Saturday, April 28, 2007

A Crazed Liberal Zealot

To what lengths will the anti's go to disarm the free citizens of America? How many other unalienable rights will they be willing to push aside to take our guns? Will there ever be a time when they have imposed enough laws upon the citizenry, or will this onslaught continue until we live in a truly Orwellian society?

Consider this, one anti's plan to disarm America.

From the Toledo Blade:

By Dan Simpson



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.

The likely underestimate of how many guns are wandering around America runs at 240 million in a population of about 300 million. What was clear last week is that at least two of those guns were in the wrong hands.

When people talk about doing something about guns in America, it often comes down to this: "How could America disarm even if it wanted to? There are so many guns out there."

Because I have little or no power to influence the "if" part of the issue, I will stick with the "how." And before anyone starts to hyperventilate and think I'm a crazed liberal zealot wanting to take his gun from his cold, dead hands, let me share my experience of guns.

As a child I played cowboys and Indians with cap guns. I had a Daisy Red Ryder B-B gun. My father had in his bedside table drawer an old pistol which I examined surreptitiously from time to time. When assigned to the American embassy in Beirut during the war in Lebanon, I sometimes carried a .357 Magnum, which I could fire accurately. I also learned to handle and fire a variety of weapons while I was there, including Uzis and rocket-propelled grenade launchers.
Remember this sentence: "And before anyone starts to hyperventilate and think I'm a crazed liberal zealot wanting to take his gun from his cold, dead hands, let me share my experience of guns." We will come back to it in a bit.

Once again an anti attempts to gain credibility through the fact that he has some experience with firearms. Up to this point in the editorial, this is just a copy of the fill in the blank Brady Bunch letter for editorials. This anti takes it one giant step further.

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.
It is that simple, just pass a law and confiscate private property from the citizenry. Forget all about that pesky little Fifth Amendment, the .gov is not taking private property for public use, they are going to destroy it.

Oh no... what about the hunters?

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.
Whew, that is good. We will still be able to hunt. What is a little inconvenience if it will save just one life?

This guy has thought of everything. He even has an answer for the "What about our historical and collectible firearms?"

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.
There would even be a place in this brave new world for gun dealers:

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.
Now comes the hard part. What about those of us who decide that we are not going to hand over our firearms, who still believe in the concepts of freedom and liberty that are the very foundation of our republic? What to do with us?

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.
Oh boy, Special Squads. I think I have seen that acronym before, now who was it that used SS as a designation for a special branch of police enforcers? I'm sure it will come to me at some point.

It would take an old school SS force to trample the Fourth Amendment as proposed.

This is the point where the author reaches the wrong conclusion:

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."
The author honestly thinks that just because a law such as this is passed, that Americans will comply. I am happy to say that we will not. Legislation such as this will be the line in the sand for millions of Americans. How many of the more than 240 millions firearms in American households does he really think will be turned in during the three month "amnesty" period? 10%? 20%? I would be very surprised if more than 15% or so were turned in to the .gov during this time. Even if half of the firearms in America were turned in, that is still 120 million firearms in the hands of folks who will not easily give them up. If (and this is a very big if) the .gov could muster a SS force large enough to perform these "sweeps", they would be met with very heavy resistance and would suffer major casualties.

Where would Dan Simpson be during all this? Would he be on the front lines, confiscating firearms by force? Or, will he be hiding behind those who are willing to do his dirty work for him? How many American lives is he willing to take to reach this gun free utopia? Or more accurately - How many Americans is he willing to murder to achieve his goals? The dead will number in the thousands, but I guess to Dan Simpson, it would be worth it. Dan Simpson really is one "crazed liberal zealot wanting to take my gun from my cold, dead hands."

Who is Dan Simpson? Is he just some nobody who got published so the paper could get exposure?



The Face of the Enemy


Dan Simpson retired from the U.S. Foreign Service after 35 years of assignments to countries in Africa, the Middle East and Europe, including as U.S. ambassador to the Central African Republic, ambassador and special envoy to Somalia, and ambasssador to the Democratic Republic of Congo.

He has been associate editor and member of the editorial board of the Post-Gazette and The Toledo Blade since 2001.
It appears that we may owe Dan a bit of thanks, thanks for giving us a look at how the leftest see us, and the lengths they will go to achieve their goals.

So what do we do? Do we fight the soft war here and now. Fight each and every attack upon our liberty though the political area while we can? Or do we stockpile ammo and weapons for the day that the .gov decides it is strong enough to disarm us?

Me, I much prefer the soft war. Fighting battles with faxes and emails, supporting those of like mind with money and time.

The need to get involved becomes more urgent every day. If you doubt me, do a Google News search on "gun". The anti's are in full force and filling the editorial pages with tripe such as this. On the bright side, more and more pro-liberty commentary is reaching the papers and being published, so give it a shot.

Write letters, send faxes, and take a friend shooting.

Now may be a good time to recommend one of my favorite books, Unintended Consequences by John Ross. Unintended Consequences provides an inclusive history lesson of gun control laws, and the abuses of the BATFE over the years. It is a piece of fiction that goes right to the heart of the matter of gun control.

Also commenting on this editorial:

Live from the (upper) Texas Gulf Coast

The War on Guns here and here.

Hell in a Handbasket

And likely every other gun blogger out there.

6 comments:

crotalus said...

Yes. definitely fight the soft war. But prepare for the hard war, for it is coming.

Dave said...

Land of the free? Looks like communism is alive and well and looking to take over America. My advice, hold on to your guns, your gonna need them!

Anonymous said...

You are kind of a douche bag.

Anonymous said...

I find it simply amazing, the crap people will spew when hiding behind anonymity. Tell me, anonymous, what's it like being a complete coward?

JR said...

It has been quite some time since I have heard the term "douche bag" and even longer since called one.

Thanks for the chuckle this morning.

Your comment could become the beginning of a "I know you are but what am I?" squabble, but most readers of this blog have reached puberty and would bore quickly of such a quarrel.

If you disagree with what I have written in my commentary, please feel free to voice your objections. I am at a loss as to why anyone would prefer being the subject of a police state over being a free citizen and would welcome your views. But, childish name calling is never acceptable in an adult conversation.

Anonymous said...

If Dan Simpson is not a "crazed liberal zealot", then I shudder to think what a real "crazed liberal zealot" would be like...