Hot Air Mobile
Home The Vault Gear About
Hot Air -- get your fill


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
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly

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.


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

Crazy talk from him but amending the constitution is not an easy task. Those kind of laws would be laughed out of court.
One thing Bush has done well is to get a fairly large number of “conservative” (I prefer strict constitutionalist over conservative) into the many levels of the courts.
Additionally, this kind of rhetoric doesn’t play well at all with left of center Democrats. If it did you wouldn’t see Kerry , et al showing off their love for hunting.

Bradky on April 27, 2007 at 11:24 AM

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

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.”

He forgot the first part of the plan: Repeal the Constitution.

Pablo on April 27, 2007 at 11:39 AM

Ambassador to where …. the Land of Oz?

Unbelievable.

fogw on April 27, 2007 at 11:41 AM

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.

Um, Second Amendment?

Just throwin’ that out there.

saint kansas on April 27, 2007 at 11:41 AM

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.

Maybe we should at least give this part a try.

In Iraq.

WTF?

saint kansas on April 27, 2007 at 11:43 AM

I still want LARRY HINCKER’S CAREER ON A PIKE.

Anyone?…Anyone??

seejanemom on April 27, 2007 at 11:46 AM

Can we just lock this guy in the loony bin now, and be done with it? This has got to be satire; that is the only possible explanation. I think my head is about to explode.

RW Wacko on April 27, 2007 at 11:48 AM

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

mikeyboss on April 27, 2007 at 11:48 AM

I haven’t read the article yet, so I’m willing to give this guy the benefit of the doubt. I sincerely hope this was written as a case study for why the idea of disarming America should be anathema to every lover of civil liberties. Because it would take exactly this kind of approach to get the job done. Maybe, just maybe, the ambassador wrote this to point out to the left why they shouldn’t work so hard to go down this road.

But if he was serious, this is just nuckin’ futs.

corbettw on April 27, 2007 at 11:49 AM

Um … holy crap.

So let me make sure I’ve got this straight:

We CANNOT get rid of the 20 million illegal aliens in the country. Despite the fact that they’ve committed a crime, despite the fact that they’re a drain on the economy … we can’t go get them. It’s unconscionable. It’s barbaric. It’s FASCIST! And even if you ignore all that, it would just never work. After all, “are you going to knock on 20 million doors?” (How many times have you heard that one?)

But for law-abiding American citizens exercising a right SPECIFICALLY included it the Bill of Rights, we’re going to do ALL OF THE ABOVE? It’s suddenly practical … and not at all fascist?

Dear God. These people actually *do* want to take away our freedoms.

I am absolutely stunned that someone would say all that out loud. How do liberals support such things while weeping hysterically that the NSA might take an interest if you suddenly start calling Teheran every night? How do liberals support such things and simultaneously weep about their rights to check out books at the library without being (potentially) noticed?

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

I don’t get it. I need a drink. And a gun.

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

Five words… “Oh. F#$K. No. you. don’t.”

Oh and three more words: “Cold. Dead. Fingers.”

tickleddragon on April 27, 2007 at 11:52 AM

And he’s not a “crazed liberal zealot” Nope. No way.

/sarc off

KelliD on April 27, 2007 at 11:53 AM

The real purpose of the second amendment is to prevent loons like this from creating legislation that will result in him and a bunch of other politicians being hung from lamp posts.

This is the line most gun owners have drawn … if they cross it, they will soon regret it. One percent of all gun owners is enough to outnuber the entire armed apparatus of the federal government 80 to 1.

He can pass any legislation he wishes. If he passes this crap, and threatens to come for our guns, we will kill him.

Kristopher on April 27, 2007 at 11:54 AM

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

KelliD on April 27, 2007 at 11:54 AM

Oh and three more words: “Cold. Dead. Fingers.”

Bad tactics. When it looks like they are getting ready to drop the hammer, see to it that the SWAT team finds an empty house.

Then go hunting.

Kristopher on April 27, 2007 at 11:55 AM

I still can’t pick my jaw up off the floor.

Was this in The Onion, maybe?

Professor Blather on April 27, 2007 at 11:56 AM

The ERA amendment couldn’t pass the 38 state threshold and it was more popular than the idea this guy is throwing out. Lot of unnecessary high blood pressure over this.

Bradky on April 27, 2007 at 11:57 AM

Just read some of his past articles. Wrote one LAST MONTH lambasting the NSA, FBI, and other connected to the Bush administration for their spying on Americans. A real affront to our liberties in the name of security. What a friggin’ hypocrite.

