What amazes me is not that some people think like this. What amazes me is that they printed it. From all accounts, the writer some kind of madman, but read a paragraph of his column.
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.That's just the hunters. Wait till you see how he treats the rest of us.
The disarmament process would begin after the initial three-month amnesty. Special squads of police would be formed and trained to carry out the work. Then, on a random basis to permit no advance warning, city blocks and stretches of suburban and rural areas would be cordoned off and searches carried out in every business, dwelling, and empty building. All firearms would be seized. The owners of weapons found in the searches would be prosecuted: $1,000 and one year in prison for each firearm.Isn't that charming? His words; random, cordon, search, seized, prosecuted. Doesn't that sound like a lovely place to live? Sounds rather Nazi-ish doesn't it?
He goes further:
Clearly, since such sweeps could not take place all across the country at the same time. But fairly quickly there would begin to be gun-swept, gun-free areas where there should be no firearms. If there were, those carrying them would be subject to quick confiscation and prosecution. On the streets it would be a question of stop-and-search of anyone, even grandma with her walker, with the same penalties for "carrying."That sounds fairly benign, doesn't it?
This is his plan, and the plan, I'm sure, of most of the gun-banning left. I'm glad they published it here, so we could all see it. He missed a step, though, when the cordon and search operations are ambushed, when the America that I know rises up and refreshes the tree of liberty.
I swore an oath years ago, to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. I have not forgotten that oath. In some forums, some pundits discuss the "tipping point", or that set of circumstances that would compel a free people to throw off the yoke of oppression. I am certain that the scenarios described above would be well past that tipping point.
Once that point is reached, all bets are off. The gun-banners may not like the America they've created.
7 comments:
Pawpaw, whatb was that phrase the Spartans used? Molon Labe, or something like that? does this gomer actually believe that the majority of firearms owners would just roll over and present their bellies like cowardly mutts? Oh, I foret, he was a diplomat, far above the plebian slome of this world. So much more evolved and sensitive. BAH.
Thad
Some times I hit too many keys ayoncety. :-)
Thad
Note the point the stupid fool made about mega gun stores forming in Mexico and how dealing with them wouldn't be much of a problem for the Coast Guard, etc. Right. Just like the mega drug dealers in Mexico aren't a problem. Keeping guns off the streets of America would be just as easy as keeping drugs off the same streets.
PS: Fine years after that yahoo's plan takes effect the drug cartels become drug/gun cartels, and the only people with guns will be drug dealers.
Thanks for the head's up.
The truly sad thing is that a grown man would have such an opinion and that he would think it is feasable. Sad too, that a serious news producer would treat it seriously.
They are either ignorant of the law of Unintended Consequences or they are living in a fantasy world.
Post Katrina, I & others resolved not to be disarmed like they were.
For those with time, lots of good articles on the topic at www.lewrockwell.com
The question in my mind is not if this suggestion would be so far past the tipping point so as to be actionable via a replacement of the government sponsoring this tyranny, the question is whether the writer has created an actionable treason in suggesting it.
If the writer has NOT created such an act of treason, and the First Amendment protects such inflamatory blather, then I guess I'm safe with all my S.H.T.F.- combat scenarios.
Amazing! Go back and read about how Hitler went about collecting the guns of the Germans.... its exactly the same. They killed those who refused to give them up.
I think we have ourselves a closet nazi here. What is his email address, I want to put him clearly in his place and that paper clearly on the front line of taking responsibility for advocating overthrowing our Constitutional republic.
Post a Comment