Since the VT shootings in Blacksburg, Virginia, we have seen all manner of wild-eyed, anti-gunners come out of the woodwork to cynically use this crime as a chance to beat their gun grabbing drums. But, proposing that we send government Stormtroopers to smash down the doors of every home with a gun in it to confiscate their Constitutionally legal firearms is a step I haven't seen in a purportedly responsible newspaper. That is, until the Toledo Blade published a proposal for taking away our right to self-protection that included "Special squads of police" with unlimited powers to confiscate all guns. A hit squad that would traipse about the country invading homes at will and accosting peaceful citizens everywhere.
The author of this tyrannical proposal is Dan Simpson, who is described as "a retired Ambassador" and a "member of the editorial boards of The Blade and Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. " He is a former US Ambassador to various African states... which can easily be read to mean one who thinks government knows best, darn the citizen's rights, apparently.
The piece that oozes from his pen seems overly long, the first half being an attempt by this anti-gun advocate to make it seem as if he really loves guns. After all, he played Cowboys and Indians as a kid and also had a Red Ryder BB gun. Then, later in life, carried a .357 as a "diplomat". But after the hard to believe disclaimers are dispensed with, Simpson launches into his gun banning proposal.
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.
There is a major problem legally with this supposed diplomat's plans. He never once mentions that the 2nd Amendment is a Constitutional right of the people to keep and bear arms. His proposal is completely illegal according to the Constitution of the USA unless a Constitutional Convention is called to consider amending the law of the land. One would think that an "Ambassador" would be interested in little things like following the law... but apparently not Mr. Simpson.
Worse, and as mentioned, he wants to form a veritable Stormtrooper army that will maraud throughout the country.
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.
... 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."
Perhaps Mr. Simpson became too used to the despotic, all powerful leaders in the failed African states to which he was sent as Ambassador and their style of autocratic government made him envious. But whatever the case, Simpson truly has no grasp of the country in which he lives because he doesn't mention any of it. No mention of the Constitution, our history, world history and the despots who ruled with an iron fist over an unarmed populace, or the principles upon which this country was founded make even a tiny appearance in his piece. Just his desire to hand all power to his hand picked goon squad who will roam about the country attacking law abiding citizens.
The hit squad Simpson envisions isn't his only anti-gun measure, of course.
He proposes gun dealers still be "allowed" to sell guns but only to museums. He thinks hunters should still be allowed their gun but he has created his own ideas of a classified "hunting weapon" that will have to be locked up with the police except during "hunting season" -- a vague notion in Simpson's mind obviously. After all, "hunting seasons" are different all over the place and allow for hunting different types of game all year long. Obviously Simpson has no clue of what "hunting season" really means. His idea would necessitate a Federal Hunting law, and would take more power from the various states.
Speaking of hunters, Simpson appears to imagine that all hunters are mass murderers just waiting for their chance to kill all around them, too. But, that their murdering rampages might be a "lesser sort of issue."
There could conceivably also be a rash of score-settling during hunting season as people drew out their weapons, ostensibly to shoot squirrels and deer, and began eliminating various of their perceived two-footed enemies. Given the general nature of hunting weapons and the fact that such killings are frequently time-sensitive, that seems a lesser sort of issue.
Simpson also seems to imagine that Mexico and Canada would rush into the gun selling business once we illegally outlaw them and send our Stormtrooping armies throughout the country to confiscate US citizen's firearms.
America's long land and sea borders present another kind of problem. It is easy to imagine mega-gun dealerships installing themselves in Mexico, and perhaps in more remote parts of the Canadian border area, to funnel guns into the United States. That would constitute a problem for American immigration authorities and the U.S. Coast Guard, but not an insurmountable one over time.
Yet, both Mexico and Canada have stricter gun laws than do we, so how he imagines that they would suddenly both become the virtual WalMart of guns is hard to imagine.
All in all, Simpson has done nothing but reveal that he thinks he is smarter than everyone around him and that only HE should be allowed to make all the rules. He also imagines himself smarter than the Founders as well as more able than the Supreme Court to adjudicate what should be allowable under the US Constitution. Or maybe not on that last point as he doesn't even seem to recognize that there is a Constitution.
It is no wonder that this man doesn't understand Americans and their history, he seems quite unlike one.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Grab THIS, Dan Simpson.
April 27, 2007 - 10:37 ET by Dave RActually, I have to give Dan here at least some credit:
Unlike most of his totalitarian gun-grabbing liberal comrades, at least he is honest about their ultimate aim.
This republic will not survive the continued neglect of its people.-
Neal Boortz.
OUT OF MY COLD DEAD HANDS
April 27, 2007 - 11:17 ET by TheTruthDan Simpson’s proposed hit squads would face about 100,000,000 Americans – “out of my cold dead hands.” Liberals like Simpson don’t understand the ‘peoples’ Bill-Of-Rights. The second amendment was not written so people can go duck hunting; it was written so that we the people can protect ourselves from a government that thinks like Mr. Simpson.
Liberals like Simpson better hope that his proposed brutal dictatorship never materializes because people like Mr. Simpson will be some of the first to cease to exist in a civil war as we the people fight to keep our freedoms.
Mr. Simpson - OUT OF MY COLD DEAD HANDS!!!
TheTruth ----heads up..."
April 27, 2007 - 11:55 ET by RackieTheTruth ----heads up...
"...protect yourself from a government blah... blah...blah..."
You are delusional - if the US Gov. comes for you and your guns, you are toast.
Better to convince yourself you can protect your own pistol-packing -quick-draw-sorry- ass from carjackers and assorted home invaders without shooting yourself or wetting your pants
Save your anti-gov. bravado for your militia buds -
Rackie...nobody said they cou
April 27, 2007 - 12:02 ET by bassndudeRackie...nobody said they couldent get the job done. But personaly, you want my guns, your going to take them after I am dead. BTW...already dealt with one home invader, and dident have a problem, except for cleaning the carpet where he fell...
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
bass,I agree. The point
April 27, 2007 - 12:35 ET by Dave Rbass,
I agree. The point is to make it as difficult for the government gun-grabbers as you can, and hope that many of the foot soldiers of said government might develop second thoughts and refuse to go along.
Besides, such a move on the part of the government would never work, because word would get out, and even if they sealed off block after block, most people would be able to get their firearms out of the area before hand.
Out in the burbs and rural areas, such an idiotic plan would fare even less well.
I wonder what all those liberals who own guns are going to say when the cops show up and tell them they are there to search for guns. Bet Dan Simpson doesn't have an answer for that one.
This republic will not survive the continued neglect of its people.-
Neal Boortz.
Dilusional?
April 27, 2007 - 12:33 ET by Mr. BishopNo Rackie... TheTruth is merely telling you what the intent of the 2nd Amendment was. If you think, for one second, that the military would fire upon civilians because they would not give up their firearms (as that is what it would take -- military intervention over the police), you are mistaken. Sure, some would proceed and fire upon them, but it is much more likely, that the majority of the military would rather stage a coup, then try to disarm the entirety of the country, for no reason at all.
Bottom line, attempting to disarm civilians is a bad idea. It would never work, is against the law, and would cause such a violent backlash, that the "casualty numbers" in Iraq would pale in comparisson. It would make the Civil War from the 19th Century, in the US, look like a small violent unrest, rather then a war.
"Stop global warming! Asphyxiate a liberal!" - Show us how far you're willing to go to stop "global warming"
I can't believe the military
April 27, 2007 - 14:47 ET by RoverI can't believe the military will stage a coup over this, the mechanism is that they'll never follow orders to carry this out.
I think Racie's point is that the original intent of the 2nd - that a well armed militia is an ultimate guarantee against governmental abuse of the people - is largely outdated by technological changes over the last two hundred years, because a military today has tanks and armored personnel carriers, and weapons and body armor the likes of which private citizens can't compete with anyway. That is a popular argument, and not entirely inaccurate.
Nevertheless, in that scenario, we'd have the militia with tens of millions of citizens facing a military with hundreds of thousands (many or most of whom would not fight when it becomes clear that this would mean using combat force on citizens), so the potential for a popular civil war is still there, and still considerable. The continuation of the second amendment will prevent it from happening-it's a deterrent.
For me, irrespective of the "militia" concept, the bottom line is that I have a right to gun ownership that the Founders reserved for us all, and I don't feel like giving it up. I understand that I do run a risk of being the victim of a gun crime (and was once robbed at gun point), and accept that risk as the cost of that right.
Rover
During my stint in the Army,
April 27, 2007 - 14:55 ET by bassndudeDuring my stint in the Army, my unit was given a survey. One of the questions on the survey was, would I follow orders if ordered to use my weapon on American citizens...I cant remember the exact wording, but that was the gist of it. I answered no, I would not. Most all of my unit answered the same way. I assume it was to check and see if we were willing to kill our own citizens. I know I thought of my Mom and brother and sister, and thought no way..
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
My brother was Reg Army in
April 27, 2007 - 15:09 ET by Carbon SasquatchMy brother was Reg Army in '68, stationed at Fort Lewis WA. His job was repairing helecopter radios, but one of his unit's duties was participating in riot preparedness drills. Of the various items they routinely loaded on transport planes for possible civil action, the most memorable was howitzers (sp?). This was for crowd control.