He wrote an article for the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette on Jan 17, 2007, called “Our Misguided Quest for Security”, where he says the following:

It is “difficult to understand what lies behind what the United States is doing. It does seem to turn for the most part on a quest for security. That, in turn, seems to rise from concerns prompted by the Sept. 11, 2001 attack. At the same time, what the United States has done subsequently is disproportionate to what was done to us by the attackers”

“We also have done damage to ourselves at home in response to the post-9/11 obsession with security. Last week we learned that President Bush had approved opening Americans’ mail without the required court order. That followed on his taking the same position with regard to the National Security Agency’s intercepting Americans’ telephone and e-mail communications, in direct violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Last weekend it was his administration’s taking the position that the Pentagon and the CIA could obtain Americans’ financial and banking records and store them in a Defense Department database, again without court order.

The United States is trashing its system of justice, the approach to freedoms and rights that is at the core of its principles, principles that have made our country different from the Iraqs, Afghanistans and Somalias of this world.”

Again, what a friggin’ hypocrite!!!!

RW Wacko on April 27, 2007 at 11:59 AM

Wait a minute. Am I missing something? He contradicts himself, if I read it properly. First he says:

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.

Then he says:

Gun dealers could continue their work, selling hunting and antique firearms.

amerpundit on April 27, 2007 at 11:59 AM

It’s relatively rare to see evil espoused so brazenly, even proudly, without any apparent self-awareness or sense of shame. Usually, it’s couched in subterfuge and hidden behind incrementalism. If only everybody who believed such things could be so open about it, the odds of them actually coming to pass would be far more remote than they truly are.

Blacklake on April 27, 2007 at 12:00 PM

The ERA amendment couldn’t pass the 38 state threshold and it was more popular than the idea this guy is throwing out. Lot of unnecessary high blood pressure over this.

Bradky on April 27, 2007 at 11:57 AM

I don’t think people are worried that his idea might actually happen – I think we’re just stunned that he actually expressed it.

After 6 years of listening to liberals claim to see pretend fascism everywhere – this guy is openly advocating real fascism. It’s just hard to believe that anybody could sit down and type such an idea.

Professor Blather on April 27, 2007 at 12:00 PM

This is pretty much what was actually done in Australia. Armed robbery went up 60% and rapes at gunpoint went up something like 40%. The mentally deficient liberal ideology simply refuses to accept ther eality that bad people exist and do not comply with the law. We must protect ourselves from them (the criminals and the dangerous libtards.

JustTruth101 on April 27, 2007 at 12:00 PM

I disagree.

I could easily imagine a Dem-Cong congress and president pulling out the “2nd amendment=National Guard” crap out, and banning all firearms in 2009.

Kristopher on April 27, 2007 at 12:01 PM

Does he have a brother ambassador named Joe Wilson?

Wade on April 27, 2007 at 12:01 PM

I’m curious about his repeated use of “guard” or “heavily guarded”. So guns will be available for some use, but not our use… He sees no problem with placing guards on things he thinks are important, just not things we think are important… like our families.

When we’re all unarmed (that won’t happen) a crazed man with an ax or a knife will be able to do a lot of damage.

High Desert Wanderer on April 27, 2007 at 12:01 PM

The real purpose of the second amendment is to prevent loons like this from creating legislation that will result in him and a bunch of other politicians being hung from lamp posts.

This is the line most gun owners have drawn … if they cross it, they will soon regret it. One percent of all gun owners is enough to outnuber the entire armed apparatus of the federal government 80 to 1.

He can pass any legislation he wishes. If he passes this crap, and threatens to come for our guns, we will kill him.

Kristopher on April 27, 2007 at 11:54 AM

Amen, and the Founding Fathers would have it no other way.

I still don’t understand why we don’t consider secession. After all it is a valid and legal method of solving this “divide”.

Tim Burton on April 27, 2007 at 12:01 PM

He can pass any legislation he wishes. If he passes this crap, and threatens to come for our guns, we will kill him.

Kristopher’s tone is abrupt, but correct and morally and Constitutionally justifiable, if any of my reading of the Founders is correct.

Bob Owens on April 27, 2007 at 12:01 PM

It’s gotta be parody. Gotta be. A conservative hacked the newspaper’s site.

Has. To. Be.

Exit question: so … do liberals really want every gun in America to be directly controlled by the Bush Adminstration?

