Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
A gun-banner’s wet dream
Posted by: mcq on Friday, April 27, 2007

After first cautioning everyone that he's not a "liberal zealot" by telling us all about his experiences with weapons, Dan Simpson regales us with how he would disarm America (this in answer to the contention that with over 200+ million guns in the US, it would be impossible).

Read this carefully because Simpson obviously thinks this is just peachy keen and something which should be considered (you have to assume that since he put it out for publication):
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."
What a wonderful world of civil liberties that would be, no?

Special squads of police. No notice searches. Fines. Imprisonment.
The "gun lobby" would no doubt try to head off in the courts the new laws and the actions to implement them. They might succeed in doing so, although the new approach would undoubtedly prompt new, vigorous debate on the subject. In any case, some jurisdictions would undoubtedly take the opportunity of the chronic slowness of the courts to begin implementing the new approach.
The "gun lobby"? How about every civil libertarian with an ounce of integrity? What Simpson is describing is a police state given carte blanc and open-ended search privileges. Not a mention of the 2nd or 4th Amendments. Nope, because of the "Blacksburg tragedy" glib gun grabbers like Simpson think it is time to act forcefully to ensure such tragedies don't occur again. Of course, and as usual, Simpson ignores the fact that criminals will ignore the laws. And, again as usual, he attempts to base any legal gun possession on hunting, thus avoiding the primary reason for gun ownership - the inherent right to self-defense.

In Simpson's happy world, granny in her walker would be susceptible to police search simply because she was in the wrong block at the wrong time. Of course if granny were on the wrong block at another wrong time and some scofflaw killed her for her walker, Simpson wouldn't care one bit.

But don't call Simpson a "liberal" or a "zealot". After all he's fired an RPG.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
What I am about to say is not a joke, hyperbole, or a false display of bravado.

When that rule comes down, I will kiss my wife and children, send them to live with her parents, load up as many rounds of ammunition as I possibly can (and I can do 200 an hour easily), and take matters into my own hand. I will become the insurgency. I will become the rebel.

I would kill every single person who comes for our guns. And I would not be alone. Even if only 1 out of 10 gun owners resist, that’s still 8.5 million people. An army you cannot defeat.

Many years ago I signed up for the Marines. I would die for my country. I would kill for it.

I still will.

People like this idiot wouldn’t use harsh words against his enemies and have no idea the hell they would unleash with such plans. In their quest to save us, they would destroy us. To prevent gun deaths, they would kill tenfold.

And, take into consideration I’m not paranoid. I don’t currently stockpile ammunition or have 200 magazines ready to go. There are plenty of people who do.
 
Written By: Robb Allen
URL: http://blog.robballen.com
But don’t call Simpson a "liberal" or a "zealot".
OK, how about tyrant?

Seriously, if this were implemented, do you have any doubt that while the police were in your house without a warrant, "looking for guns" they wouldn’t also be looking for "contraband" like drugs or evidence that you had spoken publicly about a politician on your online magazine less than 60 days before an election?

Like McQ said, it’s a police state, pure and simple.
 
Written By: Jinnmabe
URL: http://
Anyone who thinks it’s worth considering the if’s and the how’s of disarmament - as if we were talking about postwar Europe - without considering the why’s definitely qualifies as a "crazed liberal zealot wanting to take guns from your cold dead hands".
 
Written By: Geardaddy
URL: http://grindinggears.blogspot.com
I’ve now read the article again. And it does seem he’s just writing a "if you wanted to create a fascist police state in America, using guns as a pretext, how would you do that?" kind of instructional article for would-be tyrants. Not that that makes him less of an idiot, but it puts a bit of a different spin on it.
 
Written By: Jinnmabe
URL: http://
Having quickly scanned the article and the blurbs, really McQ are you sure this isn’t some kind of "send-up". I say this as the Chomsky Imitator...SURELY this man is only joking. NO ONE, in their right minds, would actually write this and mean it?

You’ve contacted this guy, right? You’re just waiting for his reply and no doubt he’s going to say, "April Fool, silly gun-toter, I was just teasing to see how easily you wingnuts can be fooled. Did you really think I meant any of this, shame on you." Because I really can’t believe someone wrote this, who’s a columnist, for a real paper...sure a lettre to the editor, or the editor of a HIGH SCHOOL paper might write something this lame, but no adult with a real writing job could have penned this as anything other than a "Modest Proposal."
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Yeah right, and what about having to repeal the 2nd Amendment, and the various state constitutions recognizing the individuals right to bear arms...

He’s not a "liberal" or a "zealot" he’s just a plain old-fashioned moron.
 
Written By: Keith_Indy
URL: http://asecondhandconjecture.com/
Calling liberaltarians! Calling libertarians for Democrats? Reason.com? Bueler? Bueler?
 
Written By: Bucky
URL: http://
Like Joe, I found it hard to believe that Simpson was writing in earnest so I did this quick search and I read one of his other op-eds, "Spying on your own people is risky all around."

It’s hard to imagine what, apart from vastly increased powers for the FBI, NSA, the military etc., Simpson thinks would be required for the gun grab he seems seriously to propose. How could he suppose any such scenario would be realized without the creation of a spy state that would put to shame the East German and Bulgarian situations he decries in the "Spying" op-ed?

If he is serious, and not some sort of strange Andy Kaufman put-on joker columnist (I’m still not sure), then he’s naive to the point of childlike. Like so many on the lunatic left.
 