Bassndude,Interesting, that r
April 27, 2007 - 15:15 ET by RoverBassndude,
Interesting, that reinforces my faith in the military substantially.
One facet that always concerned me is that the enlisted Oath is to the President of the United States and to the Officers appointed by him, while the officer Oath is to the Constitution. I've always wondered if many in the enlisted ranks would carry out orders, no matter what. I've run into one or two in my time who didn't think they had any moral or ethical responsibility that should compel them to refuse an order, but I've always hoped that they were a minority. But I also think this is one reason we have posse comitatus (sp?)
I suspect, historically, that the original Oaths were written in the 19th century, when it was expected that enlisted did not have the education to understand constitutional issues, but the officers were expected to recognize that, for example, an order violated the fourth amendment and their oath to the constitution trumped service regulations about adhering to orders.
Today, though, I wonder about most officers I see who, with engineering backgrounds preferred by the services, don't know an amendment from a hole in their head.
Rover
Actually no...
April 27, 2007 - 15:25 ET by Mr. BishopThe oath of enlistment is not to the US president, nor any officers appointed by him. The US Constitution is the only thing that we swear allegiance to. However, what the oath does contain, in its wording, does contain wording about obeying the orders of the president and officers appointed over me. However, there is caveat to it: according to the regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. With that caveat, if the president, or any officer above me, gives me an unlawful order, I can still disobey it.
"Stop global warming! Asphyxiate a liberal!" - Show us how far you're willing to go to stop "global warming"
The oaths for Enlisted and Co
April 27, 2007 - 15:31 ET by Mean Gene Dr. LoveThe oaths for Enlisted and Commissioned are the same:
"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962). http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/faq/oaths.htm
"Yeah, right! Who's the only one here that knows illegal ninja moves from the government?!" --Napoleon Dynamite
Mean Gene Dr. Love
April 27, 2007 - 15:40 ET by RoverInteresting; I'd heard that the Army oaths were different, but I never believed it. Naval officers don't swear an oath to the President. (I understand that that includes the Marines. Someone once tried to convince me that that could be the origin of a shooting conflict between the Army and the Marines.)
Rover
All services use the same oa
April 27, 2007 - 15:43 ET by Mean Gene Dr. LoveAll services use the same oath. Only the National Guard (Army and Air) have a different oath:
"I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the State of (STATE NAME) against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the Governor of (STATE NAME) and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to law and regulations. So help me God."
"Yeah, right! Who's the only one here that knows illegal ninja moves from the government?!" --Napoleon Dynamite
Officers and enlisted
April 27, 2007 - 15:44 ET by Mr. BishopThe officers take two oaths. The initial oath of enlistment, and the officer's oath. Both are found on the page provided by MGDL.
"Stop global warming! Asphyxiate a liberal!" - Show us how far you're willing to go to stop "global warming"
No, I've taken the oath at co
April 27, 2007 - 15:56 ET by RoverNo, I've taken the oath at commissioning, and at each of five promotions, and NEVER swore an oath to the President. (Maybe I did as a midshipman, but it was 33 years ago.)
Rover
Indeed
April 27, 2007 - 16:04 ET by Mr. BishopAs I mentioned previously -- an officer swears a different oath upon commissioning, then he would at enlistment. At an officer's initial enlistment, he is not an officer -- but a standard recruit (even if he is a cadet). As such, their initial enlistment oath is that of the one that everyone swears to. Upon commissioning, they take a seperate oath, again provided below the initial enlistment oath provided in the link.
"Stop global warming! Asphyxiate a liberal!" - Show us how far you're willing to go to stop "global warming"
Maybe THIS is what you're thi
April 27, 2007 - 15:46 ET by Mean Gene Dr. LoveMaybe THIS is what you're thinking about.
"Yeah, right! Who's the only one here that knows illegal ninja moves from the government?!" --Napoleon Dynamite
rover...it has been some time
April 27, 2007 - 15:38 ET by bassnduderover...it has been some time back, but I seem to remember something about the Constitution, the UCMJ and those appointed over me. I took the constitution part quite seriously, and once was pounded by the UCMJ by one of those appointed over me, but the constitution won out. Nothing ever came of it. But the one in question never tried to give me orders again.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Here is the current oath of e
April 27, 2007 - 16:39 ET by BeowulfHere is the current oath of enlistment for all branches of the Armed Forces:
I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.
The only substantial difference between enlisted and officer oaths is:
...that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter...
The Closed Mind Builds Strong Barriers
Blast... missed a point
April 27, 2007 - 15:43 ET by Mr. BishopI never said I believed the US military would stage a coup, I said they would rather stage a coup. The members of the US military are, by far and away, the most supportive of the Constitution, then anyone else you will ever see in your life. You see average Joe on the street, and pin his beliefs against someone in the military, or ex-military, and you will see a substantial difference in core beliefs, and support of the Constitution and this country. As such, my statement was only made in describing something that the military would never do, is something they would be more likely to do, then forcibly disarming civilians.
"Stop global warming! Asphyxiate a liberal!" - Show us how far you're willing to go to stop "global warming"
Mr. Bishop,Sorry, I misread y
April 27, 2007 - 15:49 ET by RoverMr. Bishop,
Sorry, I misread your initial posting. I see what you were saying.
(A lot of these hypothetical discussions of unlawful orders and unconstitutional orders remind me of Babylon Five-anybody else? I think it was VERY cerebral in its examination of a disciplined armed force and a constitutional crisis.)
Rover
NP
April 27, 2007 - 16:13 ET by Mr. BishopI wouldn't want anyone to think I think the US military would ever stage a coup -- which is why I chose to come back and comment on what you thought I said.
"Stop global warming! Asphyxiate a liberal!" - Show us how far you're willing to go to stop "global warming"
Then, Rover, Racie's point is
April 30, 2007 - 13:37 ET by BeowulfThen, Rover, Racie's point is mistaken. Why is it that when people bring up the "well armed militia" argument, they automatically make the 2nd Amendment reference to "the people" the only amendment where "the people" is a collective rather than an individual right? And why is it that they usually go on to say that the whole intent of the 2nd is aimed at the National Guard, which didn't even exist when the 2nd was written and ratified?
The Closed Mind Builds Strong Barriers
Rackie,You might be intereste
April 27, 2007 - 12:47 ET by bigtimerRackie,
You might be interested in what the majority of American people think so far, you can see the results after you vote here...you do not have to put in any information either, just vote, it will go to the total so far with the results.
http://abcnews.go.com:80/US/story?id=3045900&page=1
Btw...media has been mighty silent that I know of so far about the majoity...lol!
Actually, Rackie, the largest
April 27, 2007 - 13:57 ET by drillanwrActually, Rackie, the largest group of people in this country who have guns, and the government is screwing with and pi$$ing off and threatening . . . is the military. ; )
Rackie “out my cold dead ha
April 27, 2007 - 14:56 ET by TheTruthRackie “out my cold dead hands” means exactly what it says. Put another way I would rather die than live under a brutal dictatorship with hit squads smashing down doors to disarm the presents.
TheTruth - I think I'd like t
April 27, 2007 - 16:24 ET by RackieTheTruth - I think I'd like to stick around and see how it would all shake out.
You know, lend a hand, see to the widows and orphans, help where I could.
But that's just me.
Dying needlessly in a fit of spite is like deserting just when things get tough.
But by all the bluster posted here, there sure as hell would be a lot of shovel work to be had digging those 3X6X6 holes.
"a fit of spite"
April 27, 2007 - 16:44 ET by RJ"a fit of spite"
And there, rackie, you have a clear description of why you don't understand the purpose or meaning of the second amendment. You think resisting would be out of "spite", a momentary pique, a minor vexation. You really have no clue.
Rackie I’d like to stick ar
April 27, 2007 - 22:55 ET by TheTruthRackie I’d like to stick around too, I love my wife, I love my children, I love my country, and I love life :-) I’m curious do you understand how or why you enjoy the freedoms that you take for granted today?
Rackie, you really should get
April 27, 2007 - 16:31 ET by BeowulfRackie, you really should get a clue before spouting off. First, you have to find law enforcement officers willing to kick people's doors down and take their guns. Then, you have to be willing to lose a very high percentage of them - many gun owners are ex-military. Many others are hunters and target shooters, in other words, very good shots. And let's not forget the fact that they (we) will be defending our homes from intrusion, be it government or otherwise.
And maybe, if you were the one holding the gun, you might piss yourself and shoot yourself. But most gun owners wouldn't be so timid or stupid.
Revolution would be the most pleasant thing to come out of any attempt to enforce Simpson's moronic scenario. If gun owners were pushed that far, it wouldn't surprise me to see some head-hunting going after all those who've been supporting gun control as well. Something to think about. Have a nice day...
The Closed Mind Builds Strong Barriers
Beowulf - so much for being
April 27, 2007 - 16:48 ET by RackieBeowulf - so much for being politically moderate.There must be a "Resistance Fighters Handbook" that would explain the difference between being stupid and being brave.But if you want to charge the tanks, have at it.