Oops. Should have thought that through a bit, huh, Skippy?

Professor Blather on April 27, 2007 at 12:02 PM

RW Wacko on April 27, 2007 at 11:59 AM

Good work!

TheBigOldDog on April 27, 2007 at 12:03 PM

fogw on April 27, 2007 at 11:41 AM

Ironically, Somalia, Central African Republic, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. He did great there. They’re practically vacation hot spots.

Does he realize that people like him, are the reason that the Founding Fathers put in a Second Amendment?

amerpundit on April 27, 2007 at 12:04 PM

Google “Liberator Pistol” and read up on the purpose. Also, how many of you realize that a hunting arrow will defeat soft body armor?

Catseye on April 27, 2007 at 12:04 PM

1) I’m glad he’s “retired.”
2) Judging by his diplomatic record and other editorials he’s written I will assume he’s a liberal Democrat. Which is why I’m not terribly surprised he has proposed one of the most breathtakingly fascist and repressive Plans To Protect Our Children(tm) that I’ve seen in years.

Mr. Bingley on April 27, 2007 at 12:04 PM

Again, what a friggin’ hypocrite!!!!

RW Wacko on April 27, 2007 at 11:59 AM

Let me fix that for you:

Again, what a friggin’ hypocrite liberal!!!!

Professor Blather on April 27, 2007 at 12:04 PM

Kristopher on April 27, 2007 at 12:01 PM & Tim Burton on April 27, 2007 at 12:01 PM

I could easily imagine a Dem-Cong congress and president pulling out the “2nd amendment=National Guard” crap out, and banning all firearms in 2009.

— You are imagining too easily then.

I still don’t understand why we don’t consider secession.

— again with the secession talk.

Bradky on April 27, 2007 at 12:06 PM

Holy crap!

CBarker on April 27, 2007 at 12:07 PM

At some point, the South may want to consider secession again.

RW Wacko on April 27, 2007 at 12:07 PM

Ok. Let me see if I can get this straight. The goal here, is to stop violent crimes, aka people who break the law using guns, right? Ok. So, his plan is to take all guns away, and punish those who keep guns.

Law abiding citizens would do so. The people who would actually commit violent gun crimes, won’t, they don’t care if they break the law or not. So, here’s what we’re left with:

All law abiding citizens: No Guns
Violent criminals: Still Have Guns

Brilliant! People like Simpson shouldn’t be allowed to reproduce.

amerpundit on April 27, 2007 at 12:08 PM

This man is insane.

GT on April 27, 2007 at 12:10 PM

Exit question: so … do liberals really want every gun in America to be directly controlled by the Bush Adminstration?
Oops. Should have thought that through a bit, huh, Skippy?
Professor Blather on April 27, 2007 at 12:02 PM

Prof..What makes you think this would happen during a Republican administration? 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

If anyone suggested these tactics to remove illegal weapons from gangbanger’s the left would go nuts!! If these tactics were employed to remove illegal drugs, and aliens, the left would also go nuts about the loss of civil and human rights.

Notice the use of the word illegal. That means it’s already against the law. But violating the constitution to treat non-criminals as ciminals is at least palatable to the left. Liberalism really is a mental disorder

Child In Time on April 27, 2007 at 12:10 PM

Every gun owner in a America would become a criminal overnight unless they succumbed to a police state.

I don’t currently own a gun, but a law like that would convince me that it’s time. It’s exactly this kind of Totalitarianism that the 2nd ammendment is supposed to protect us from.

Esthier on April 27, 2007 at 12:10 PM

Ya okay whatever guy. Come for my guns, in fact please do it personally, that would be interesting. Next

Viper1 on April 27, 2007 at 12:11 PM

Wonder what is his opinions regarding airsoft weapons. My collection concludes 2 MP5s, Desert Eagle, VP70, USP, AR15, G36, 4 I cant readily identify, and the P90.

allie on April 27, 2007 at 12:13 PM

Great plan…if you’re going for the whole Stalinist North Korea approach. Good lord.

CP on April 27, 2007 at 12:13 PM

amerpundit on April 27, 2007 at 12:08 PM

Not true. He would solve that problem by invading peoples’ homes in the middle of the night on a rotating basis, until every Americans’ door had been kicked down. Also by strip-searching people on the street, just to be sure we weren’t hiding any of those wicked guns on our person. See, you can rest easy now.

RW Wacko on April 27, 2007 at 12:14 PM

Special squads of police would be formed and trained to carry out the work.