Written By: Linda Morgan
URL: http://
Seems like a put on as it’s so absurd. But then again, it’s getting impossible to parody the left.
 
Written By: Grimshaw
URL: http://
Well whilst we’re solving the gun scourge may I ask if we might not extend this cordon and search approach to child pornography and to illegal drugs. I mean as long as we’re ridding the US of one scourge, why not two others?

All those pat-down searches and house sweeps ought be wasted...in fact if we make it a multi-jurisdictional approach to it, we culd have fire and safety code violations covered, nuisance code violations covered, child abuse and child safety issues covered, too.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Question, will Mr. Simpson personally lead the confiscation squads? I doubt it. If so, he doesn’t matter.
 
Written By: David L
URL: http://bitsblog.florack.us/
And hey, if you’re going to add child pornography, and illegal drugs, why not add illegal immigrants and homes without smoke detectors...
 
Written By: Keith_Indy
URL: http://asecondhandconjecture.com/
I did Keith, but do you have any other ideas for enforcement that can be handled by a friendly multi-hour visit from the Local/State/Federal authorities?
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
While we are at it, every search team should include mental health professionals to evaluate each person to see if they are a danger to themselves or another(and, given the expected agitation and emotional response to such an action I would expect a lot of dangerous people to be discovered). We must learn from the Cho incident. Since many people would be removed from their homes and committed(see previous sentence) leaving empty unused real estate, property appraisal teams should also accompany the government forces to set a price for an eminent domain taking of the property to maximize its public benefit.
Where shall we put all these dangerous people? Obviously presently available facilities would be insufficient. For the sake of efficiency, we should concentrate these social deviants in centralized camps to facilitate treatment and security. The government at present has neither the manpower or expertise to do this properly and efficiently. The quickest way to obtain trained and experienced personnel would be to import them from other countries. The countries of the former Soviet Union, for example, presently have a surplus of of manpower with training, experience, and the proper motivation and temperament for work in this field.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
oops. I do sometimes type without reading ever word of some posts...

’Course, they could just install web cams in every house to. Make it easier to follow-up and make sure people aren’t breakin’ the law.
 
Written By: Keith_Indy
URL: http://asecondhandconjecture.com/
I’m with Joe. Might as well clean up everything so that we can have a more perfect nation. Don’t, however, forget evidence of hate thought. I’d look carefully at anyone with a copy of The American Spectator or Reason on their coffee table.
 
Written By: Grimshaw
URL: http://
Think about how many gun owners who would form militias to fight the anti-gun police in a new sort of revolutionary war type of event. Many more than 33 people would die in shootings.
 
Written By: Jimmy the Dhimmi
URL: http://www.warning1938alert.ytmnd.com
Sieg heil, Danno.
 
Written By: Bilwick
URL: http://
I think Timactual, Keith, and Grim have made a first wonderful foray into this thing. So let me add one thing to one of Tim’s proposals. When I was in grad school, this anorexic Marxist Grad student (Eyes alight) mentioned the "libratory nature of manual labour"-the phrase has never left me.

I propose at these camps where we are reeducating and treating the mentally ill, that constructive, libratory manual labour be a part of the program. There are ship canals that need digging, gold and minerals that need mining, or environmental hazards that need remediation (Superfund Clean-up sites). I think these people could usefully and gainfully be employed on this sort of task.

You have to sell it right, with a catchy phrase...I don’t know, "Whistle while you work" or "Work will liberate you", or something, I remember a catchy German phrase that might suffice, Arbeit Macht Frei. I propose that as the motto for the new....

What shall we call it, the Main Administration for Labour Camps....I think the Russians called it the Glavnoe Upralevnie Trudivik Lagerei (GULAG). We could have little islands of libratory/Freeing labour scattered all across America, like a vast archipelago of liberation from the old and sick way of thinking.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
A little reminder on what to expect after the gun confiscations.
 
Written By: ChrisB
URL: http://
This is one of the most off the cuff rediculous plans I’ve ever read. No research, just a desire to "fix" a problem cold turkey. Lets ban swimming pools because those "cause" thousands of deaths per year as well. Or is it the use of such items like learning to swim that prevents deaths? It’s like trying to quite smoking by not breathing.

I am not right wing, nor left wing. I am not religeous, but by no means athiest. I do believe I have common sense and I learn from my surroundings. If he were to impliment this plan it’s not only going to cause rioting and resistance but this will ultimately prove what so many of us have said before. This is that laws sre only preventing good responsible people from having guns that would respect the law and the firearm. Growing up in the 80’s and 90’s in upstate NY i knew I could get a gun anytime I wanted. NY is very strict on gun laws and the only people that couldn’t have a gun are the ones that followed the laws. Criminals, or people intending to use them to kill or brake laws don’t care how they get their weapon. I hope that for everyones sake they don’t go this far. I could care less if they allow gays to marry (marriage is already a joke in this country as it is! Especially with reality TV like "Who wants to marry a millionare.), or if pro-choice continues (if you don’t provide a means, women will do it them selves possibly killing both parties, mother and child). But you "try" to take away our firearms, I see this country reaching it’s braking point. I will be speechless if this is proposed as a bill on capital hill, but then again, actions speak louder than words.
 