It would be stupid to not res
April 27, 2007 - 16:52 ET by Mean Gene Dr. LoveIt would be stupid to not resist tyranny. If tyranny prevails, all the bravery in the world would be worthless without the weapons to bring about change. I would rather die fighting for my liberty than to live in "captivity" under a tyrannical government.
"Yeah, right! Who's the only one here that knows illegal ninja moves from the government?!" --Napoleon Dynamite
Okay Doc - my point is not th
April 27, 2007 - 17:17 ET by RackieOkay Doc - my point is not that one shouldn't resist tyranny, but one should not be reckless. The battle for liberty would be long and brutal and though many would heed the call, many would give up and fall from the fight, finding comfort on their knees, so those who are brave through and through must not die needlessly, foolishly early on.
Lack of understanding
April 27, 2007 - 17:24 ET by Mr. BishopYou see... your statement on charging a tank, shows a lack of understanding. Not a single person would just rush a tank -- it's just plain stupid. However, charging a tank with C4 or other means to destroy it is bravery.
"Stop global warming! Asphyxiate a liberal!" - Show us how far you're willing to go to stop "global warming"
You're right about that Mr. B
April 27, 2007 - 17:47 ET by RackieYou're right about that Mr. Bishop, suicide is a viable tactic if you can get enough volunteers.
Rackie, there is no doubt tha
April 27, 2007 - 18:36 ET by RJRackie, there is no doubt that in France, during WWII, you would have been one of the collaborationists, because, well, it's the rational thing to do. No sense in getting killed, right?
No, I would have been a membe
April 27, 2007 - 18:52 ET by RackieNo, I would have been a member of the underground. I would hope to live to be able to tell the story of the many brave and couragous men and women who fought and died to save their country from the Nazis.The only reason one fights is to live.
"The only reason one fights is to live"
April 27, 2007 - 18:59 ET by RJ"The only reason one fights is to live." The only reason, eh? Yeah, you'd be a real asset to the underground.
Somebody has to bury the hero
April 27, 2007 - 19:16 ET by RackieSomebody has to bury the heroes.
Yup. Definitely a collabora
April 27, 2007 - 19:19 ET by RJYup. Definitely a collaborator.
Hardly
April 27, 2007 - 19:06 ET by Mr. BishopNo you would not have been Rackie. The "underground" would have meant that you would have had to, not only stand for something, but that you would have simply had to actually put yout life on the line for something more then yourself. The reason you fight, is not to live, but to fight for your beliefs and for others. If you don't fight, you are simply giving in to the enemy. From what I have seen so far on this thread alone -- your intentions are that of compliance, rather than fighting. You would definitely have been a collaborator, no matter how you deny it. Your beliefs are of self-preservation, nothing more.
"Stop global warming! Asphyxiate a liberal!" - Show us how far you're willing to go to stop "global warming"
Re-read
April 27, 2007 - 19:11 ET by Mr. BishopYou need to re-read what I wrote, and then when you do that, stop pretending that you know anything about a tank (which you don't, obviously). Charging a tank with C4 is not an open invitation to death. Even with the modern technological advances in the M1A2, the ability for a gun turret to train in on a lone human target before they plant the C4, cover and blast it, is pretty slim. The problem is that no one really wants to do it, when the better alternative is to fire something else... like a Mark 19.
"Stop global warming! Asphyxiate a liberal!" - Show us how far you're willing to go to stop "global warming"
This must do until we all get
April 27, 2007 - 19:22 ET by RackieThis must do until we all get Mark19's.
What does interpretation of t
April 30, 2007 - 13:48 ET by BeowulfWhat does interpretation of the 2nd Amendment and American rights have to do with politics? This isn't political. It concerns our God-given right, along with our instinctual imperative, to defend ourselves. It concerns greedy and politically motivated activists intent to disarm the American public for personal gain (money and power, not necessarily in that order).
I am moderate politically. I believe in moderate social programs. I believe in controlled abortion (not used as birth control). I believe in the death penalty (without the 15-20 years of appeals). I also believe in being responsible for your own actions and destiny.
But when it comes to my rights, call me what you will, but no one is ever going to take them from me. THIS is the intent of the 2nd Amendment. To ensure we never have to become resistance fighters against our own government. Why is this so hard for you people to understand?
The Closed Mind Builds Strong Barriers
Guns on Campuses
April 27, 2007 - 16:39 ET by NortoBeliever
i just saw where Utah is allowing guns on campus, but for the life of me,c annot remember where,
Good Grief - YCMUTS
April 27, 2007 - 10:39 ET by RackieGood Grief - YCMUTS
Warner, in the same day's T
April 27, 2007 - 10:43 ET by Ken ShepherdWarner, in the same day's Toledo Blade, the paper's editorial staff wax philosophical about the First Amendment freedoms of speech and press and about journalistic duty as they defend NBC airing the Cho videos.
So freedom of press is sacrosanct as well it should be, but they are perfectly happy with dreaming up ways of nullifying another important right enshrined in the Bill of Rights.
Ken, A hilarious example o
April 27, 2007 - 10:44 ET by Warner Todd HustonKen,
A hilarious example of the left imagining that only the rights they LIKE should be allowed!
Quite ironically, the balanc
April 27, 2007 - 10:51 ET by Mean Gene Dr. LoveQuite ironically, the balance of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution is only guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment. There is no 1st Amendment without the 2nd.
"Yeah, right! Who's the only one here that knows illegal ninja moves from the government?!" --Napoleon Dynamite
And let's not forget the Four
April 27, 2007 - 14:29 ET by RoverAnd let's not forget the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable search and siezure, and the implications of his proposed block-by-block sweeps of entire neighborhoods because SOMEBODY in that neighborhood might have a gun.
Plus his insistence that everyone be targeted, including grandpa and grandma. I suspect that, if this were ever actually implemented (and I know it's unlawful in so many ways) grandpa and grandma will be targetted disproportionately. Upper class suburban areas will be swept instead of drug-infested, gang-controlled inner city neighborhoods in order to avoid crys of discrimination. Plus because it's much safer for the sweepers. This way, the liberals can be claiming to be doing something, and not have any downside. It will even have less impact on the prison crowding problem: a suburban neighborhood might turn up one gun, an inner city neighborhood several dozens. And the suburbanite he's sending off to prison probably votes Republican anyway, the inner city gun owners don't vote or vote Democrat.
I think he's calling for special squads to be formed because he knows he'll have a hard time convincing most professional law enforcement personnel, or military for that matter, to do this.
Are we sure he wasn't joking? This sounds like someone making fun of gun-control advocates to me, by pointing out how fanatical some of them sound.
Rover
Yeah. See my first post below
April 27, 2007 - 14:34 ET by Mean Gene Dr. LoveYeah. See my first post below.
If he was joking, he just found out how passionate we citizens are about our 2nd Amendment Rights and how sacred we hold them.
"Yeah, right! Who's the only one here that knows illegal ninja moves from the government?!" --Napoleon Dynamite
Rover..I live in one of those
April 27, 2007 - 14:47 ET by bassndudeRover..I live in one of those suburban areas you speak of. In Oklahoma, and I cant speak for the rest of the country, our inner citys have some democrats. I have met only one Oklahoman in favor of gun control. And she is not native to here. Most of the dems are in the SE part of the state. Farms and ranches. But most dems here are what we call Oklahoma democrats. Oklahoma hasent voted for a democrat for president except for Truman and Johnson. Most dems here are adherent gun owners. Our senate will not even mention gun control. Sure fire way to lose your seat, quick. And if you mention you are in favor of some gun control, you will find you cant get elected dog catcher.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Ah, the Oklahoma politicians'
April 27, 2007 - 14:54 ET by RoverAh, the Oklahoma politicians' Third Rail!
The Deep South's Democratic Party might as well be different from the East and West Coast Democratic Party. I think they'd disown them, if they could.
Rover
No doubt. We are still a youn
April 27, 2007 - 15:00 ET by bassndudeNo doubt. We are still a young state tho...just now celebrating our 100th year. I remember my grandpa telling me we were nothing more than 1st and 2nd generation gunfighters and outlaws and we dident need any of those north eastern yankees telling us how to live. He did not like those people up that way and really wasent in favor of becoming state.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
bassndude, just remember Guthrie is the "Real" capital
April 27, 2007 - 16:10 ET by Carl Kolchakbassndude, just remember that Guthrie is the "Real" capital and not OKC. I'm probably going to be running for Governor of OK and would appreciate your help. I would like to move the capital back to Guthrie which is the rightful place in my opinion.
How about 89er days?
"Oklahoma is OK!"
Yeah, well that will be a col
April 27, 2007 - 16:18 ET by bassndudeYeah, well that will be a cold day. And we aint havin any more cold days according to Alll Gore. Capitol should be Gore or Eufaula anyways....Im kinda like grandpa...we dont need a governer, we just need left alone. Nuttin personal, you understand...
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
bassndude, can I open a tatoo place in OK?
April 27, 2007 - 16:37 ET by Carl Kolchakbassndude, I am a little dissappointed you won't be working with me on my possible run for Governer. I really think your assistance would swing the election in my favor. However, I was wondering if it would be ok for me to set up any tattoo places in Oklahoma.
Do you think your city would let me be guest speaker at 89er days, to let them know about my run?
"I'm a Sooner born
And a Sooner bred,
And when I die
I'll be Sooner dead."
