_Redneck on April 28, 2007 at 11:24 PM

Boy have you hit the nail on the head.

When I was 14 years old I used to get my .22 rifle, walk down the street with it on my shoulder and went target shooting after school.My friends and I would go shooting in a farmers field and setup tin cans.

This was in the suburbs of Los Angeles in the 1960′s.

Today, a SWAT team of “Jack Booted” thugs would be called out and it would be on every news station.There would be pundits on analyzing how this misguided little boy decided to go target shooting with an evil gun. Was it his upbringing Blah Blah

Funny, how some people do not even realize the freedoms and liberty that they have lost. I do not recognize the country I grew up in the 1960′s and 70′s.

G Gordon Liddy has a similar observation about how we are loosing our “constitutional guaranteed” freedoms on his website.

ScottyDog on April 29, 2007 at 10:30 AM

What you can’t see is that I’ve been around for a much longer time than many of the posters here. Which means I’ve lived through the attempts to curb guns and seen them all fall short.

Which means that I don’t get hysterical because one person suggests gun control. And I don’t think I used the word paranoid at all.

Bradky on April 28, 2007 at 9:01 PM

Bradky

The second amendment may have not been repealed but there are over 14,000 unconstitutional laws infringing the right to own and bear arms.

The average person cannot afford a million dollar lawsuit to oppose the laws that are passed in every state of the union every year that chip away at the second amendment. Almost every challenge that reaches the district court level is upheld and the laws are overturned as being unconstitutional.

In New York city, it is still illegal to have a handgun without a license which is unconstitutional.Until recently, it was illegal to own any firearm in Washington DC. A couple of weeks ago, the laws against gun ownership were overturned but the city is appealing to the Supreme Court.

So, please explain how all these attempts at banning guns fall short?

ScottyDog on April 29, 2007 at 10:50 AM

Comment pages: 1 2