And how would that keep us safer from crazy gunmen shooting innocent people? The worst massacre in modern history was by a South Korean in a country with one of the strictest gun control laws in the world. The girlfriend broke up with him and he got drunk and shot and killed 57 others.

Too bad no one had guns to take him out.

On a related note: Wacky professors like Nikki Giovanni are far more dangerous to our society than guns. This is the professor who tutored Cho Seung Hui. Gotta wonder how influenced Cho was by her following poem:

Ni**er
Can you kill
Can you kill
Can a ni**er kill
Can a ni**er kill a honkie
Can a ni**er kill the Man
Can you kill ni**er
Huh? Ni**er can you
kill
Do you know how to draw blood
Can you poison
Can you stab-a-Jew
Can you kill huh? Ni**er
Can you kill
Can you run a protestant down with your
‘68 El Dorado
(that’s all they’re good for anyway)
Can you kill
Can you piss on a blond head
Can you cut it off
Can you kill
A ni**er can die
We ain’t got to prove we can die
We got to prove we can kill

Yet Virginia Tech asked her to write a poem commemorating the victims of the atrocity.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/articles/readarticle.asp?id=28018

Why not write Carolyn Rude, head of Virginia Tech English Department, at carolyn.rude@vt.edu asking her why they would still have this professor’s poem on the English Department’s webpage?

januarius on April 27, 2007 at 12:16 PM

Damn! I HATE Ohio Nazis!…

Of course, no one would think to stash their weapons, either. Never heard of Cosmoline and trash bags, no idea how to work a shovel. And all firearms are registered in the US, y’know. There are NO exceptions, by jiggity!

mojo on April 27, 2007 at 12:17 PM

Write to this douche. dsimpson@post-gazette.com. I just did, mentioning something about him being a friggin’ hypocrite.

RW Wacko on April 27, 2007 at 12:17 PM

I could easily imagine a Dem-Cong congress and president pulling out the “2nd amendment=National Guard” crap out, and banning all firearms in 2009.
— You are imagining too easily then.

Bradky on April 27, 2007 at 12:06 PM

I agree that such an act is politically unlikely, particularly that soon.

At the same time, I think your reflexive dismissal of the idea is foolish. Ideas like this never take hold overnight; they happen slowly – and always because too many people assume it couldn’t possibly happen. History is full of examples of societies changing radically – and nobody noticing until it was too late.

I’ve read newspapers from Berlin in 1928, mocking the minor political party that then had just 12 seats in the Reichstag and hadn’t garnered 3% of the popular vote.

There were those who’d read Mein Kampf and warned that the strange little man who led the party should be watched. Those people were dismissed as “imagining too easily,” too.

Oops.

Rights are only lost when the population takes them for granted. If you really think Kristopher’s “easy imaginings” could never, ever happen – you need a history refresher. No offense.

Taking loons like this too seriously is a mistake, granted. But keeping an eye on them is not. For the weak and simple-minded, his idea probably sounds appealing. It’s hard to believe, but millions will agree with that editorial.

Professor Blather on April 27, 2007 at 12:19 PM

Not true. He would solve that problem by invading peoples’ homes in the middle of the night on a rotating basis, until every Americans’ door had been kicked down. Also by strip-searching people on the street, just to be sure we weren’t hiding any of those wicked guns on our person. See, you can rest easy now.

RW Wacko on April 27, 2007 at 12:14 PM

But a hand gun can easily be hidden if you’re making the choice to break the law. People with land can dig a hole. People with furniture can do some creative sewing. There really is no limit when it comes to the vast hiding spaces in the United States.

Esthier on April 27, 2007 at 12:19 PM

I never want to hear about Bush and his alleged plan to take our civil rights away, from these people, ever again.

amerpundit on April 27, 2007 at 12:19 PM

Having read only what was quoted here, I took it as satire. Then when I read the original op/ed, I realized how sadly serious he was.

LAST week’s tragedy at Virginia Tech in which a mentally disturbed person gunned down 32 of America’s finest – intelligent young people with futures ahead of them – once again puts the phenomenon of an armed society into focus for Americans.

This preamble shows how skewd his logic is. The VT incident is not about guns or gun control. It’s about disturbed individuals taking out their failures on the innocent. No law would have stopped him.

And I find it curious as to when practicing a basic constitutional right became a “phenomenon?”

geckomon on April 27, 2007 at 12:19 PM

— You are imagining too easily then.
Bradky

And you are way too optimistic.