Just last night I was reading
April 27, 2007 - 16:19 ET by Mean Gene Dr. LoveJust last night I was reading about Oklahoma's history to my girls before bedtime. We've got a book for all 50 states, we read about a different state every night. I hadn't realized Oklahoma was only 100 years old until last night.
I guess even I still learn new things every day!
"Yeah, right! Who's the only one here that knows illegal ninja moves from the government?!" --Napoleon Dynamite
stormtroopers
April 27, 2007 - 10:43 ET by conantLooks to me that Mr. Simpson is the personification of the very reason free men have a duty to be armed. Consider for a moment that if in fact this came about and if only one armed citizen in 10,000. decided to shoot back. 20,000 +/- dead cops the first day? A long way that would go toward making us all safer.
The 2nd Amendment was designe
April 27, 2007 - 10:43 ET by NewsbusterbrownThe 2nd Amendment was designed for bozos such as Simpson.
The 2nd Amendment was d
April 27, 2007 - 10:49 ET by Dave RThe 2nd Amendment was designed for bozos such as Simpson.
And, should the need arise, may he get a first-hand, up-close and very personel demonstration.
This republic will not survive the continued neglect of its people.-
Neal Boortz.
Not only is his idea a clear
April 27, 2007 - 10:48 ET by Mean Gene Dr. LoveNot only is his idea a clear violation of the 2nd Amendment but, the 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendments as well.
If "Special Police Squads" start confiscating weapons, there will be another civil war, but it will be the citizens against the government. As Abraham Lincoln is reported to have said: "This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can excercise their constitutional right of amending it, or excercise their revolutionary right to overthrow it."
Simpson is an idiot. Watch him get tons of backlash and then claim "it was a joke" à la Kerry and Crow.
From my cold dead hands...after I run out of ammunition.
"Yeah, right! Who's the only one here that knows illegal ninja moves from the government?!" --Napoleon Dynamite
Man, this article just remi
April 27, 2007 - 10:50 ET by AJMan, this article just reminded me that I need a new shotgun for the upcoming fowl season.
guns and roses
April 27, 2007 - 14:22 ET by goldenthroatAJ, I'll be right behind you buying mine!
Never dance on an empty stomach unless it's a liberal.
This is simple---
April 27, 2007 - 10:52 ET by misterbillThis is simple---Dan, why don't you come to my house, by yourself and take my gun??? Then I will show you why Americans need to maintain the right to have guns--to protect themselves.
Where ’s the coward that would not dare to fight for such a land?
Sir Walter Scott
misterbill,Great idea.
April 27, 2007 - 10:55 ET by Dave Rmisterbill,
Great idea. In fact, Dan should be the first guy to come through the door, right after the guy with the battering ram steps to the side.
This republic will not survive the continued neglect of its people.-
Neal Boortz.
He could lead the charge ar
April 27, 2007 - 13:21 ET by Carbon SasquatchHe could lead the charge armed with a rolled up newspaper. His health might be in some jeopardy, but that seems a lesser sort of issue.
People, people! Don't you get it?
April 27, 2007 - 10:52 ET by RJPeople, people! Don't you get it? This is like Sheryl Crow's "one square" post. Simpson will tell us tomorrow that this is intended as a joke, simply intended to get us talking about it.
After all, no freedom-loving American could really believe in this kind of a nutty, totalitarian plan....could they?
We'll always have New Orlea
April 27, 2007 - 13:46 ET by Carbon SasquatchWe'll always have New Orleans. (h/t Bogie)
"Special squads of pol
April 27, 2007 - 10:53 ET by MightyMouth"Special squads of police would be formed and trained to carry out the work."
And the life expectancy on that job could be measured in hours!
I think this nimrod should sign up as soon as possible.
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
This is a good point MightyMo
April 27, 2007 - 11:34 ET by BeowulfThis is a good point MightyMouth. Exactly who would sign up to crash into a house where you positively KNEW the owner had guns?
The Closed Mind Builds Strong Barriers
200 million guns in the US
April 27, 2007 - 11:56 ET by MightyMouth200 million guns in the US and at least 50 million rednecks. Do the math, that's 4 guns per redneck. Half of them are reloaders so banning the bullets wont work. Do you realize the size of the Police force you would need? Bust down a door with guns and rednecks inside? Forgetaboutit! /sarc off.
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
Wouldn't work
April 27, 2007 - 12:35 ET by Mr. BishopA police force would not accomplish the feat that Simpson seeks. Only intervention of the US military would ever come close to accomplishing it, and even they (most) would revolt against this.
"Stop global warming! Asphyxiate a liberal!" - Show us how far you're willing to go to stop "global warming"
I know that would be an inst
April 27, 2007 - 12:49 ET by Mean Gene Dr. LoveI know that would be an instance where I would refuse to carry out an order.
"Yeah, right! Who's the only one here that knows illegal ninja moves from the government?!" --Napoleon Dynamite
Nor I
April 27, 2007 - 13:50 ET by Mr. BishopMy entire platoon had a discussion on this once before. It seemed pretty universal, that the entirety of the platoon would have no problem with disobeying an order such as that, and neither would I.
"Stop global warming! Asphyxiate a liberal!" - Show us how far you're willing to go to stop "global warming"
Mr. Bishop, it's been a whi
April 27, 2007 - 15:06 ET by MightyMouthMr. Bishop, it's been a while since I was in, but I believe you are required to disobey an illegal order?
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
It was called unlawful order
April 27, 2007 - 15:10 ET by bassndudeIt was called unlawful order when I was in.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
That's bass, part of the UC
April 27, 2007 - 15:13 ET by MightyMouthThat's it bass, part of the UCMJ I think?
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
It's still 'unlawful order.'I
April 27, 2007 - 15:24 ET by Mean Gene Dr. LoveIt's still 'unlawful order.'
I have actually disregarded unlawful orders several times.
I'm a USAF aircraft mechanic my pilot's life depends on my ability to do my job completely and properly. When I was an E-4 I had an E-8 and an E-9 try to order me to do questionable maintenance so we wouldn't lose a sortie so our stats wouldn't drop. I stood up straight and said, "with all due respect, you both know you can't tell me to do that and I will not do it." I then turned around and walked away. I later found out they got another "kid" to do it that was afraid to tell them "no." I had a talk with the "kid" and told him that if something had happened as a result of the shoddy maintenance, those two Senior NCOs would've let him burn...in fact, they would've lit the match. That was several years ago and both of those jerks have long-since retired, unfortunately there are still guys like them that still try to pull that kind of stuff on the younger guys.
"Yeah, right! Who's the only one here that knows illegal ninja moves from the government?!" --Napoleon Dynamite
Yes
April 27, 2007 - 15:20 ET by Mr. BishopYou are required to disobey an illegal order. However, therein lies the major problem. If a law is passed, requiring the US military to assist police in forcibly removing firearms from the homes of civilians, and the US Supreme Court actively rules in favor of the law, over the Constitution, then would the order be an unlawful order? Technically, no -- it would not be. However, when I took my oath, it was to faithfully defend and support the Constitution of the United States -- and forcibly removing firearms from civilians is a violation of the US Constitution. I would rather go to Leavenworth for the rest of my life for violating liberal law, then violate the US Constitution.
"Stop global warming! Asphyxiate a liberal!" - Show us how far you're willing to go to stop "global warming"
Mr. Bishop,I agree, if the Su
April 27, 2007 - 15:34 ET by RoverMr. Bishop,
I agree, if the Supreme Court supported a law that was that clearly a violation of the Second Amendment, their Ruling would be illegal. I wouldn't follow it, and would lead all of my personnel, insofar as I could convince them, to fight it.
The way it would have to happen to make it legal will be another amendment that repeals, or modifies, the second amendment. Considering how hard amendments are to get passed, I can't imagine that happening. Anyway, if it were to, THEN the law, and the order, will be legal.
For me, that would be time to leave the service and emigrate.
But more likely, the confiscation of all guns will take place gradually, piece by piece (so to speak), taking out one type, function or design at a time with reasonable-sounding rationale (e.g. "who needs the power of these fully-automated assault rifles anyway?"), not enough for anyone to make a real big deal about (like start a civil war), but we'd wake up in 50 years with nothing more powerful than air pistols.
Rover
Oh, so you mean they would tr
April 30, 2007 - 14:00 ET by BeowulfOh, so you mean they would try to ban weapons one at a time, like maybe starting with a certain type of weapon, say by calling a general category of firearm assault weapons without really defining what makes a weapon an assault weapon? The they could maybe ban really big-bore guns like, maybe, the .50 cal. (the terrorist weapon of choice)? Then they could move on to something like sniper rifles? In other words, like they've been trying to do for the last 20 years (at least)?
The Closed Mind Builds Strong Barriers
Law
April 28, 2007 - 02:01 ET by Mr. TerryAs I recall from my time as an MP in the Army, we were told that it is against Federal Law (and perhaps constitutional requirements, in don't remember) that the use of federal troops as a civilian police force is unlawful.
This moron Simpson is advocat
April 30, 2007 - 14:02 ET by BeowulfThis moron Simpson is advocating throwing the Bill of Rights out the window, what makes you thing he's worried about a little thing like Posse Comitatus?