Written By: Justin
URL: http://
Justin, Justin...you don’t grasp the plan, obviously *SIGH* The government will collect ALL the guns, Cho Seung-Hui’s and yours and the He((’s Angels, too. And then the Coast Guard and the Border Police will keep any more guns from being imported. So the murderers and rapists will be disarmed. It’s simple you see.

The forces of law and order will simply make sure that those .5 to 10 kg. devices don’t come into our country, just like they keep the TONS of marijuana and cocaine out of the country and all those illegal aliens....

Oh Wait....Never mind.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Not a mention of the 2nd or 4th Amendments.
Or (not surprisingly) of the 5th.

Isn’t it strange how people who want to do something as righteous as banning all the guns never mention how they’re going to handle the little problem of paying just compensation to the former owners for the private property they’ve just been forced to turn over to the state?

Maybe it’s just a detail they’re forgetting to mention.

On the other hand, a cynical observer might justifiably surmise that they don’t mention it because they don’t really believe in the concept of private property in the first place. It’s a hallmark of policies proposed by statists and nanny-government types that the process of accomplishing whatever "public good" they are after involves making free with something that someone worked hard to build or acquire for someone else’s benefit.
 
Written By: aporitc
URL: http://
Thanks to idiots like this, there are bumper stickers stating that they can get the owner’s gun when they pry it from their cold, dead fingers.

What, you thought we were kidding?

 
Written By: Jeff
URL: http://
I still pray this is a joke...I certainly am having fun with it, because it’s too goofy to actually be true or be believed.

As to compensation, your insurance rates will fall because crime will fall and there will be no accidents or suicides; so insurance companies will lower their rates. So the government need not compensate you, the insurance break you recieve will mORE than make up for it.

Man this stuff is TOO easy...I’m joining the other side.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Wait until I review his articles for publication. No Second No First. If anyone has wondered why the State Department is called Foggy Bottom, you now have your answer.
 
Written By: ar
URL: http://
that’s just how mao or fidel or stalin would do it!
 
Written By: reliapundit
URL: http://astuteblogger.blogspot.com
If VT is a good enough reason to trash the 2nd Amendment, Dan Simpson is a good enough reason to trash the 1st.
 
Written By: G. Hamid
URL: http://www.threeyearsout.com
Well, that’s how I would do it, too, because only a complete police state would suffice.

He left out a few things that are probably necessary: CCTV cameras on every lamppost, with a huge corps of watchers; suspension of habeas corpus, lest suspected gun hoarders warn their fellow conspirators of the approaching raiders; lots and lots of jails, or re-education camps; summary execution for resisting by force of arms.

"We have to give up some of our freedoms for society to be safe."

Then, of course, using a gun in a crime would have to be dealt with harshly. Summary execution again. The borders would have to be reinforced to prevent gun smuggling, with checkpoints on all major roads nearby. Heck, checkpoints everywhere would sure help.

Boy, this makes me feel safe. And STILL, some a**hole would shoot up a school.

 
Written By: Kevin Murphy
URL: http://
When I was in Syria about 25 years ago there was NO mugging or rape. Teenage girls hitchhiked. One of the enforcers of this great society did, however, point an AK at me during a roadside search and take the safety off because he got a bit confused. Two more seconds of his confusion and I wouldn’t be writing this.

Also one tried to avoid public buildings. They exploded due to the efforts of those unappreciative of the protection afforded by government.

Seems as if some wish to emulate Syria’s legal system.

We have the greatest government in the world, I just wish our schools would teach more people why that is true.
 
Written By: Ron
URL: http://
I was just thinking: I hope they come to my house first, because if they came second I’d be obliged to be ready, and I don’t fancy shooting at Law Enforcement. Still, I will hand over my ammo to the State when it is required of me as fast as I can... one round at a time.

Next they’d start rounding up "unscientific AGW deniers" for "re-education". It’s always the same.
 
Written By: brett_l
URL: http://
I think this hypothetical scenario is instructive. The missing element here is the proper perspective. This isn’t about what it would take to disarm the public, rather it really shows the justification for the 2nd Amendment. Consider that in order to create a police state the public would have to be disarmed, and in order for the public to be disarmed a police state would have to be created. As Robb describes above, the gun owners of America would stand in the way of this foolhardy effort and doom it to quick failure. Which is exactly why the 2nd Amendment is necessary. It prevents the creation of a police state, independent of the goals and purpose of that police state.
 
Written By: Robin Goodfellow
URL: http://
Rob sez :What I am about to say is not a joke, hyperbole, or a false display of bravado.

I’m right there with you, Rob. I told my wife before we married that, even thogh I love her more than life and would rather die than live without her, that this issue was a "gates of hell" matter to me. I’m college-educated, my name isn’t Bubba, and I qualified Expert with the M-16A1 in the US Army, but only because that’s the highest badge they had.

It’s tired old cliche, but it’s true never the less, and armed man is a citizen, and an unarmed man is a subject. I will be a subject to no one.

"Oh Lord, I would live my life in freedom, peace and happiness, enjoying the simple pleasures of hearth and home. I would die an old, old man in my own bed, preferably of sexual overexertion.

But if that is not to be, Lord, if monsters such as this should find their way to my little corner of the world on my watch, then help me to sweep those bastards from the ramparts, because doing that is good, and right, and just.

And if in this I should fall, let me be found atop a pile of brass, behind the wall I made of their corpses."
(Origin unknown, but I believe I got it from www.blackfive.net)

Molon Labe



 
Written By: Augustus
URL: http://
There’d be no law enforcement to enforce this facism.

