Toledo Blade Columnist: 'Special Squads of Police' Should Disarm Americans

Photo of Warner Todd Huston.

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.

Story Continues Below Ad ↓

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.


Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Grab THIS, Dan Simpson.

Actually, 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

Dan 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...&quot

TheTruth ----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

Rackie...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

bass,

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?

No 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

I 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,

During 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

My 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

Bassndude,

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...

The 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

The 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

Interesting; 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

All 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

The 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

No, 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

As 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

Maybe 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

rover...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

Here 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

I 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

Mr. 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

I 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

Then, 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

Rackie,

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

Actually, 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

Rackie “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

TheTruth - 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"

"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

Rackie 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

Rackie, 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

Beowulf - 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

It 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

Okay 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

You 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

You're right about that Mr. Bishop, suicide is a viable tactic if you can get enough volunteers.  

Rackie, there is no doubt tha

Rackie, 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

No, 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"

"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

Somebody has to bury the heroes.

Yup.  Definitely a collabora

Yup.  Definitely a collaborator.

Hardly

No 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

You 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

This must do until we all get Mark19's.

What does interpretation of t

What 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

Believer

i just saw where Utah is allowing guns on campus, but for the life of me,c annot remember where,

Good Grief -   YCMUTS

Good Grief -   YCMUTS

Warner, in the same day's T

Warner, 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

Ken,

A hilarious example of the left imagining that only the rights they LIKE should be allowed!

Quite ironically, the balanc

Quite 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

And 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

Yeah. 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

Rover..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'

Ah, 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

No 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

bassndude, 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

Yeah, 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?

bassndude, 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

Just 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

Looks 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

The 2nd Amendment was designed for bozos such as Simpson.

The 2nd Amendment was d

The 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

Not 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

Man, this article just reminded me that I need a new shotgun for the upcoming fowl season.

guns and roses

AJ, I'll be right behind you buying mine!

Never dance on an empty stomach unless it's a liberal.

This is simple---

This 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.

misterbill,

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

He 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?

People, 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

We'll always have New Orleans. (h/t Bogie)

"Special squads of pol

"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

This 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

200 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

A 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

I 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

My 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

Mr. 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

It was called unlawful order when I was in.

Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!

That's bass, part of the UC

That'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

It's still 'unlawful order.'

I have actually disregarded unlawful orders several times.

I'