The Closed Mind Builds Strong Barriers
MM, I must be an above averag
April 27, 2007 - 12:51 ET by JABMM, I must be an above average "Redneck". I live in Polk County, FL and I have no less than 15 guns including my hand guns, and yes, one of them is loaded in my night stand beside my bed.
"Too bad Ignorance isn't painful..."
Good God, man...you know how
April 27, 2007 - 13:49 ET by Carbon SasquatchGood God, man...you know how many guns you have? The correct answer is "not enough"
CS, notice the "no less&
April 27, 2007 - 13:55 ET by JABCS, notice the "no less" part of my sentence, this is because I know I have "no Less" than 15 guns.
In answer to your question, I simply don't know how many I have. I also agree, with your correct answer, I still do not have enough.
"Too bad Ignorance isn't painful..."
I also have no less than 15 g
April 27, 2007 - 14:03 ET by bassndudeI also have no less than 15 guns, of no less than 20 diffrent caliber or gage. figure that one out..
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Bass, my assortment is not qu
April 27, 2007 - 14:08 ET by JABBass, my assortment is not quite that deverse but my next purchase will be to add a 50 cal. black power muzzle loader, I don't have one of those yet.
"Too bad Ignorance isn't painful..."
JAB...the black powder .50's
April 27, 2007 - 14:17 ET by bassndudeJAB...the black powder .50's are nice. I have one of the Hawkins models. Sweet gun. I think that if I were in the market today, tho, I would opt for one of the Thompson Center Omega's. Just a thought. My favorite black powder tho is a revolver. 1851 Navy Colt. It fits my hand like a glove and shoots where I look. Almost with out aiming. I love that gun...if I was forced to pick one gun and meet someone on the street, that is the one i would pick.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Thanks for the heads up Bass,
April 27, 2007 - 14:28 ET by JABThanks for the heads up Bass, I have not even started to do my research yet. Now I have a good starting point.
"Too bad Ignorance isn't painful..."
NP JAB...always glad to talk
April 27, 2007 - 14:34 ET by bassndudeNP JAB...always glad to talk guns, bassboats or fishing tackle...:-)
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
There are plenty of multiple-
April 27, 2007 - 14:29 ET by Carbon SasquatchThere are plenty of multiple-caliber weapons on the market. Taurus has recently nicknamed their snubby 45/410 THE JUDGE, as many are carrying the revolver under their robes. While a three inch barrel won't give very tight patterns at distance, a 2 1/2 inch .410 #2 buck round will make a substantial impression on anyone charging the bench.
MM...the question that would
April 27, 2007 - 11:59 ET by bassndudeMM...the question that would be most asked on those squads? "Ok guys, who's going in first?"
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
The new guy of course. Can
April 27, 2007 - 12:07 ET by MightyMouthThe new guy of course. Can you imagine the recruiting posters?
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
I think they are going to be
April 27, 2007 - 12:09 ET by bassndudeI think they are going to be all new guys...all the time...
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
I think they'd probably have
April 27, 2007 - 12:20 ET by Mean Gene Dr. LoveI think they'd probably have a hard time recruiting people. Most law enforcement personnel are private firearms owners as well. Most if not all would quit the force, so then the only recruits would be the anti-war idiot types that think firearms are bad...this means they will have little to no firearms experience, they will be terrible shots (if they can even pull the trigger without blinking when the gun is pointed at someone), little to no strategic or tactical abilities, and it proves that they are dumb enough to try to outgun at least 100,000,000 people with at least some firearms experience (but most with years and decades of experience) and a passion for freedom.
Even with the pure absurdness of this proposal, we still need to be wary and vigilant, Hitler told the world exactly what he was going to do...and then he did it, shockingly with very little resistance. History repeats itself...it can happen again regardless of how much people say it can't and won't happen.
"Yeah, right! Who's the only one here that knows illegal ninja moves from the government?!" --Napoleon Dynamite
A couple more tidbits Dr. Mos
April 27, 2007 - 12:46 ET by BeowulfA couple more tidbits Dr. Most rank-and-file police officers are pro-gun - it is the police Chiefs who mostly make all the anti-gun noise. And many cops are already not very good shots. They are qualified with firearms, which is far different than being "good". And before I start getting slammed for dogging cops, I'm not saying cops can't shoot. But in this Simpson's moronic world, the "special squads" will be going up against hunters and target shooters, to whom 1/32" out of the bull's-eye is a crying offense. Most cops are trained for shooting center-of-mass, which is a far larger target (basically, a person-sized target, upper torso between the arms...
The Closed Mind Builds Strong Barriers
Und after ve take ze guns---
April 27, 2007 - 10:54 ET by misterbillUnd after ve take ze guns---ve vill start to round up all dose who are Jewish for education about dese new American vays!
Where ’s the coward that would not dare to fight for such a land?
Sir Walter Scott
I Think We Have These 'Special Police'
April 27, 2007 - 10:57 ET by dwillmoreI will be the first to admit blundering ignorance regarding the WACO incident, but didn't we send in the ATF on a raid to take away legal possessions?
Who Will Answer
"In a random basis to pe
April 27, 2007 - 11:00 ET by jiminjersey"In 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"
That is an interesting idea if we could apply it in rounding up those who are in this country illegally.
Or how about applying it to d
April 27, 2007 - 11:37 ET by BeowulfOr how about applying it to drug dealers who openly sell their poison on street corners and out of known "crack houses"?
The Closed Mind Builds Strong Barriers
That a former rep. from The T
April 27, 2007 - 11:03 ET by Michael ChapmanThat a former rep. from The Toledo Blade and Pittsburgh Post-Gazette is proposing to trash the Bill of Rights and create anti-gun stormtroopers is no surprise. I worked at an Ohio newspaper back in the 1990s and got to meet and see members of the editorial boards of The Toledo Blade and Pittsburgh Post-Gazette in action. They spent most of their time promoting ways to raise taxes again and again, and then proposing ways in which that money could be better allocated to their respective cities. They were essentially tax-and-spend propagandists for the re-distributionist crowd in the Ohio State Legislature, in Pennsylvania, and among their federal cousins on Capitol Hill. It was all about re-distributing other people's money. In this case, it looks like they're just exposing their leftist views further as they pertain to the 2nd Amendment. Note to Dan Simpson and the commissars at the Blade and the Post Gazette: If you don't like the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution, then repeal it legally. See Article V of the U.S. Constitution for instructions.
It is no coincidence that the
April 27, 2007 - 11:07 ET by Ynot59It is no coincidence that the Nazis were born from National Socialists.
BRITANNICUS SUM
We can take EVERYONE's GUN but we cant kick out illegals?!
April 27, 2007 - 11:04 ET by Six String SpiffLet me get this straight. These fools think they can violate the second ammendment and kick down doors to confiscate all fire arms, but when we ask them to remove the illegal leaches in our society we get drummed out of town and called nazis.. Now THAT is what I call a double standard. Im also going to go so for to say that if we had DONE THE RIGHT THING and closed our borders to anyone without a glistening personal record, this Korean POS wouldn't have been in the country. Any takers?
As a resident of Toledo this
April 27, 2007 - 11:14 ET by HadEnoughAs a resident of Toledo this is nothing new to us.
First off I had to look at th
April 27, 2007 - 11:09 ET by Dan The Man 2First off I had to look at the date again and make sure this was April 27 and not April 1st. Second I thought 3 simple words Cold Dead Hands not saying whose. Third I was dumbfounded as I plowed through the article and thought of East Germany and USSR before the collapse of the Soviet Union.
I am dumbfounded that a newspaper would print some yoyo like this and ignore the freedoms we do have. I cant imagine the numbers of dead police all over the place as the "big guns" are brought against them. I cant imagine any policeman following such orders.
I guess I cant imagine period.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark. -- save my gun, shoot a liberal.
Another scary thing is his ed
April 27, 2007 - 11:16 ET by Mean Gene Dr. LoveAnother scary thing is his editor abviously passed off on this article, apparently he believed this was a good thing to print.
"Yeah, right! Who's the only one here that knows illegal ninja moves from the government?!" --Napoleon Dynamite
These liberals are the same p
April 27, 2007 - 11:10 ET by saw the lightThese liberals are the same people screaming that Bush and Cheney are violating the due process clause with Guantanamo and the illegal search and seizure with the Terrorist Surveillance Program and the Patriot Act.
They have no problem upholding the Constitution when they think a right is being trampled on (don't forget abortion!), but then turn around and actually propose to forcefully erase the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution. What chutzpah!
"Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb (insert terrorist-supporting nation here)"
This is the exact kind of per
April 27, 2007 - 11:13 ET by Airforce_5_OThis is the exact kind of person that wants to make this country a victim.
The taking of basic rights “for the good of the people because we know best” only sets the Government up to take more power.
The Dems want to make us more dependent on them as if we were children. There is too many out there who already sucking from the government tit. This is the plan to make us all dependent on them. Let them play God for they know better than us.
Got one for ya. Why don’t we outlaw stupidity in politicians and diplomats and send it our own storm troopers to round them up. How do you feel about that one sparky?
Reduce the U.S. Carbon Footprint. Send Rosie to Iran. Airforce_5_O 04/04/2007
To the Dems, at least the cur
April 27, 2007 - 11:41 ET by BeowulfTo the Dems, at least the current "leadership" of the Dems, we are children, And not particularly bright children either...
The Closed Mind Builds Strong Barriers
Good God, one of the first
April 27, 2007 - 11:14 ET by MilesDGood God, one of the first rights the Americans enacted in Iraq after the Saddam folks were asked to find jobs elsewhere was the right to bear arms
i guess the Gestapo made a po
April 27, 2007 - 11:21 ET by pmohbucki guess the Gestapo made a positive impression on this goon ...
i also think it's laughable when they use the phrase "turn in their guns" ... what do they think, firearms are free? i can't speak for anyone else, but the pistols i own weren't cheap and i'm not inclined to ever have them "taken" and i most certainly won't "turn them in"
Is this numbskull laying the
April 27, 2007 - 11:23 ET by JABIs this numbskull laying the groung work to be "another" Dimocrat(ic) Presidential hopeful? So sounds like it to me the way he's pandering to the moonbats.
"Too bad Ignorance isn't painful..."
The thing that gets me is tha
April 27, 2007 - 11:25 ET by paperheadThe thing that gets me is that liberals have complained for five years now how the Patriot Act makes the U.S. more like a police state and how their rights have been violated. Don't they ever look in the mirror when putting their thoughts to paper? This scenario is right out of 1984. Again, tell me why criminals would obey this law? LOL! This guy is just plain nuts!
Here's the real disingenous (
April 27, 2007 - 11:39 ET by EdhenryHere's the real disingenous (darn right sneaky and sinister) part of his article. He says the gun lobby would fight back proposing new laws. What he is saying is that the 2nd amendment doesn't prevent this action he proposes. So the gun lobby would have to propose new laws.
Real answer: No, the gun lobby would not have to propose new laws. You would have to repeal the 2nd Amendment (but that puts them in the position of saying the 2nd amendment means something).
(Editor of TB to staff "put Niedermeier on it, he's a sneaky s%#t like you)
Oh HELL! This one more than d
April 27, 2007 - 11:28 ET by BeowulfOh HELL! This one more than deserves a point-by-point disputation:
The likely underestimate of how many guns are wandering around America runs at 240 million in a population of about 300 million. - This math alone should mean something, even to a clueless moron such as Simpson. And the last time I checked, the US was still a democracy where majority ruled - at least on paper.
I don't have any problem with hunting, although blowing away animals with high-powered weapons seems a pointless, no-contest affair to me. - For most hunters, true hunters, it's not a contest. It's being in the outdoors and it's about fresh, healthy meat.
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. - Isn't the whole issue about the criminal use of guns? And isn't it already a federal crime, punishable by huge fines and jail time, for a criminal to possess a gun? So, exactly who would this new law affect? You got it. Only those who obey the law.
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. - So when a hunter wanted his rifle, a background check would be done to ensure he didn't become a criminal since last hunting season. Sounds kinda like the current background check already required to purchase a gun, a background check, incidentally, Cho passed to acquire his guns (which, also incidentally, isn't only limited to "violent" crimes). And to put this particular asinine concept over the top, arsenal staff would eyeball the hunter to make sure he/she didn't turn whacko over the last year. So arsenal staff will be required to have psychology degrees as a prerequisite for the job? Not to mention the civil liability on those staff members if someone, who they "approved", shoots someone during hunting season.
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. - I do believe this is already the case. I honestly can't recall the last time a hunter broke out his Dragon Missile launcher or anti-tank weapon for deer season. And now we also have to deal with, again, the definition of "assault" weapon. And let's not forget "high-powered" as another catch phrase...
All antique or interesting non-hunting weapons would be required to be delivered to a local or regional museum - What if there aren't any local museums? Small point, but still valid. And who determines what firearms are "interesting"?
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. - I just can't figure out this circular bit of tripe. If no one can own these guns, who would they be buying them from in the first place. And why would they buy any if they would never be permitted to actually have them, as they would go directly from the dealer to the museum? And how many gun dealers would be around if the only thing they were allowed to do was act as some kind of UPS Store for "antique or interesting weapons?
Here's where this moron's concept REALLY gets interesting:
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. - "Special squads" of police... Sounds like a euphemism for "Gestapo"...
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. - Does this sound to anyone else like "unreasonable search and seizure"??? Perhaps something vaguely mentioned in the 4th Amendment?
On the streets it would be a question of stop-and-search of anyone, even grandma with her walker, - Uh oh, there goes that pesky 4th Amendment again. Oh well, if it interferes with getting rid of guns, it's obviously outdated anyway - just like the 2nd...
America's long land and sea borders present another kind of problem. It is easy to imagine mega-gun dealerships installing themselves in Mexico, and perhaps in more remote parts of the Canadian border area, to funnel guns into the United States. That would constitute a problem for American immigration authorities and the U.S. Coast Guard, but not an insurmountable one over time. - Let's see if I got this straight... We can't stop people, drugs, or other illegal merchandise from penetrating our porous borders, but stopping guns wouldn't be an "insurmountable" problem?
Sorry for the length here, and I'm sure I made arguments well understood by most, but this pushed me over the edge way past incredulous and well into outrage. If this even begins to get wider coverage, let's see if those wonderful civil rights people make any noise. Because, like the fight for the 2nd Amendment, and the loss of the 1st (read: Campaign Reform Act), this chip at the 4th is a precurser to more and far worse violations of our rights. Orwell would be so proud.
The Closed Mind Builds Strong Barriers
For all the reasons you menti
April 27, 2007 - 16:50 ET by gordonFor all the reasons you mention, I think this guy is trying to make the point that it would be impossible for a number of reasons to sieze all the guns in the United States. He does this by pointing out the absurdity of the methods which would have to be used if the program was to have any actual effect. If he actually advocates these methods, the Toledo Blade should seriously consider putting a psychiatrist on their staff.
Dan Simpson is in the WRONG c
April 27, 2007 - 11:31 ET by ForeverOnTheRightDan Simpson is in the WRONG country. This "special Police force" is otherwise known as the KGB. His idea must come out of a drug induced dream. What an idiot to publish a hair brain drug ubduced dream! His idea IS a socialist/communist idea.
How much you wanna make a ten
April 27, 2007 - 11:31 ET by mattmHow much you wanna make a ten dollar bet that this storm-trooping gun-grabbing totalitarian thug is also anti-war?
http://www.post-gazette.com/p
April 27, 2007 - 17:13 ET by Carbon Sasquatchhttp://www.post-gaze...
Sorry mattm, nobody but Rackie would take that bet.
One more thing, this guy obvi
April 27, 2007 - 11:33 ET by paperheadOne more thing, this guy obviously does not know how the constitution gets amended, which can be done in one of two ways. The first involves the amendment passing by 2/3 of both houses of congress and passing 3/4 of state legislatures. The second is 2/3 of state legislatures call for a convention to propose the amendment, which still has to be approved by 3/4 of the states. This idea is as dead as the surrender bill waiting on Bush's desk!
I have "a" gun Dan.
April 27, 2007 - 11:37 ET by bassndudeI have "a" gun Dan...come get it...
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Dan is to important, he will
April 27, 2007 - 11:41 ET by HadEnoughDan is to important, he will be happy to send someone else though
It is very sad that we allowe
April 27, 2007 - 11:44 ET by Subsailor599It is very sad that we allowed someone like him to represent the USA overseas.
================
“False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the soul with evil --- Socrates
Guns
April 27, 2007 - 11:48 ET by Gordon SchumwayGordo
Melmac
If you start out on a hill to
April 27, 2007 - 11:53 ET by bassndudeIf you start out on a hill top, with a field of fire of about 2000 yards, I venture to say they will need about 300 men to get one to the top....
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
It depends. Lots of variables
April 27, 2007 - 12:01 ET by Mean Gene Dr. LoveIt depends. Lots of variables.
How much ammo do you have?
What kind of cover do you have?
And how far away do you see them coming?
How good of a long-range shot are you?
How good (and quick) of a short-range shot are you?
But most importantly, you won't be holding your position alone.
"Yeah, right! Who's the only one here that knows illegal ninja moves from the government?!" --Napoleon Dynamite
The entire article is a pract
April 27, 2007 - 11:50 ET by bassndudeThe entire article is a practice in an insipid writing course. The whole plan depends on a constitutional amendment to out law guns. And then, training a special squad of police, making them superior to the population. The problem with this is the people that do not surrender their guns, are going to be very good shots. Most of them will be former military, and well trained in the use of weapons. Gun store owners, FFL holders and others have full automatic weapons. Some of us have the dreaded .50 cal rifles. And some of us even have night vision scopes, and other night hunting equipment. The very idea that a squad of "special police" could move into an area and confiscate weapons is rediculous. Dan has been smoking to much wacky tobacky...If you come to get my guns, you better come loaded for bear.....I am.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
The Blade
April 27, 2007 - 12:00 ET by bsmarjWhy don't we just wipe out free speech, hell the whole damn constitution while we are at it!
Make all journalist have to wear mittens and a red ball harness!
Stupid, stupid, stupid!!!!!