Between those that hold dear the constitution and those that fear the war zone they’d be walking into daily, there’d be little to no Americans that would accept this job on any paygrade less than "a buttload of cash and disability insurance."

This is just a "liberal zealot" wet dream.
 
Written By: Hoodlumman
URL: http://www.fileitunder.com
I would like to point out to the starry-eyed gun grabber that a lot of the police force are ex-military. The first oath, the primary oath, that the military member swears is to defend the constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic and the reason for the second amendment is to prevent precisely the sort of action that the gun grabber is advocating.

So were such an action ordered, there would be a lot of people standing up and refusing to do it. Just because I’m no longer an active member of the military does not mean that I will not abide by my oath.

 
Written By: SwampWoman
URL: http://
I’m curious, if the US were conquered by a foreign power that immediately decided to disarm the populace, would it look any different than this utopian’s fantasy? I can barely suppress the desire to shout "Wolverines!" while reading this.
 
Written By: charles austin
URL: http://sinequanon.spleenville.com
I hope the idiot who proposed this leads the pack. And I hope they come to get my guns first. His concern with guns in society would end quickly at that point.
 
Written By: Buster
URL: http://
Why stop at guns?

Next up drugs.

Then Cigarettes.

Then Alcohol.

Hey we can do it all foods with too much fat in them.

Next up anyone who listens to Rush Limbaugh has to turn in radios and can only sign them out when he is off the air.

 
Written By: retired military
URL: http://
We should also add "conservative" literature to the tests.

Take away the Bible, Atlas Shrugged, and Wealth of Nations, and the free marketeers will go away.

 
Written By: austin
URL: http://
There’d be no law enforcement to enforce this facism.
Sure there would be. They don’t have any problem finding goons to do drug enforcement or the current gins laws, do they?

And supposedly they’re almost all fine fellows and deserve our respect.

Your, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp

PS. Holy sh!t. I wrote that without cracking a smile. 8^(
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://
Not a mention of the 2nd or 4th Amendments.

Nor the 5th, since he makes no mention of paying for the guns and presumably is not interested in doing so at a cost of several billion dollars minimum.
 
Written By: whip_lash
URL: http://
I’m still not convinced this isn’t something along the lines of Swift’s "Modest Proposal".
 
Written By: Bill Dalasio
URL: http://
While this whole article is a joke the one thing that made me sit back and really laugh was,

"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."

Has this guy ever listened to discriptions of serial killers? One of the first things the people who know them say is "He looked so normal."

This is so stupid in defies logic.
 
Written By: Jamie
URL: http://
"Charles said: ....I can barely suppress the desire to shout "Wolverines!" while reading this."

Too funny, I was thinking the same thing, however, I don’t think enough law enforcement personnel would be willing to enforce such a law, so we could still live in our homes rather than the woods while planning our attacks against the few leftists willing to enforce such stupidity.

Don’t get me wrong, I like the outdoors as much as the next guy, but I prefer planning my ambushes while being warmed by the heat from my fireplace.


Wolverines indeed!
 
Written By: dogwood
URL: http://
To: Mr. Dan Simpson, Toledo Blade

Re: The Disarming of America

People like you, Mr. Simpson, are devoid of fundamental understanding of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Further, you fail miserably at understanding the basic contract these documents establish between government, and the consenting governed. I’d wager you would refer to our form of government as a "democracy" rather than a constitutional republic.

God created man, endowed us with "certain inalienable rights", and man established constitutional government so that these rights might be protected, and thereby live together in relative peace. Somewhere along the line this contractual relationship has become inverted. Our Constitution spells out exactly what specific, limited "powers" government has, and our Bill of Rights enumerates the sovereign, inalienable "rights" we the people retain. Nor are the people’s rights restricted to those enumerated therein. Government has no rights...only human beings do! The creature (and the statist, elitists like you, Mr. Simpson, who comprise the would-be ruling class) now rule we, the creators.

This will remain the status quo only as long as we the people allow it. The left finds endless rights in the "penumbra" of the unstated (abortion, gay marriage, etc.), and then, like a cat trying to cover up on a tile floor, denies the spelled-out and neon-lighted rights before it’s eyes.

These rights are part of our nature as human beings. They may not be taken from us by anyone, nor even freely given away. And certainly not without due Constitutional process...unless Mr. Simpson wants to start a gun-confiscation civil war that will make Prohibition look like a Sunday School picnic? If a man were to decree, of his own free will, that he gives up his rights under the Second Amendment to appease the majority or some government, he would still retain these rights naturally as a human being.

In fact, every elected official in our land takes a solemn oath before God to protect our rights as listed in the Bill of Rights (and then most pretend only those they like are really there at all). And this is how you would have them behave when this solemn trust, the protection of our rights (including one to which you might personally object) is the sole purpose for the very existence of the office they hold!

Among these are the rights to "life, liberty and property" (later revised to "pursuit of happiness"). The right to life is foremost among all rights. Self preservation...survival...is the undisputed right of the lowliest animal. Why do so many "human beings" deny their fellows a right they would staunchly defend for any cat or dog? I submit that the right to life is meaningless without the means to protect it. Our founders understood that arms in the hands of common men of good will, and the willingness and skill to use them for defense of self, family and nation, would forever be the best safeguard against evil men, and the inevitable tyranny that our Republic, once devolved into a democracy would suffer. And you apparently see the use of guns in the hands of state police to seize citizens arms as good, but guns in citizens hands for self-defense as evil? As Ricky Ricardo would say..."You’ve got some ’splaining to do!"

