April 27, 2007

Your Friendly, Gun-Free Police State

Ever wonder how liberals would implement a gun-free America? After incidents like the mass murder at Virginia Tech, arguments for total gun control appear faster than anyone can say Ismail Ax, but they never quite explain how to get from point A to point Z. Fortunately for us, Toledo Blade columnist Dan Simpson takes us step by step through the process. The retired diplomat assures us that he's no "crazed liberal zealot" as he skips merrily down the path to a police state (via QandO).

It starts off quietly enough:

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.

One might think to start with a Constitutional amendment first. Simpson appears to have forgotten that pesky little 2nd Amendment -- you know, the one that the Founding Fathers thought so unimportant as to put it before unreasonable search and seizure.

But I'm getting ahead of myself. The former hunter explains that he doesn't want to shut down that pastime:

Hunters would be able to deposit their hunting weapons in a centrally located arsenal, heavily guarded, from which they would be able to withdraw them each hunting season upon presentation of a valid hunting license. The weapons would be required to be redeposited at the end of the season on pain of arrest. When hunters submit a request for their weapons, federal, state, and local checks would be made to establish that they had not been convicted of a violent crime since the last time they withdrew their weapons. In the process, arsenal staff would take at least a quick look at each hunter to try to affirm that he was not obviously unhinged.

Aha, the tried and true "quick look"! So what would that "quick look" entail -- checking for drool? A T-shirt that says, "The voices in my head don't like you"? In the meantime, all of these "hunters" would have their firearms for weeks on end while the rest of us would be forcibly disarmed. Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold probably would have qualified for a hunting license, and Cho managed to get past a records check, too. Would a "quick look" have stopped either of them -- and would it provide a due process for the innocent that would get denied access to their hunting weapons?

But wait -- remember that whole bit about unreasonable search and seizure? Well, if Simpson can ignore the 2nd Amendment, then why should he worry about the rest of the Constitution?

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."

Got that? No search warrants, no probable cause, not even the suspicion of a "quick look" would be required. "Special squads" of police would simply blockade you, storm into your house without permission, and rip it to pieces looking for your weapons.

But he's not a "crazed liberal zealot". Oh, no, no, no. He just thinks that the government should have the right and the duty to ignore the Constitution and to invade your homes. Oddly, Simpson doesn't see the irony in that the 2nd Amendment intended to keep government from acting in exactly the manner he describes and endorses. The 2nd Amendment was meant to stop people like Don Simpson.

Oh, by the way: this defender of America is a member of the editorial boards for both the Toledo Blade and the Pittsburgh Gazette.

Note: I'm really, really hoping this turned out to be satire, but I somehow doubt it.


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Your Friendly, Gun-Free Police State:

» Stupid iditorial of the month from No Runny Eggs
(H/T - Captain’s Quarters via Dad29) It’s been a while since I felt the need to break out the katana to a lieberal’s words, but I think I’m still in practice. Today’s victim is one Dan Simpson, retired diplomat and member... [Read More]

» Coincidence from Smoke on the Water
No, not a conspiracy. A coincidence. Conspiracy just isn't required of the left. They're indoctrinated by universally leftist colleges, take in from a universally left-wing media, and universally share a leftist delusion of utopian fantasies. Especiall... [Read More]

Comments (32)

Posted by PersonFromPorlock [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 27, 2007 9:40 AM

Note: I'm really, really hoping this turned out to be satire, but I somehow doubt it.

It will have been, if the negative reaction is strong enough.

Posted by Mr Lynn [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 27, 2007 9:43 AM

If it's a satire, it's a deadpan one.

/Mr Lynn

Posted by Dan S [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 27, 2007 9:45 AM

Who needs satire? We have progressives to fill that niche.

Posted by jerry [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 27, 2007 9:53 AM

I don't think this column is satire so much as deadpan commentary to explain what would have to happen to make the country gun free. The giveaway is the final paragraphs on international suppliers setting shop like drug dealers and immigrant traffickers along the border and the sea frontier. I think he is trying to make the point that it would take police state measures to disarm the country and yet guns would still be available to criminals. This is a cautionary OPED on the folly of gun control.

Posted by johnCV [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 27, 2007 9:54 AM

No surprises here.
Just look how the Libs run the education system where they have total control of things.