The socialists want firearms banned so badly they can taste it. The only thing holding them back is fear of losing an election.

The only thing I really fear is that they might actually, stop, think, and start banning firearms incrementally … google “How to cook a frog” sometime.

Kristopher on April 27, 2007 at 12:20 PM

This guy actually wants to take our civil rights away. Where’s the ACLU?

amerpundit on April 27, 2007 at 12:20 PM

Prof..What makes you think this would happen during a Republican administration? 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

A very good point.

Professor Blather on April 27, 2007 at 12:21 PM

This guy actually wants to take our civil rights away. Where’s the ACLU?

amerpundit on April 27, 2007 at 12:20 PM

Another very good question: what exactly IS the ACLU stance on the Second Amendment? Do they just not notice it or what?

Professor Blather on April 27, 2007 at 12:22 PM

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.

Let him be the first (and probably only) one volunteer for the job. You’d have to be suicidal to go house to house trying to take people’s guns. Never happen – except in their dreams.

jman on April 27, 2007 at 12:23 PM

Of course, no one would think to stash their weapons, either. Never heard of Cosmoline and trash bags, no idea how to work a shovel. And all firearms are registered in the US, y’know. There are NO exceptions, by jiggity!

mojo

Buried firearms are useless.

Sell them for cash to someone who will use them instead.

Kristopher on April 27, 2007 at 12:23 PM

The FBI didn’t even find all of Terry Nichols’ explosives until 2005. Are they seriously expecting this to work?

see-dubya on April 27, 2007 at 12:28 PM

Professor Blather on April 27, 2007 at 12:19 PM

I am not suggesting blindly scampering along singing “Don’t worry be happy” but on the other hand I’m not going to get all hysterical either.

The ERA amendment is a good example of how difficult something like this would be.

As I mentioned before think about how the Democrat candidates courted the “southern vote” by strapping their guns and going on hunting trips. This was more about reassuring the left of center folks who enjoy their gun rights they had nothing to worry about than trying to convince hard core conservatives to “trust me”.

But sometimes people need to take a deep breath and exhale. Otherwise they start to sound like the people who decry the Patriot Act as the first step in taking all of our freedoms.
I won’t paint a broad brush over democrats about that either simply because I know too many left of center democrats who have a “if you are not doing anything illegal what’s the big deal?” attitude.

Discussion is great but if people need Blood pressure gauges when they discuss… well I don’t know what to say.

Bradky on April 27, 2007 at 12:29 PM

I wouldn’t want to be the first “special” cop (read: jackbooted government thug) through the door.

CurtZHP on April 27, 2007 at 12:30 PM

I want to see more of this guy’s work, prominently featured in national publications, between now and 2008.

Republicans may have a shot at retaking congress after all.

see-dubya on April 27, 2007 at 12:30 PM

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.

I think someone should take a quick look at ole’ Dan. Any volunteers?

BacaDog on April 27, 2007 at 12:31 PM

Geez a peez! Is this guy off his meds? Locking up hunting weapons and tightly guarding them with (armed?) guards? Yeah, and like I’d buy a weapon just to put it on display in some museum…”Look what I bought dear! Doesn’t it look good behind that (bullet-proof) glass?”

Not to worry though folks. This guy’s diatribe is the nonsensical ravings of a lunatic mind. I’ll bet you he even feels better now that he got that off his chest too.…

JohnnyD on April 27, 2007 at 12:32 PM

As I mentioned before think about how the Democrat candidates courted the “southern vote” by strapping their guns and going on hunting trips.
Bradky

Actually … I don’t fear an outright ban … I know what the consequences will be.

What I really fear is a slow incremental ban, aided by those same southern democrats. The smart banners will come for the bolt-action rifles and 12 gauges last … but only after they have banned everything else, one weapon at a time.

Kristopher on April 27, 2007 at 12:33 PM

Special squads of police would be formed and trained to carry out the work.

Hmmmmm……

Could they be called “Special Squads”?

The SS, maybe?

Um, sorry, but you’re going to end up with a lot of dead special police.

N. O'Brain on April 27, 2007 at 12:33 PM

Can you say Civil War………..Because if anyone was actually stupid enough to try this shit that is exactly what will happen………

Rock on………..

doriangrey on April 27, 2007 at 12:34 PM

I am not a gun owner. However, if I saw anything remotely like this coming down the pike, I would become a guns owner. If it ever came down to this, I would probably choose to live in the old dug-out built in the 1880s by my ancestors and take my chances.