I fail to see what the misuse of a right by the likes of Cho has to do with my free exercise of these inalienable rights? The laws are clear...and the laws against murder, rape, robbery, arson, etc., chiefly serve to spell out the penalties government will impose upon those convicted of the crimes...these laws have little or nothing to do with prevention of the crimes, and never have in human history.

The only response to the Chos of the world is a violent, armed response. If the VT students, staff and faculty had not been forcibly disarmed in a gun-free, victim hunting preserve like their campus has become (thanks to the cowards who run that institution, and most of the rest), this story could have had a much happier ending. A mental image of several armed students and /or faculty throwing Cho’s riddled, lifeless body from an upper floor window comes readily to mind. And I must seriously question the manhood of any who refuse or cannot understand this simplest of ideas.

I remember reading Solzhinitzyn, how in the camps of the Gulag Archipelago (also the title of the book), he recalled his fellow prisoners bitterly regretting that they never actively resisted when the state made their mass arrest sweeps. He wrote of "How we burned in the camps..." that they had not forcibly resisted the tyranny of the state, and suggested that if the first man through the door had been shot, it would not take long before there were no more volunteers to be first. Of course, the shooter would also die in the ensuing fight, but this would eventually take it’s inevitable toll on morale.

Like all simple minded ideas, Mr. Simpson, yours sounds wonderful to you, and might work well on paper. It won’t work at all in practice. That there are actually those who think the time is right for such draconian measures is chilling. Mr. Simpson, perhaps you might like to volunteer to be first through the front door? Of course, like the steak-eater who slanders the hunter while hiring the butcher, a coward would rather hire his dirty work done. Apparently, you’d prefer a mercenary force to protect you than assume the hard work of citizenship and responsibility for your own safety. To paraphrase Franklin, trading essential liberties for temporary and illusory safety will leave you with neither.

There are millions of veterans of military service who have taken the oath to "...support and defend the Constitution of The United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic." I am one of them, and I did not have my fingers crossed when I took that oath. I meant all of it, and support every word...even the parts you don’t like. Do the math, Mr. Simpson!

In 480 B.C., another tyrant named Xerxes commanded a handful of Spartans to surrender their arms. Their king, a man named Leonidas, replied "Molon Labe!"..."Come take them yourself!".

Molon Labe, Mr. Simpson!
 
Written By: Michael Brickman
URL: http://
Well said Tom Perkins, those goons...You talk Truth to Power...You Fight The Powers That Be!!

After all enforcing laws via the Constitution is no different than stopping people at random and cordon and search.....

And people say, "Libertarians, Dey Crazeeee!" But you, Tom, show’em different...
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
I don’t own a gun. But if Congress even thought of proposing such a law like he describes, I’d buy ten guns and dare Congress to pass it. I don’t think I’d be alone.
 
Written By: Jim
URL: http://
Good thing he’s not a liberal zealot.
 
Written By: Dave Schuler
URL: http://www.theglitteringeye.com
Wolverines!

I guess that puts ages on several of us, hm?

I will admit that, now that someone mentioned it, I do have the same reaction to this as to watching that movie. For two weeks I couldn’t sleep because I was planning the resistance.

I can’t send my wife away because I am the wife, and I didn’t give birth to my own little squad of soldiers to send them away either. They need some training, though. And we need some guns in the house that aren’t Airsoft replicas.

And that’s the thing. We *don’t* own any guns, but the first thing I’d do if something like this looked even remotely possible is get some. Lots. Big ones.
 
Written By: Synova
URL: http://synova.blogspot.com
Well I just read where some joint task force up in Chicago is going around to homes where people have let their firearms owners cards lapse and searching, without a warrant, and confiscating guns.
So, y’all’s idea that police won’t do such a thing are, um misguided. While most LEOs care about the Constitution, enough who don’t will always be found to do the dirty work of tyranny. Germany was a civilized nation when Hitler came to power. France was civilized, too, right up until they started whacking off heads.
 
Written By: Peter
URL: http://shakeypete.blogspot.com
After all enforcing laws via the Constitution
Joe, the gun and drug laws are not constitutional.

You know that, you just don’t give a sh!t.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://
Joe, the gun and drug laws are not constitutional.

You know that, you just don’t give a sh!t.
Get back to me on the Section of the Constitution(s) they violate and how SCOTUS agrees with you sometime, right now you’re just as crazy as the folks who tell you the Income Tax is Unconstitutional....

What I give a $h!t about is crazy people, left, right, AND libertarian....I like to stop’em before they do too much damage.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Mr. Simpson, you haven’t thought this through. If we take away the guns these knuckle-dragging reich-wing thugs will arm themselves with knives and if we grab those they’ll just take up pointy sticks. Let’s be proactive here. Build the arsenals a little larger so that we can accomodate the knives and the pointy sticks. We can then issue toilet-paper offsets in return for the seized weapons because we know damn well that these earth hating gun nuts also probably use more than one sheet per sitting.
 
Written By: Bob
URL: http://
Tom: There’s no Second Amendment for drugs, so it’s not nearly as clear as you’d like to think.

Now, making mere possession of drugs illegal is strongly arguably unconstitutional, but restricting their sale (at least between states at any level)?

That sounds like a constitutional (though unwise) use of the Commerce Clause.