They are terrified of weapons in the hands of the people because they understand it's truly the last bulwark citizens have to stop a complete government usurpation of our Constitutional rights.
As has been repeatedly illustrated, in every case where the population has been supressed, the first task was to confiscate the guns (Hitler, Stalin, PolPot, etc.)

Hey General Arnold, what say we start abrogating rights with the 1st amendment?
Nah, didn't think you'd like that one....

Posted by RBMN [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 27, 2007 9:58 AM

The number one reason we have the Second Amendment is that the people who wrote it understood slavery quite well. They understood both the "slavery" of being at the mercy of a King, and the tougher slavery that many of the Framers imposed themselves. And they (the Framers) wanted none of it, ever. They knew that being powerless to resist authority is to be a slave. For both types of tyrant, both the King and the slavemaster, the unlimited POWER to control and abuse their slaves (at no cost to their own safety) will never gather dust. There has to be a high enough cost to the tyrant, for outrageous abuse of federal power, and that's what the Second Amendment is there to provide.

Posted by PersonFromPorlock [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 27, 2007 10:01 AM

Just as a point of interest, I looked at some of his other columns; all dead-brained Liberal, which makes it unlikely the current one is satire.

Posted by GarandFan [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 27, 2007 10:32 AM

I think all printing presses should be held in one central, secure place under 24 hour guard. When it's time to publish, each writer should bring his or her work in for scrutiny by a trained staff, who will also give the writer a 'quick check' to see if all his marbles are in one bag. I think all of the above is very "reasonable".

Posted by mborzill [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 27, 2007 10:37 AM

Their LTE's from last Sunday are decidedly anti gun-control. http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070422/OPINION03/704210311

Posted by jweaver [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 27, 2007 10:42 AM

He really has put a lot of thought in the process, but as most lefties he does not even acknowledge the constitution. This is why these people need to be shunned.

Posted by LiveFreeOrDie [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 27, 2007 10:46 AM

I hope its satire. I'll give the bennefit of the doubt for now.

Just to be clear, there would be an armed insurrection if such policy were implemented. I'm not advocating it - though I reserve the right. I'm just saying that it would happen.

If that scares the dickens out of some people, then rethink the policy.

I always think back to the scene in The American President where Michael Douglas says he considers hand guns to be a threat to national security. Of course, they are not, but guns are a threat to the presented view of federal power. It was intended that way.

Posted by rbj [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 27, 2007 11:46 AM

It's not satire. Sigh, the Toledo Blade is my newspaper. I'd put it only behind the Seattle Post-Intelligencer in terms of unthinking liberal clap-trap. (Worse than the Portland Oregonian, worse than WA Post, worse than NYTimes)

BTW, the Blade -- champion of all things liberal -- has currently locked out most of its union employees for over a year due to a contract negotiations breakdown. If it weren't for comics and sports I wouldn't get it at all.

Posted by IAmFree [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 27, 2007 12:07 PM

Satire or not, I'm sure a lot of leftists are quietly referring to this as brilliant.

They're the first to condemn illegal search and seizure for terrorists.

Everyone knows that an armed citizen is much more dangerous to those in power.

Posted by TomB [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 27, 2007 12:18 PM

The only thing missing from the plan is execution on the spot. OK, maybe for the second offense...
But seriously, people like that were, and still are running countries.

Posted by robert [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 27, 2007 12:20 PM

I am guessing that Mr. Simpson is adamantly apposed to warrant less wiretapping of overseas calls to AQ.

Am I clairvoyant or what?

Posted by Cybrludite [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 27, 2007 12:44 PM

I wouldn't care to be the underwriter for the health & life insurance providers to either those "special police" or the politcians who legislated them into existance. I'm not advocating or threatening. Just warning.

Posted by Matt [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 27, 2007 12:44 PM

I cruised all the blogs the morning of the VT shootings, left and right. Captain Ed was the only blogger I found that immediately, without hesitation threw out the old "maybe if other students on campus had guns, they would have been able to protect themselves" argument. He quickly added, "but this debate should be put off for later" to cover his tracks. Tricky, tricky.... Ed, don't even mention other people politicizing this tragedy. You're just as guilty, if not more, than the rest of us.