Actually, tossing out the C
April 27, 2007 - 12:58 ET by rx4musicActually, tossing out the Constitution is not as far-fetched as it may sound... In the event of a civil uprising, all the "powers that be" need to do is declare martial law. Lots of our Constitutional rights go out the window. With Congressional approval the Posse Comitatus is suspended and the military would become the national police.
(from WIKI)-
The martial law concept in the U.S. is closely tied with the Writ of habeas corpus,
which is in essence the right to a hearing on lawful imprisonment, or
more broadly, the supervision of law enforcement by the judiciary. The
ability to suspend habeas corpus is often equated with martial law.
Article 1, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution
states, "The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be
suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion; the public
Safety may require it."
In United States law, martial law is limited by several court decisions that were handed down between the American Civil War and World War II. In 1878, Congress passed the Posse Comitatus Act, which forbids military involvement in domestic law enforcement without congressional approval.
There are legal points that can be argued (likely after the fact), but, martial law gives some very big Mojo to those who hold the power in government. Do you think the ACLU would be willing to defend your 2nd amendment rights?
"I used to be disgusted, but now, I try to be amused..."- E. Costello
Don't look now, but that's ex
April 27, 2007 - 16:44 ET by ThisnThatDon't look now, but that's exactly what the Dims are doing. They're putting things in that were never intended (abortion rights, separation of Church and state), and trying to take things out as they see fit (2nd ammendment).
Another graduate of the She
April 27, 2007 - 12:02 ET by FlashmanAnother graduate of the Sheryl Crow School of Critical Thinking.
And this guy used to represen
April 27, 2007 - 12:12 ET by ex buff e-dubAnd this guy used to represent us to the world! What a flaming moron!
He is why probably why teh wo
April 27, 2007 - 14:24 ET by Dan The Man 2He is why probably why teh world doesnt like us.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark. -- save my gun, shoot a liberal.
The Germans invented a descri
April 27, 2007 - 12:13 ET by NL207The Germans invented a descriptive name for such squads of police as Blade's columnist envisions: "Sturm Abteilung".
Sturmabteilung... do you mean
April 27, 2007 - 12:20 ET by Warner Todd HustonSturmabteilung... do you mean Hitler's brown shirts? I assume that is what you are talking about (I add this for those not aware of the historical origin of the word)
Fascist thugs, a simpler term
April 27, 2007 - 12:37 ET by NL207Fascist thugs, a simpler term, if you prefer.
The actual translation is &qu
April 27, 2007 - 12:54 ET by BeowulfThe actual translation is "Storm Division" but they are better known as "StormTroopers". I'm sure most people recognize that appellation...
The Closed Mind Builds Strong Barriers
I hope that some of you und
April 27, 2007 - 12:18 ET by sarcasmoI hope that some of you understand the morally-corrupt source of these kinds of control-freak fantasies...
JMR
Yeah, this SIMPson dolt would
April 27, 2007 - 12:22 ET by Warner Todd HustonYeah, this SIMPson dolt would hand ALL power to these police. Imagine the corruption and abuse that would occur from such all powerful forces!
Especially considering the
April 27, 2007 - 12:28 ET by sarcasmoEspecially considering the corruption and abuse (not usually admitted, but always there) we see already. And for those here who doubted abuse (indeed, state-sponsored murder) in the Kathryn Johnston "drug" case, I hereby say "I told you so" once-again. After all, I DID say there was abuse in that case, at the time, right here on NB; and the facts have since proved my words correct. Again.
JMR
Let's face a fact of human na
April 27, 2007 - 16:44 ET by Warner Todd HustonLet's face a fact of human nature... while the largest portion of our police are professional enough NOT to be thugs, there will always be SOME that are. But, laws that make their power over the citizenry nearly complete will only encourage that small percentage that ARE corrupt to indulge in their corruption and tyranny!
The point is, GIVING that power is imputes enough to CAUSE corruption and that is why we need to avoid situations such as that this idiot writer in the Toledo Blade is advocating.
I'm just assuming this guy is
April 27, 2007 - 12:20 ET by mikejI'm just assuming this guy is kidding by some of the wording he uses in the article and it just seems so out of whack that he or the editorial board can't believe this stuff. If he is joking, he never wrapped it up in his final paragraph to tell us all what he is getting at.
Reading some of his wording, "grandma and her walker" "make sure he doesn't look unhinged", he is definitely getting at something but he never says.
But then again, if he is a liberal then you can never tell, but even for whacked out lib's, I find this way way way out there to be serious.
Make an outrageous proposal,
April 27, 2007 - 12:29 ET by Mean Gene Dr. LoveMake an outrageous proposal, then any following ones that are more conservative don't sound that bad.
When I go to buy a car or a house, I give a ridiculously low-ball offer. It's not going to hurt me...and who knows, maybe they're desperate and they take the offer. Then we negotiate a reasonable price we both agree on.
Anyway, this is classic left-wing politics...propose something so irrational it is unbelievable (but, really is ultimately the true goal), then negotiate to an intermediate step, then eventually by degrees they achieve the ultimate goal.
"Yeah, right! Who's the only one here that knows illegal ninja moves from the government?!" --Napoleon Dynamite
Whatever
April 27, 2007 - 13:23 ET by realistic_viewIn all reallity this will never happen. Nor should it. The current administration would never let congress modify the constitution to allow such a thing. This is wishful thinking by a schmuck with a lot of time on his hands. As long as this is a free country and the people have a voice gun ownership will always be part of life. What needs to happen is parents need to teach their children gun safety, people need to keep guns locked in a secure place unloaded and even with the most careful of citizens tragedy will always occur because there is not always a way to look at someone and tell if they are going to kill people with the weapon they buy
You started off pretty well,
April 27, 2007 - 13:41 ET by BeowulfYou started off pretty well, but then you jumped the fence with the "locked and unloaded" comment. Guns don't serve much use for self defense if you have to unlock and load them first. I suppose the scenario would be:
3:00 in the morning. And armed intruder (or even unarmed - it doesn't matter - he shouldn't be breaking into your house in the first place) bursts into your bedroom. Your quick-thinking response: "Hold on a minute. My gun is in a lock-box on the top shelf of the closet. Give me a minute to find the key, unlock the box, remove the gun, and load it... where's the damn ammo... just hold on a minute. Go make yourself some coffee until I'm ready to defend myself..."
The Closed Mind Builds Strong Barriers
Beowulf
April 27, 2007 - 14:02 ET by mikejThat is a very good point. I don't know if you've heard of Richard Rameriz the night stalker that terrorized LA back in the late 70's? Saw a recent documentary on him and one of his first few victims, when he broke in the house, he shot the man, the wife grabbed the gun from under the bed and pulled the trigger, but it was unloaded. He then proceded to shoot her in the head 3 times and rape her. Amazing to think how that might have turned out if the gun were loaded.
I understand your point on se
April 27, 2007 - 14:45 ET by realistic_viewI understand your point on self defense, my wife is a deputy sheriff we have a gun in the house and we also have children and I will take my chances against an intruder hand to hand or brain to brain before I leave a loaded gun in my house for one of my kids to get their hands on. This is all personal preference of course, my point was that with kids you can't be to safe when it comes to gun safety when they are old enough to understand and I trust that they would not show off for their friends i would have a different outlook but I don't want my family to be a statistic on friendly fire death due to being careless with them. No more no less.
While there are always except
April 27, 2007 - 15:05 ET by Mean Gene Dr. LoveWhile there are always exceptions, I think you're wrong. However, it's your personal preference. I was raised with only handguns in the house and 5 boys (no sisters...my poor mother!). My dad taught us all how to shoot and always stressed gun safety and proper handling since we were about 3 years old. All of us boys new where the loaded guns were kept (they weren't locked up). Not a single one of us ever touched those guns without my father's supervision. One reason was because he took us shooting often, so our curiousity of guns was non-existent another reason was because of our training and knowledge of the possible irreversible consequences that will occur when firearms are mishandled or played with, and thirdly because my father was the supreme authority in our home and when his directions and policies were not followed we were deemed untrustworthy and treated as such.
I can tell you my best friend growing up also grew up with guns in his home but, his father never once took him shooting or taught him firearms safety and never game him permission to touch the guns. My friend was always getting into the guns and shooting them (and they were locked up!). I often would ride my bicycle 7 miles (mostly uphill) to his house only to turn right around and ride back home because he was playing with the guns when I arrived. Thank goodness he never hurt himself or anyone else.
Only a fool would try to go hand-to hand or brain-to-brain with an intruder that is undoubtedly armed in one way or another.
In my home, the guns are loaded, but they are kept in a quick access safe (at my wife's request because our eldest child is only 4. However, I am teaching my daughter now proper gun safety, handling, and respect to diffuse the curiousity early. Accidents happen more often than not to the uneducated and the irresponsible.
Educate your family. It could save their lives.
"Yeah, right! Who's the only one here that knows illegal ninja moves from the government?!" --Napoleon Dynamite
I was the same Dr. I was rais
April 27, 2007 - 15:31 ET by BeowulfI was the same Dr. I was raised and around guns and educated about them. Realistic began good enough, and hit the correct nail squarely on the head - "Parents need to teach their children gun safety". I'm not advocating laying loaded guns on the kitchen table with children around. But I am dead against this "lock 'em up" mentality. There is a middle ground, and it starts with education. If we lock up our unloaded guns, we might as well cave in and not have them at all - or go with keeping them in an armory somewhere. They sure wouldn't be any use for home defense.
The Closed Mind Builds Strong Barriers
realistic...I have raised 6 k
April 27, 2007 - 15:59 ET by bassnduderealistic...I have raised 6 kids. 3 boys and 3 girls. I have had guns in the house before I had kids. My guns are loaded. That crock about unloaded guns killing folks is bull. The only gun in the house that is not kept loaded is the barrett. The .44 Mag is kept loaded with .44 Spc HP, and is kept by the bed, as is the .45. There is a .357 in the living room by my chair. I dont like a lot of noise when watching TV, so opt for the smaller weapon. I have 13 and a half grand children the oldest is 9. They come over alot. I take them shooting when we have the chance. Kids keep their gun loaded, and in their house. The way to keep kids safe around guns is to preach to them about guns, show them what they do and educate them. Not hide the guns. Worked for me. Shoot one little rabbit, the kids perk up and pay attention.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Brown shirts
April 27, 2007 - 13:08 ET by Mr. TerryBrown Shirts in Toledo.
I lifted the following bio
April 27, 2007 - 13:41 ET by Carbon SasquatchI lifted the following bio from a Globas Solutions-Pittsburg seminar flyer at which Mr Simpson spoke a couple of years ago. Either his tongue is firmly in his cheek, or that's where he's been hiding his meds from the psych staff.
"Ambassador Dan Simpson is the foreign affairs associate editor and a member of the Editorial Board at the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Prior to working at the Post-Gazette, he was a career diplomat who worked for every American administration from Lyndon Johnson through George W. Bush. He has served as U.S. Ambassador to several African nations including the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the Central African Republic, and Somalia. Mr. Simpson has also served as served as vice president of the National Defense University in Washington, DC, and as the Deputy Commandant for International Affairs of the U.S. Army War College."
Well....
April 27, 2007 - 13:44 ET by dwillmoreWhat do you think the reaction would be from the MSM if he was talking about illegal aliens instead of guns?
Who Will Answer
I'll answer. To the MSM, ther
April 30, 2007 - 14:28 ET by BeowulfI'll answer. To the MSM, there are no such things as "illegal aliens". They are "undocumented immigrant workers". Does this answer your question on how the issue would be addressed?
Or how about if the "Campaign Reform Act" gagged the MSM 60 days before a general election? Do you think they would support it as they have in it's current form?
Better yet, how about if search and seizure rules were eased to allow cops to frisk anyone they just suspected of carrying drugs? Think the MSM would go along with that?
Not likely. There is no comparison to any other right when speaking of the 2nd.
The Closed Mind Builds Strong Barriers
I know of more than a few
April 27, 2007 - 14:39 ET by NortonPeteI know of more than a few people in my locale that could pin down an entire platoon or a month or more.
He should have talked about using the Air Force, a ground attack wouldn't work very well around here.
I'm ashamed to say it, but I
April 27, 2007 - 14:58 ET by Clear thinkerI'm ashamed to say it, but I lived in Toledo as a child. Even back then, the only thing worth a toot was the Toledo Zoo.
What a complete dolt this guy is. Does he really think that a special goon squad would ever be able to get the guns away from 20,000,000 million households. From my cold dead hands!
The liberal MSM has become an enemy of the USA.
Gentlemen, Forget not the ladies...
April 27, 2007 - 15:42 ET by Ole_SargeLast time I fired for "qualification" I screwed-up and qualified as "Expert." Didn't want to do that, at least if I "qualify" I can still be armed. As an "expert" shot, I can be held "responsible" if I shoot and "someone" dies. At least if I WAS not an "expert" I could claim that "I really didn't try to kill the person" (then go to Confession for lying).
My cousin a U.S. Marshall told me "if you ever have to shoot, ALWAYS shoot to kill." She's right.
Well last time I shot for "qualifications" was back in 2000, guess someone will just have to "take their chances" if they want to try.
As to using the U.S. Military, unlike many other countries -- our forces are from EVERY geographical point on the map, and made up entirely of volunteers. They cannot be used on the civilian population, they would revolt.
You would be asking the troops to fire on their own neighbors (reality check time-- we live
mostly OFF the bases, not on them, we shop in the local community, not just on-post, Our children go to LOCAL schools.) The civilians are our friends and our families. It
WOULD NOT happen.
And yes, I could see that the patience of the military, (including all those that HAVE ever served and their families) might lead to some point somewhere I dare not go. Stupid ideas from the likes of Dan Simpson will lead us into a second civil war.
Always shoot to killInteresti
April 28, 2007 - 11:40 ET by dmntd1Always shoot to kill
Interesting thought... I had a shooting instructor/qualifier tell me there is one time to NOT shoot at center of mass, and that is when the other's finger is on the trigger and there's no one in his INdirect line of fire. He said shoot for a hip... the collapse of the leg will swing the barrel off of me. If he shoots, it will whiz (his words) by me.
Please make sure your train of thought carries freight.
freedom
April 27, 2007 - 15:44 ET by conant" Do not fire unless fired upon, but if they mean to have a war let it begin here" Capt John Parker at the green in Lexington Mass April 19 ,1775. where the first free americans gathered to stop crack British troops who had been sent to seize the american arms stored up the road in Concord. enough said
Conant.....................Ou
April 27, 2007 - 19:07 ET by RackieConant.....................
Out numbered and out gunned, these guys figured, "let's show these Limey bastards what we're made of" and so they charged and that tradition continues to this day.
I'm done. I made one off handed remark hours ago and this is the result.
I stiil stand by the notion that going face to face with superior forces gets you nowhere but dead.
Now it's Miller time.
Army Officer, and the Special Squads...
April 27, 2007 - 16:49 ET by babooAs an active duty Army officer, except in the case of self-defense, or defense of a third party (that third party being an American citizen), I would never engage, nor order my Soldiers to fire on another American citizen.
As far as these "Special Squads of Police" (we'll call them "SS" as an abbreviation for "Special Squads"), without a Constitutional amendment abolishing the right to bear arms, there could not exist a lawful order that would compel the U.S. military to take up arms to assist the SS. And as long as the second amendment exists, if such a group were ever to attempt to disarm U.S. citizens at the point of a gun, the U.S. Army would be obligated to destroy these "SS" forces.
...kind of like how my grandfather fought those pesky "SS" in Germany way back when.
And Dan can be point man in t
April 27, 2007 - 18:41 ET by GregEAnd Dan can be point man in the first wave of police squads to invade homes. And bets can be taken on how many homes from which he successfully confiscates a gun before he runs into one that gives him several bullets.
Ohhh if only there were n
April 27, 2007 - 23:36 ET by upcountrywaterOhhh if only there were no guns, ooohhhhh then there would be no gun crimes. That's it soo simple ain't it.
1300 IRANIAN GAS CENTRIFUGES MAKING H BOMBS, AND YOU THINK IT'S YOUR RIGHT TO FILL UP!
Ohhh if only there were no br
April 27, 2007 - 23:49 ET byOhhh if only there were no brains, ooohhhhh then there would be no journalists.
oops sorry there still would be journalists
Goofball... liberal, of cours
April 28, 2007 - 03:22 ET by Andrew H.Goofball... liberal, of course.
Liberalism is a convenient lie.
unloaded weapon
April 28, 2007 - 10:53 ET by doug1950An unloaded weapon is basically a very cumbersome paperweight. Trying to load a weapon while in a stressful situation is next to impossible even for an experienced user as many people opt for the revolver for home defense because of the "safety" factor (real or perceived is debateable). You may as well try to subdue the intruder with the nightstand alarm clock or your reading glasses. As many of the other have posted, raising children around firearms has been an American tradition going back to our pioneer forefathers. We were taught firearms were a tool, not a toy, not to be played with EVER. There are literally thousands of documented cases of where crimes were averted simply because a firearm was present in the hands of the intended victims. The overwhelming majority of times no shots were fired. In many of the times when shots were fired the perps saw the folly of their actions and make a hasty retreat. Generally, after the first shot is fired, whether on target or not, the second shot will fall short due to the criminal making their rapid exit. There are also reams of studies showing where the citizens have the right to keep self defense weapons in their possession, the crime rate is significantly and consistantly lower than in areas (Washington D.C., England, Canada and elsewhere) where the citizens are not allowed to own guns.
Toledo Dan of the gay blade
April 28, 2007 - 11:53 ET by SportPoliticsToledo Dan of the gay Blade looks like a sad sick Jimmy Carter.
What is it with those people ? Whatever happened to them ?
Nazi's
April 28, 2007 - 20:04 ET by echojackThis has probably been covered already. I couldn't read all of the comments.
It amazes me that the left calls anyone to the right Nazis and Brownshirts when, like this article, they want to employ those same tactics. Disarming the public is the first step to abusing them.
What would Simpson think of overruling the First Amendment so that he couldn't write this, uh, stuff. If we're going to use Gestapo tactics, how about storming the New York Times for revealing surveillance of terrorist's phone calls and financial dealings.
Yes, let's make 80 or more million law-abiding Americans criminals because of the actions of a few.