In fact, since most drug trade is interstate, it sounds plausible from a reasonable interpretation of the Commerce Clause to regulate all of it, since there’s no way to separate out really-interstate-trade-in-drugs from honest-we-made-this-meth-in-state trade and transport.

Growing your own probably doesn’t reasonably involve the commerce clause, but it doesn’t sound unreasonable to at least require source inspections for sale, to enforce non-interstateness.

Which brings us to the War On Drugs in itself (if not in all of the laws currently used to prosecute it) being Constitutional But Stupid.
 
Written By: Sigivald
URL: http://
I’m with Jim on this one. I don’t own a gun either, but you’d better believe I’d get one if someone tried to pass this into law. This article has to be a farce. I have a hard time believing anyone would be this stupid in tipping their hand.
 
Written By: John
URL: http://
I understand that not every LEO or soldier would desert rather than enforce this plan. But plenty would. Even better, there would be quite a few clever ones that would wait until the very last minute before doing so—oops, Mr. Gun Control Tyrant, there went your OPSEC!
 
Written By: Kirk Parker
URL: http://
There’s no Second Amendment for drugs, so it’s not nearly as clear as you’d like to think.
The absence of explicitly granted authority means it has none, especially in light of the 9th and 10th amendments. The notion the national government could properly have general police powers was advanced as a hypothetical drawback by the anti-federalists, and the charge ably refuted by the federalists—the national government has no police power beyond what is explicitly granted in the constitution.

The commerse clause in fact only permits the national government to regularize the trade between the states, meaning that it was intended solely to create a free trade zone within the United States, no other interpretation of the Founders intentions is an honest or true one. To interpret the constitution with modern meaning and political convenience in mind and held higher than the explicit intention of the framers and ratifiers is not merely perverse, it is an attempt to overthrow constitutional law.

It is not possible for a finding by the SCOTUS which is at odds with the constitution to be legitimately enforced, howsoever strongly enforced notwithstanding.

The prohibition of recreational drugs, especially eeggregious because it is done without benefit of an amendment to make it legal, has already done far more damage to the country then Prohibition ever did, and it gave us the mob.

Joe is simply insane on the topic, not rational.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://
It is not possible for a finding by the SCOTUS which is at odds with the constitution to be legitimately enforced, howsoever strongly enforced notwithstanding.
Joe is simply insane on the topic, not rational.
Yes, I’m INSANE...Tom Perkins espousing a nice theory about the Constitution, one that has not been accepted by either the public OR the Courts, Tom’s the rational one.

Tom uses the libertarian constitution, equal parts of stff that’s not there and theory that is compelling, but not law.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Dear God, yes, this is exactly the sort of legislation this country needs...if we’re trying to convince everyone to the right of the middle that the apocolypse has come and that they should answer the door with two shots to the body and one to the head. Certainly, if it were possible to completely disarm the body politic, one might see a decline in deaths connected with a firearm. Will such a disarmament happen? No. It is both politically and realistically impossible. Will the sort of r*tard who wrote this piece accept that? No.

Cheers,
RK Jones
 
Written By: RK Jones
URL: http://
Tom Perkins espousing a nice theory about the Constitution, one that has not been accepted by either the public OR the Courts, Tom’s the rational one.
It was one accepted by the courts until the rise of the Progressive movement in the 1890’s or so, and much of that genuinely constitutionalist view stood untrammeled in the courts until FDR’s administration.

And frankly, the public has not been given the opportunity to give their views on the topic in the full manner the constitution requires, and the public clearly endorses the conventional model of the second amendment, first amendment, and (for further example) the emminent domain clause to a far greater degree of fidelity then does the current SCOTUS. When the public has rejected some aspect of the drug war, they have been ignored by the feds! Where then does Joe find legitimacy for the radical, unconstitutional, socialist, progressivist and likewise tyrannical decisions of SCOTUSes, Congresses, and Presidents past?

Why where and when he agrees with them. There is no finer principle there at all.

Keep on being happy with the country shooting itself in the kneecaps with the drug war Joe, your insanity is at least popular with enough badged thugs for it keep on happening for a while.
Tom uses the libertarian constitution, equal parts of stff that’s not there and theory that is compelling, but not law.
I use the one that was ratified Joe, and nothing that isn’t in it or in the writings of the framers and ratifiers of it.

And I have no less an authority than Marshall to say that legislation which is not constitutional is not law at all.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://
And I have no less an authority than Marshall to say that legislation which is not constitutional is not law at all.
Actually No you don’t...sorry:
1) I doubt you’re a lawyer and constitutional scholar
2) And even if you are, you’re NOT the Chief Justice of the SCOTUS. So sorry, but you have far LESS authority than Marshall.

I think we’ll end this now and get back to a discussion of the article..it’s obvious we will not come to an agreement on this issue and why wander into a cul de sac of acrimony and dispute?
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
For those who think the guy has to be joking or playing a hoax. Remember Cheryl Crowe was "just joking" about 1 square of toilet paper. Yeah right.
 
Written By: retired military
URL: http://
I totally believe the columnist is dead serious about creating a police state to disarm Americans. Remember that to most liberals, the ends justify the means.

I will never give up my guns. If the US Government decides to disarm me, then that gov’t no longer has legitimacy. I will become a rebel.
 