This Simpson is a real nut-case. Ambassador to Libya and Somalia.

bopbottle on April 27, 2007 at 12:35 PM

Kristopher on April 27, 2007 at 12:33 PM

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

I can hear him now, complaining about the death threats he’s getting. Which are kind of the way telling someone the consequences of jumping into a pen full of hungry lions is a death threat.

Yeah, kick down my door and start tossing the place…great idea. And play with the lions…they’re so cute!

Pablo on April 27, 2007 at 12:44 PM

doriangrey on April 27, 2007 at 12:34 PM

Absolutely. This is about the one and only thing I could see triggering Civil War II. And the gun-grabbers would come out on the losing end of that skirmish. No doubt at all.

KSgop on April 27, 2007 at 12:45 PM

All we need to do now is insinuate that the “gun grabbers” are anti-Christian atheists allied with Rosie and you have the makings for a thousand post thread…..

Bradky on April 27, 2007 at 12:47 PM

In discussions of this looney in other venues someone noted that the proper response is to put out the warning as soon as it’s passed that all potential enforcers have one week to change careers, thens start the hunt.

The only thing worse than invoking the Second Amendment’s Doomsday provision is to need to invoke it and not be able to.

KCSteve on April 27, 2007 at 12:53 PM

THe worst part is, the reason they feel this way, is they are absolved. Police officers would die trying to disarm the public. In vast numbers. Few would comply. The gun grabbers? At home asleep.

Just like in Iraq.

Just like in any conflict.

They run their moth, others die, they feel happy.

Ringmaster on April 27, 2007 at 12:53 PM

Guess I’m up for 7 years, $7,000. When you get around to wanting me to serve it and pay it I am listed in the phone book. Front door unlocked in a a friendly fashion. No need to knock. Turn left inside the door and my den is first room on the left. I’ll have them in my lap waiting to submit.

Limerick on April 27, 2007 at 12:55 PM

Notice how crazy talk like this makes regular ol gun grabbers seem reasonable to the sheeple?

My arsenal….

30-30 lever action
.270 Bolt
AR-15
2- Mossberg 590 WITH barrel shrouds
2- .45 1911 colt pistols
9mm Sig
.22 Luger pistol
12 guage Remington pump
.22 Ruger Carbine
.22 SS Marlin rifle
and .50 cal muzzle loader

That’ll get me $13,000 plus 13 years. Plus you’ll need to add a life time sentance for killing the first SOB who shows up to get my guns.

csdeven on April 27, 2007 at 12:56 PM

Well, the second amendment is not their for hunting, it is their for self protection. Our second amendment right allows us to protect ourselves from those who would do us harm, and from a government that is hell bent on removing our freedoms. Thats why the NRA gives no concessions to gun bans. Even a simple concession open the doors to more restrictions.

Simpson also forgot the part where your right to criticize his Utopian ideal would be punishable by 5 years in prisson for a first offense, and that all speech has to be approved of following specific guidlines.

As been said, the day the government tries to enect such legislation is the day that people ban together and resist the government. And thats something the liberals forget. They think that once they are have the power that they will also have the milatary and the police. How many police and milatary men will follow such an obviously ilegal order?
I dare say when they come for our rights (because once the second amendments gone expect most of the others to follow) we will be standing shoulder to shoulder with alot of cops and milatary men and women. The constitution would be restored.

Wyrd on April 27, 2007 at 12:56 PM

please take me very literally when I say

“you can have my gun when you pry it from my cold dead hands”

Kaptain Amerika on April 27, 2007 at 12:56 PM

Reading that article was a flabbergasting experience. Hard to know where to begin, but then again the main points have already been covered by the posts above.

“Scratch a liberal, and you’ll find a totalitarian underneath.”

Bottom line, the proposal in question is a classic example of what American liberalism has devolved into: a fondness for big government as the be-all and cure-all for everything that bothers them, which ultimately finds its expression in an out-of-control statism-worship that Orwell had in mind when he wrote 1984.

Just remember, though, that for libs it all boils down to a simple axiom: Their good intentions (not the ends they realize) justify the means. If “The Greater Good”(TM) requires that the Second and Fourth Amendments of the Bill of Rights be summarily dispensed with so that SWAT teams can kick in your door, then so be it.

Remember, it’s only the good intentions behind the state-sponsored home invasion that count, not the trampling of your rights or the shredding of the Constitution.

Huey Long put it best about 70 years ago when someone asked him in the run-up to World War II whether Fascism would ever take root in America; he replied, “If it does, it’ll call itself ‘Anti-Fascism.’”

Spurius Ligustinus on April 27, 2007 at 12:57 PM

Our soldiers did not go to some foreign country and risk their lives in vain and defend our Constitution so that decades later you can tell me it’s a living document ever changing and is open to interpretation. The guys who wrote it were light years ahead of anyone today, and they meant what they said – now leave the document alone, or there’s going to be trouble.

TROUBLE INDEED

americaslaststand on April 27, 2007 at 12:58 PM

Diplomat?!? Must have been to La La Land

james hooker on April 27, 2007 at 12:58 PM

Molon labe! A hot and loud welcome is waiting

mojojojo on April 27, 2007 at 12:58 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

The article is pretty laughable. Not because they want my guns but because these people actually believe that ‘Special Police’, made up of American law enforcement officers, would actually be available just because we passed a new law. I think Barnie Fife and Uncle Jedd don’t have to worry about Andy Griffith kicking in the door.

Limerick on April 27, 2007 at 12:59 PM

What I really fear is a slow incremental ban, aided by those same southern democrats. The smart banners will come for the bolt-action rifles and 12 gauges last … but only after they have banned everything else, one weapon at a time.
Kristopher on April 27, 2007 at 12:33 PM

My apologies for taking up so much room, but…may I present

HR 1022

`(30) The term `semiautomatic assault weapon’ means any of the following:

`(A) The following rifles or copies or duplicates thereof:

`(i) AK, AKM, AKS, AK-47, AK-74, ARM, MAK90, Misr, NHM 90, NHM 91, SA 85, SA 93, VEPR;

`(ii) AR-10;

`(iii) AR-15, Bushmaster XM15, Armalite M15, or Olympic Arms PCR;

`(iv) AR70;

`(v) Calico Liberty;

`(vi) Dragunov SVD Sniper Rifle or Dragunov SVU;

`(vii) Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN/LAR, or FNC;

`(viii) Hi-Point Carbine;

`(ix) HK-91, HK-93, HK-94, or HK-PSG-1;

`(x) Kel-Tec Sub Rifle;

`(xi) M1 Carbine;

`(xii) Saiga;

`(xiii) SAR-8, SAR-4800;

`(xiv) SKS with detachable magazine;

`(xv) SLG 95;

`(xvi) SLR 95 or 96;

`(xvii) Steyr AUG;

`(xviii) Sturm, Ruger Mini-14;

`(xix) Tavor;

`(xx) Thompson 1927, Thompson M1, or Thompson 1927 Commando; or

`(xxi) Uzi, Galil and Uzi Sporter, Galil Sporter, or Galil Sniper Rifle (Galatz).

`(B) The following pistols or copies or duplicates thereof:

`(i) Calico M-110;

`(ii) MAC-10, MAC-11, or MPA3;

`(iii) Olympic Arms OA;

`(iv) TEC-9, TEC-DC9, TEC-22 Scorpion, or AB-10; or

`(v) Uzi.

`(C) The following shotguns or copies or duplicates thereof:

`(i) Armscor 30 BG;

`(ii) SPAS 12 or LAW 12;

`(iii) Striker 12; or

`(iv) Streetsweeper.

`(D) A semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine, and that has–

`(i) a folding or telescoping stock;

`(ii) a threaded barrel;

`(iii) a pistol grip;

`(iv) a forward grip; or

`(v) a barrel shroud.

`(E)(i) Except as provided in clause (ii), a semiautomatic rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.

`(ii) Clause (i) shall not apply to an attached tubular device designed to accept, and capable of operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition.

`(F) A semiautomatic pistol that has the ability to accept a detachable magazine, and has–

`(i) a second pistol grip;

`(ii) a threaded barrel;

`(iii) a barrel shroud; or

`(iv) the capacity to accept a detachable magazine at a location outside of the pistol grip.

`(G) A semiautomatic pistol with a fixed magazine that has the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.

`(H) A semiautomatic shotgun that has–

`(i) a folding or telescoping stock;

`(ii) a pistol grip;

`(iii) the ability to accept a detachable magazine; or

`(iv) a fixed magazine capacity of more than 5 rounds.

`(I) A shotgun with a revolving cylinder.

`(J) A frame or receiver that is identical to, or based substantially on the frame or receiver of, a firearm described in any of subparagraphs (A) through (I) or (L).

`(K) A conversion kit.

`(L) A semiautomatic rifle or shotgun originally designed for military or law enforcement use, or a firearm based on the design of such a firearm, that is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, as determined by the Attorney General. In making the determination, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that a firearm procured for use by the United States military or any Federal law enforcement agency is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, and a firearm shall not be determined to be particularly suitable for sporting purposes solely because the firearm is suitable for use in a sporting event.’.

Catseye on April 27, 2007 at 1:00 PM

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.

O RLY?

Special squads of police? Lemme ask, will people who were caught with guns be forced to wear a bullet shaped patch on their arm, and pushed into special neighborhoods? GET ON ZE TRAIN, SCHNELL!

Does he realize how much he sounds like a damn Nazi? And as far as I’m concerned, there is no evoking Godwin on this one.

This article is liberal pr0n, but the fact that he feels like he can say it openly without being too embarrassed is alarming enough. Whenever a liberal feels its safe to speak their mind openly without being laughed off of their soapbox, be concerned.

Bad Candy on April 27, 2007 at 1:02 PM

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

mikeyboss on April 27, 2007 at 11:48 AM

I think you’re giving this guy waaaaay too much credit. He sounds like he means EXACTLY what he is saying.

But I am willing to listen if you can tell me what he really means.

csdeven on April 27, 2007 at 1:04 PM

ain’t. gonna. happen.
/cold. dead. fingers.

stevezilla on April 27, 2007 at 1:07 PM

2- Mossberg 590 WITH barrel shrouds

Rep. McCarthy would like a word with you about your Mossberg with barrel shrouds, csdeven, but she’s not sure why…

Bad Candy on April 27, 2007 at 1:07 PM

My town has about 20 police officers. Great bunch of guys and gals(except the SOB who gave me the expired inspection ticket). These officers would be helping me hide my guns and when the Feds ask they will point their fingers to the four compass points and say ‘he went that-a-way’. Libs can dream all they want. Soldier’s don’t always follow orders.

Limerick on April 27, 2007 at 1:07 PM

`(xx) Thompson 1927, Thompson M1, or Thompson 1927 Commando; or

They better not ban these till I get one.

/totally wants one
//first gun I’m buying
///Chicago typewriter FTW!!!

Bad Candy on April 27, 2007 at 1:09 PM

Bad Candy on April 27, 2007 at 1:07 PM

hahaha

csdeven on April 27, 2007 at 1:10 PM

I believe that this link stays within the general boundaries of the thread. Drudge is linking to a story in the Chicago Sun-Times, where a high school student from the NW suburbs of Chicago has been arrested for writing a paper in creative writing class which includes violent images.

My only interest in the stupid story is that the reporters have quoted as some sort of expert the esteemed “director of Northwestern University’s Children and Family Justice Center”, none other than … wait for it … you’re not gonna believe it …

Bernadine Dohrn. Convicted domestic terrorist from the 1960s group Weather Underground.

Heh.

Jaibones on April 27, 2007 at 1:11 PM

These officers would be helping me hide my guns and when the Feds ask they will point their fingers to the four compass points and say ‘he went that-a-way’. Libs can dream all they want. Soldier’s don’t always follow orders.
Limerick on April 27, 2007 at 1:07 PM

Am I being paranoid?

A Germany army instructor who ordered a soldier to envision himself facing hostile blacks in New York while firing his machine gun has been kept on duty, the army said yesterday.
NYSun Article

Catseye on April 27, 2007 at 1:12 PM

Oops, I mean this link.

Jaibones on April 27, 2007 at 1:12 PM

I am going to insist that Dan Simpson PERSONALLY come by and collect my guns. I’ll be glad to surrender them to him, personally, ONE BULLET AT A TIME.

georgej on April 27, 2007 at 1:13 PM

Will someone find the old quote about not getting involved because it didn’t concern you, and when it finally did concern you there was no one left to help you defend your issue?

JEEZE!

csdeven on April 27, 2007 at 1:13 PM

From the Nazis article:

I don’t have any problem with hunting, although blowing away animals with high-powered weapons seems a pointless, no-contest affair to me. I suppose I would enjoy the fellowship of the experience with other friends who are hunters.

When he throws out the phrase “high-powered weapons”, you can pretty much guess he’s serious, he’s chugging the Brady Punch, and this ain’t a Swiftian proposal in any way.

Bad Candy on April 27, 2007 at 1:14 PM

Catseye on April 27, 2007 at 1:12 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

Comment pages: 1 2


You must be logged in to post a comment.