Also, POLICE STATE. Ever heard of the Patriot Act? NSA wiretaps without warrants? Invasion of privacy blah blah blah.... hypocritical, contradictory arguments. Let everyone have guns, but don't call overseas, or the government will listen to your phone conversations, reasonable cause or no.

For more blah blah blah, etc. etc. check out Matt's Blog.

Also: what do you think about allowing congressmen and senators bring AK-47's, uzi's and magnums to work with them at the Capital? Sounds like a great idea to me...

Posted by docjim505 [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 27, 2007 12:50 PM

Even if it is a satire as far as Simpson is concerned (and if it IS satire, the guy is a master!), I'm sure it isn't to your garden-variety lib. To them, it sounds like a game plan to make our country a kinder, softer, safer place, 'cuz, as we all know, violence is only committed by crazed reichwing Christian bigot homophobes with guns.

Cap'n Ed wrote:

One might think to start with a Constitutional amendment first. Simpson appears to have forgotten that pesky little 2nd Amendment -- you know, the one that the Founding Fathers thought so unimportant as to put it before unreasonable search and seizure.

Cap'n, your naivete is sometimes refreshing, sometimes alarming. Don't you know that, as far as liberals are concerned, the Second Amendment is a "collective" right? And that what it really means is that the National Guard can have guns, but not individual Americans?

As far as protection from unreasonable search and seizure... Well, I'm afraid we all bear some guilt for undermining that. From the War on Drugs to the War on Terror, we've acquiesced to various vacations of constitutional rights in the interests of "safety".

At any rate, do you think that the same Supreme Court that didn't have a problem with McCain-Feingold would have a problem with a law that protects children from gun violence (as I'm sure it would be portrayed)?

"Special squads" of police would simply blockade you, storm into your house without permission, and rip it to pieces looking for your weapons.

This already happens from time to time, either when the cops are looking for drugs or guns. Remember Waco? Or Ruby Ridge? In our natural anxiety to give the police the right and ability to protect themselves from homocidal thugs, we've also given them the right and ability to occasionally use excessive force against innocent civilians. In our natural desire to ensure that criminals don't have an opportunity to flush the evidence down the toilet, we've given the police the right to conduct "no-knock" type searches and raids, with the result that sometimes they'll kick in the wrong door, trash the wrong house, and ride off with no more than a "Sorry about that" worthy of Maxwell Smart.

None of us want any more Virginia Tech massacres. But most of us also don't want a police state, either.

"Most of us", of course, doesn't include the neo-stalinists who call themselves "liberals".

Posted by Doc Neaves [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 27, 2007 1:52 PM

It's not even about guns (though the thought of us having guns does seem to scare the bejeebers out of them). It's like in England, they cut them up into pieces first. The shotgunners didn't defend the handgunners, and neither of them defended the hunters. Nobody defended the non-lethal weapons types at all, except those (obviously sicko dontchaknow) martial artists, and THEY certainly don't need them. Make them out of plastic, that's just as good.
The point to all this is not about having weapons, it's about having to depend on them. It's job protection. Every word out of their mouths is "BOO! You need us to help defend you against that! Now give us money and shut up, and learn to pee without making a mess, or we'll impose a urine tax! And stop using two squares per family, you know the limit!" And some people actually look forward to this.
Humanity has to go through the window that is America. Those who need to be led must live one place, those who need no leadership another, but until that time, one will always make the other miserable. It's a choice that must be made, which will be the stronger creature.

Posted by Marinetbryant [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 27, 2007 2:20 PM

Another blame everything on whites and firearms. If they really wanted to protect college students, they might start with alcohol.



Posted by trapeze [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 27, 2007 3:39 PM

This plan is, of course, ridiculous. There are countless NRA members and Gun Owners of America members (as well as similar thinking non-members) who absolutely believe the famous phrase:

"You can have my gun when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers"

Of course, if Dan Simpson is really serious about his little plan then many might suggest that he be included in the storm troopers that would be kicking down doors. I would hazard to guess that he would meet a quick and messy end.

Posted by JLegel [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 27, 2007 3:56 PM

Look for the silver lining!
It's in the third-to-last paragraph...about the problem with the border. We finally found something that might motivate liberals to close the borders! Not to keep out illegal immigrants, but illegal guns. :-)

Posted by Mike Morrissey [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 27, 2007 4:51 PM

At the first Democratic Debate "Five of the eight - Gravel, Biden, Dodd, Kucinich and Richardson - raised their hands when moderator Brian Williams of NBC News asked whether they had ever had a gun in their home." Dennis Kucinich wants ALL handguns banned and turned in through a gun buy back program.

Posted by Nikolay [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 27, 2007 5:30 PM

Did you actually read the article? It doesn't _propose_ or _advocate_ policy, it merely talks about the way it could be implemented.

Posted by AnonymousDrivel [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 27, 2007 5:39 PM

So this Dan Simpson bounced around in foreign service at State for years, ultimately to become a U.S. Ambassador? And now he's moved on to publishing this dangerous tripe from the editor's desk of two newspapers?

Are they required to respect (or read) our Constitution at the State Department anymore, or is that passé... 'cause I'm guessing he didn't just pick up this final solution during his tenure as public scribe?

And some worry that Bush is the fascist.

Posted by AnonymousDrivel [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 27, 2007 5:59 PM


This concluding statement:

That is my idea of how it could be done. The desire to do so on the part of the American people is another question altogether, but one clearly raised again by the Blacksburg tragedy.

is a dodge to temper what he knows will be an unpopular piece. He wants to open the debate to such an unconstitutional process, but he does so by wrapping it via public safety advocacy in the uniform of editor into a "gee, it's possible but do we want to go there" style. Camel nose under the tent-like.

Note that he doesn't offer the extended alternative POV that such a proposition might not be such a good idea. If he thought the method were questionable in the eyes of the electorate, a caveat he states, then he's obligated to address those concerns and not just dismiss his plan as something to be considered though it might not be desirable *wink* *wink*.

Should he follow-up in his very next editorial piece on why this conceptual plan is exceedingly dangerous and foolish and unconstitutional, then I might give him some slack for suggesting it, though I'd wager he'd only offer such an alternate view because he was so thoroughly raked over the coals for his idiocy. Did you see a "Part 1 of 2 in a Series of 2" noted anywhere?

Posted by Rose [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 27, 2007 6:13 PM

April 19th was the Anniversary of The Shot Heard Round the World.

I wonder if folks remember that the Governor, one of the British military officers, General Thomas Gage, summoned one of the men known to be a leader of the Americans, who were full British citizens, who were known to oppose the ILLEGAL Stamp Act, just shortly before that date, and told him that he was ordering the Americans to turn over ALL their arms and ammunition.
The American told him that would not be possible.
The British officer told him that if they did not, he would have to do his duty.
The American told him they could hardly fault him in that, as they also had to do theirs. And he left.

Patrick Henry - Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.... O sir, we should have fine times, indeed, if to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people!

Posted by Rose [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 27, 2007 6:27 PM

I view the desire and any attempt to confiscate the arms of ANY KIND from LAW ABIDING CITIZENS in good standing WITH THE CONSTITUTION, to be TREASON on the part of any bureaucrats or govt entities which have set themselves up an oligarchial clique against the Constitution.

Just pure and simple Treason.

Posted by patrick neid [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 27, 2007 8:30 PM

when i start hearing talk like that around the water cooler i'll have to go buy some guns.....

Posted by jaeger51 [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 27, 2007 8:40 PM

This is a major example of the BIGGEST problem that America has...people that think like this are who runs the MSM. The MSM is where the majority gets their opinions, sort of like osmosis. So until these people are cleared out of leadership positions in the MSM, it's an uphill battle just to preserve the country. What's it going to take to get rid of them? Their newspapers are declining, their TV news is getting less viewership, there are virtually no lefty talk radio shows, they are less popular on the internet...why isn't the market working and getting rid of these crusty failed dinosaurs? If conservatives ran AP and UPI it would be worth everything, just to stop the lies and spin.

Posted by horse [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 28, 2007 11:14 AM

This is typical liberal mental masturbation. There is no southern or mountain state that would carry this out. Most state governments would tell the feds to shove it; try and take our guns and we will arrest you. Any liberal fed government trying this would see a civil war emerge post haste. A war that would see the liberals behind bars or swinging from a rope.