Written By: Barry
URL: http://onehorse.wordpress.com/
I have a couple of search terms for Gauleiter
Simpson:

"M3 Grease Gun"

"Sten submachinegun" .

One man, a few machining tools, and somewhere to
put them — imagine the end of _V For Vendetta_,
only it ain’t masks the citizens are bearing....
 
Written By: CF
URL: http://
I used to be a full supporter of the individual right to keep and bear arms, before I began a career change from engineering to teaching history.
I had to research the Constitution and low and behold, the individual right is non-existent.
Mr. Simpson is absolutely correct in his writing, except that I wouldn’t make any exceptions for hunting, nor would I keep firearms in a museum. I will be inheriting a number of firearms in the near future, and while I could use the cash(graduate school is expensive), I have made arrangements with a police department to have all the weapons destroyed. I know that some police departments skim off the cream, but this one doesn’t.
As to the above writers fantasizing about armed resistance, keep writing nonsense. After a few of the resisters are killed, the rest will knuckle under. There won’t be a civil war over this.
And I do believe that we will cut crime drastically with this law, if vigorously enforced. No more children shooting themselves.
After all, if gun control is good enough for the people of Iraq, then it’s good enough for the United States.
A friend of mine lives near a major gun dealer, and he takes down the license plate numbers of every vehicle that he sees going into the parking lot, and puts them into a spreadsheet. When the time comes, he’ll forward the collected info to an appropriate agency for their use.
Fire away at me, and show your trailer park/bible reading level of ignorance.
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
Don = Troll
 
Written By: Bristlecone
URL: http://
Joe wrote:
1) I doubt you’re a lawyer and constitutional scholar
2) And even if you are, you’re NOT the Chief Justice of the SCOTUS. So sorry, but you have far LESS authority than Marshall.
Talk to John Marshall, Joe,
"Certainly all those who have framed written constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and consequently, the theory of every such government must be, that an act of the legislature, repugnant to the constitution, is void."
What is unconstitutional is not law, Joe. And it is not dependent on the courts to affirm that, but only on the condition that a law is repugnant to the constitution.

In the event Marbury vs. Madison is overturned, get back to me.

But in the meantime:
I think we’ll end this now and get back to a discussion of the article
Sure buddy. In response to:
There’d be no law enforcement to enforce this facism.
I wrote:
Sure there would be. They don’t have any problem finding goons to do drug enforcement or the current gins laws, do they?
[and "current gins laws" /= "current gun laws" Yikes]

Does Joe or anyone else think that if this passed as a law without benefit of constitutional amendment repealing the 2nd, that there would from the start be a noticeable lack of LEOs to enforce it?

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://
Rob Allen: I would kill every single person who comes for our guns. And I would not be alone. Even if only 1 out of 10 gun owners resist, that’s still 8.5 million people. An army you cannot defeat. Many years ago I signed up for the Marines. I would die for my country. I would kill for it. I still will.

I’d be right there beside you devildog. First lawmaker that turns my 2nd Ammendment Right into a "crime punishable by a $1,000 fine and one year in prison per weapon to possess a firearm" would get a bullet in the head.

Semper Fidelis
 
Written By: Fen
URL: http://
Okay So I will feed Don the Troll.

Don

This is for you and your "friend" who writes down license plates for the govt.

Hangman

by Maurice Ogden

1.
Into our town the Hangman came.
Smelling of gold and blood and flame
and he paced our bricks with a diffident air
and built his frame on the courthouse square

The scaffold stood by the courthouse side,
Only as wide as the door was wide;
A frame as tall, or little more,
Than the capping sill of the courthouse door

And we wondered, whenever we had the time.
Who the criminal, what the crime.
That Hangman judged with the yellow twist
of knotted hemp in his busy fist.

And innocent though we were, with dread,
We passed those eyes of buckshot lead:
Till one cried: "Hangman, who is he
For whom you raise the gallows-tree?"

Then a twinkle grew in the buckshot eye,
And he gave us a riddle instead of reply:
"He who serves me best," said he,
"Shall earn the rope on the gallows-tree."

And he stepped down, and laid his hand
On a man who came from another land
And we breathed again, for another’s grief
At the Hangman’s hand was our relief

And the gallows-frame on the courthouse lawn
By tomorrow’s sun would be struck and gone.
So we gave him way, and no one spoke.
Out of respect for his Hangman’s cloak.

2.
The next day’s sun looked mildly down
On roof and street in our quiet town
And stark and black in the morning air,
The gallows-tree on the courthouse square.

And the Hangman stood at his usual stand
With the yellow hemp in his busy hand;
With his buckshot eye and his jaw like a pike
And his air so knowing and business like.

And we cried, "Hangman, have you not done
Yesterday with the alien one?"
Then we fell silent, and stood amazed,
"Oh, not for him was the gallows raised."

He laughed a laugh as he looked at us:
"...Did you think I’d gone to all this fuss
To hang one man? That’s a thing I do
To stretch a rope when the rope is new."

Then one cried "Murder!" One cried "Shame!"
And into our midst the Hangman came
To that man’s place. "Do you hold," said he,
"With him that was meant for the gallows-tree?"

And he laid his hand on that one’s arm.
And we shrank back in quick alarm,
And we gave him way, and no one spoke
Out of fear of his Hangman’s cloak.

That night we saw with dread surprise
The Hangman’s scaffold had grown in size.
Fed by the blood beneath the chute
The gallows-tree had taken root;

Now as wide, or a little more,
Than the steps that led to the courthouse door,
As tall as the writing, or nearly as tall,
Halfway up on the courthouse wall.


3.
The third he took-we had all heard tell
Was a user and infidel, and
"What," said the Hangman "have you to do
With the gallows-bound, and he a Jew?"

And we cried out, "Is this one he
Who has served you well and faithfully?"
The Hangman smiled: "It’s a clever scheme
To try the strength of the gallows-beam."

The fourth man’s dark, accusing song
Had scratched out comfort hard and long;
And what concern, he gave us back.
"Have you for the doomed—the doomed and black?"

The fifth. The sixth. And we cried again,
"Hangman, Hangman, is this the last?"
"It’s a trick," he said, "That we hangmen know
For easing the trap when the trap springs slow.""

And so we ceased, and asked no more,
As the Hangman tallied his bloody score:
And sun by sun, and night by night,
The gallows grew to monstrous height.

The wings of the scaffold opened wide
Till they covered the square from side to side:
And the monster cross-beam, looking down.
Cast its shadow across the town.

4.
Then through the town the Hangman came
And called in the empty streets my name-
And I looked at the gallows soaring tall
And thought, "There is no one left at all

For hanging." And so he calls to me
To help pull down the gallows-tree.
And I went out with right good hope
To the Hangman’s tree and the Hangman’s rope.

He smiled at me as I came down
To the courthouse square through the silent town.
And supple and stretched in his busy hand
Was the yellow twist of the strand.

And he whistled his tune as he tried the trap
And it sprang down with a ready snap.
And then with a smile of awful command
He laid his hand upon my hand.

"You tricked me. Hangman!" I shouted then.
"That your scaffold was built for other men...
And I no henchman of yours," I cried,
"You lied to me. Hangman. foully lied!"

Then a twinkle grew in the buckshot eye,
"Lied to you? Tricked you?" he said. "Not I.
For I answered straight and I told you true"
The scaffold was raised for none but you.

For who has served me more faithfully
Then you with your coward’s hope?" said he,
"And where are the others that might have stood
Side by your side in the common good?"

"Dead," I whispered, and sadly
"Murdered," the Hangman corrected me:
"First the alien, then the Jew...
I did no more than you let me do."

Beneath the beam that blocked the sky.
None had stood so alone as I.
And the Hangman strapped me, and no voice there
Cried "Stay!" for me in the empty square.
 
Written By: retired military
URL: http://
Remember the first 2 rules of dictators.

1. Control the press - Dems already have this in the bag.

2. Control the guns. - Which party wants the populace to have no guns? Dems.

 
Written By: retired military
URL: http://
I had to research the Constitution and low and behold, the individual right is non-existent.
Fire away at me, and show your trailer park/bible reading level of ignorance.
Before you take potshots at other people’s intelligence, you should take some time to educate yourself. It’s "Lo and behold," not "low and behold." And there’s no hyphen in "nonexistent."

Res ipse loquitur
 
Written By: steverino
URL: http://steverino.journalspace.com/
Don, did you study history at Emory with Michael Bellesiles?
 
Written By: Scott Crawford
URL: http://
After all, if gun control is good enough for the people of Iraq, then it’s good enough for the United States.
Uh Don, you do know that EVERY household in Iraq is allowed an AK-47 and ammunition, right? You might ahve missed that, so I’ll let in on the "secret." If you’re going to trot out "facts" at least make them facts, not just airy assertions pulled from your @rse.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
The Iowahawk view of the issue:
http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/2007/04/is_that_a_gun_i.html
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
"Fire away at me, and show your trailer park/bible reading level of ignorance."

Why bother?

And I’ll bet you don’t even know what you wrote in this bit I quoted and how blindingly revealing it is about you, your view of the worth of other people, your contempt for democracy and your assumptions about who should be making the rules.

 
Written By: Synova
URL: http://synova.blogspot.com
I think Don was joking, but it’s hard to tell...
 
Written By: Scott
URL: http://
"A friend of mine lives near a major gun dealer, and he takes down the license plate numbers of every vehicle that he sees going into the parking lot, and puts them into a spreadsheet. When the time comes, he’ll forward the collected info to an appropriate agency for their use."

Your friend needs to be evaluated.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
"A friend of mine lives near a major gun dealer, and he takes down the license plate numbers of every vehicle that he sees going into the parking lot, and puts them into a spreadsheet. When the time comes, he’ll forward the collected info to an appropriate agency for their use."

Your friend needs to be evaluated.
Besides, your friend isn’t doing anything the ATF isn’t already doing.

If we’re not that worried about them, why would we worry about him?

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://
"Besides, your friend isn’t doing anything the ATF isn’t already doing."

You are assuming that all transactions are reported. Obviously all the illegal ones will not be recorded(you know, all the automatic weapons and antitank weapons sales), so now he can use the list of license plates to find out who has bought something illegally. By eliminating the plate numbers of those who have been recorded as making legal purchases, we can find the ones who obviously made illegal purchases. I am sure they will say "Duh, I was just looking", but we know better.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
What I find interesting is that, as a diplomat, this guy was evidently tasked with explaining American positions on world affairs, and probably explaining American culture and values, to people outside the US. Yet he obviously can’t tell his a$$ from his elbow when it comes to con law 101. If this is what the State Department has on offer, the only people who understand us less than those beyond are borders are those we trust to represent us overseas.
 
Written By: Mike
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider