Relax! No one's going to take away your hunting rifle!


PDA






ReadyontheRight
April 30, 2007, 02:01 AM
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=273301

I know this is a double posting of the same article, but I wanted to paint it in a different light.

This article sums up EXACTLY what we are fighting.

No politician, anti-gun Subject or Brady Group member, will ever suggest totally BANNING guns in the USA. They know better.

They will say "reasonable gun laws" and "I believe in hunting" and "Relax! No one's going to take away your hunting rifle!" and "I support the Second Amendment".

When they say these things, this is what most of them are really thinking:

Article published Wednesday, April 25, 2007
The disarming of America

Dan Simpson, a retired diplomat, is a member of the editorial boards of The Blade and Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.

LAST week's tragedy at Virginia Tech in which a mentally disturbed person gunned down 32 of America's finest - intelligent young people with futures ahead of them - once again puts the phenomenon of an armed society into focus for Americans.

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

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

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

As a child I played cowboys and Indians with cap guns. I had a Daisy Red Ryder B-B gun. My father had in his bedside table drawer an old pistol which I examined surreptitiously from time to time. When assigned to the American embassy in Beirut during the war in Lebanon, I sometimes carried a .357 Magnum, which I could fire accurately. I also learned to handle and fire a variety of weapons while I was there, including Uzis and rocket-propelled grenade launchers.

I don't have any problem with hunting, although blowing away animals with high-powered weapons seems a pointless, no-contest affair to me. I suppose I would enjoy the fellowship of the experience with other friends who are hunters.

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.

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

It would have to be the case that the term "hunting weapon" did not include anti-tank ordnance, assault weapons, rocket-propelled grenade launchers, or other weapons of war.

All antique or interesting non-hunting weapons would be required to be delivered to a local or regional museum, also to be under strict 24-hour-a-day guard. There they would be on display, if the owner desired, as part of an interesting exhibit of antique American weapons, as family heirlooms from proud wars past or as part of collections.

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.

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.

Clearly, since such sweeps could not take place all across the country at the same time. But fairly quickly there would begin to be gun-swept, gun-free areas where there should be no firearms. If there were, those carrying them would be subject to quick confiscation and prosecution. On the streets it would be a question of stop-and-search of anyone, even grandma with her walker, with the same penalties for "carrying."

The "gun lobby" would no doubt try to head off in the courts the new laws and the actions to implement them. They might succeed in doing so, although the new approach would undoubtedly prompt new, vigorous debate on the subject. In any case, some jurisdictions would undoubtedly take the opportunity of the chronic slowness of the courts to begin implementing the new approach.

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.

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.

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.

Dan Simpson, a retired diplomat, is a member of the editorial boards of The Blade and Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.

http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070425/OPINION04/704250310/-1/OPINION

This guy is not a wacko. He was appointed by George Bush Sr. as an ambassador. He is on the editorial board of a major newspaper. He has a distingushed political career. He is a terrifying example of what every unchecked government will become.

In this guy's world, it's perfectly reasonable that we have the government (you and me) pay for:
-Processes to enforce $1000 fines for weapons possession
-Heavily guarded government arsenals
-Staff to check guns into and out of these arsenals for hunting - with a responsibility to look for the "obviously uinhinged"
-Hunting license as proof of trust
-Heavily-guarded museums
-Gun dealers that cannot keep much inventory, but who will somehow make a living selling guns through individuals to museums
-"Special squads" of police
-Lawyers to fight the evil gun lobby
-Gun-free-area patrols to stop granny and her walker
-A Coast Guard that can stop every boat, truck, car and airplane
-And I assume at least a few hundred million new re-education camp guards for those of us who will not comply

Hey wait a minute! Do all these new arsenal guards, special police, patrols and death camp guards get guns? Who guards THEM? We'll need to double the numbers so they can watch each other! And where does little Adolph sign up?

What is really amazing to me is that this guy seems to think that the only killing done in his gun-free (yet hunting compliant:) ) utopia will be during the hunting gun check-out.:rolleyes: Unarmed Granny is going to get rolled by non-gun-compliant gangs of thugs before she even makes it out of the house with her walker to be frisked by gangs of gun-free-zone-enforcers.

Chilling, but not unexpected. At least not by Thomas Jefferson and company.

This is the reason the Bill of Rights exists.

If you enjoyed reading about "Relax! No one's going to take away your hunting rifle!" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Nomad, 2nd
April 30, 2007, 02:05 AM
A buddy of mine is trying to set up a Coyote hunt so that I can see how the 5.45x39 Bulgarian ammo does!

My Ak74 is a hunting rifle... I have buddies who hunt with Ak47's!
(5 round mags... following all laws):rolleyes:

The Good
April 30, 2007, 02:14 AM
1. i never understood why killing defenseless animals is more moral than killing someone who wants to kill you or your family.

2. Aside from wanting to take away my second amendment, i love the blatant 4th amendment violation

3. why do anti-gun folks always feel the need to explain to us their experience with firearms?

4. Our guns heavily guarded in a fortress? Ok when society collapses under an out of control government we'll just go ask them if we can have our weapons

bogie
April 30, 2007, 03:04 AM
I _hope_ you're not gonna shoot 'yotes with FMJ (or "hollowpoint" - but not expanding) ammo...

Personally, I prefer Nosler ballistic tips.

I don't hunt. But I could.

skeeter1
April 30, 2007, 03:19 AM
I guess my biggest worry is that the politicos don't realize that handguns can ALSO be used for hunting. More than once I've gone squirrel hunting with a 6"bbl .22 revolver in a big black basketweave holster for just that. It's hardly concealable (at least for me) and at nearly $1K it hardly rates as a "saturday night special."

MatthewVanitas
April 30, 2007, 03:34 AM
3. why do anti-gun folks always feel the need to explain to us their experience with firearms?


"I'm not racist! Some of my best friends are XYZ!"

jeepmor
April 30, 2007, 03:54 AM
Didn't Zumbo foul up an otherwise good career for slightly similar pontifications.

As Red from that 70's show would say - "Dumba$$!"

collateral
April 30, 2007, 03:58 AM
"Special squads" of police
SS!

Reading things like that article honestly makes me feel sick. Arent these people aware of the Bill of Rights. They arent privileges. They are RIGHTS!

I hope to God that our society wont get THAT watered down that we would ever allow something like that to happen

ArfinGreebly
April 30, 2007, 04:52 AM
This guy is not a wacko.

But he's working hard at getting there.

DWARREN123
April 30, 2007, 06:38 AM
It is coming, maybe not next year or the year after but it is coming. Too many want to be protected by others.
The fall of America has started and it is gaining speed.

gunsmith
April 30, 2007, 06:51 AM
I once worked as a painter and did some work for a diplomat , he was a cold hearted arrogant jerk.

This guy probably believes a plan like his could work and is a good thing.

Dr. Dickie
April 30, 2007, 08:12 AM
Jimmy Carter at one time was a semi-intelligent person. Not a good president, but a semi-intelligent person.
Look what happened to him!
Just because this guy wasn't a wacko before, doesn't mean he isn't now.
The only thing he left out of his article was the whole Constitution, you know, the foundation of our government and all. A minor point to some in this day and age, but I suspect that sleeping giant would awaken if that wack-job ever tried to implement his dream.

griz
April 30, 2007, 08:51 AM
I am all for this. As a side benefit, when the special squads do their raids they could also look for evidence that someone is writing things that the government will not allow. Confiscation of the offending material is a given, and we should probably arrest the homeowner as well for having words in his possession that do not have Uncle Sam's seal of approval. Who except licensed journalists really needs Microsoft Word anyway? We can station a Thought Police Officer at each journalist's house to ensure compliance. Eventually we will catch all the terrorist who do not think like the government wants them to.

mnrivrat
April 30, 2007, 08:55 AM
Unfortunatly he is what may be a somewhat mainstream diplomate in his thinking.

The fight for personl rights under any government is one that will always have to be fought. Not just once in awhile, but every day, against any government. The bill of rights was the founders attempt to keep that from happening here. Over the years it has served as a deterent, but not a complete barrier to government control.

Special squads of police would be formed and trained to carry out the work.

And if that doesn't awake you to the dangers of the type of thinking we face as citizens, then you need to pay more attention to history.

brerrabbit
April 30, 2007, 09:12 AM
Who is going to join these special police after the first casualties start rolling in?

Dorryn
April 30, 2007, 09:20 AM
If i join the special police, do I get to keep my guns?

kludge
April 30, 2007, 09:53 AM
One thing not addresses:

Who's going to get the criminals to turn in their guns?

High Planes Drifter
April 30, 2007, 10:22 AM
I can see this happening in my lifetime (Im under 35). Maybe its necessary for something like this to come to pass in order to wake Americans up.?

oldgold
April 30, 2007, 10:24 AM
kludge = BINGO

If this morons plan is so good why not start with the known felons. Oh wait the ACLU wouldn't like that.

Bubbles
April 30, 2007, 11:37 AM
Guns for hunting won't be banned.

OTOH "scoped sniper rifles that can fire rounds accurately up to half a mile away" will be banned. Say bye-bye to the .308, 30-06, etc.

Prince Yamato
April 30, 2007, 11:43 AM
My response to him would be, "If you want 'em, come and get 'em you S.O.B.".

There's never going to be a confiscation. It's going to be a grandfathering at worst. We're winning this fight. Let's just keep fighting and there'll be no bans.

joab
April 30, 2007, 11:51 AM
"Relax! No one's going to take away your hunting rifle!"But I don't even own a hunting rifle
We'll need to double the numbers so they can watch each other! And where does little Adolph sign up?Only three member cells are effective in countering crimes against the people

Deanimator
April 30, 2007, 11:53 AM
But I don't even own a hunting rifle

Me neither.

I do however own two SNIPER rifles...

Deanimator
April 30, 2007, 11:54 AM
My response to him would be, "If you want 'em, come and get 'em you S.O.B.".

There's never going to be a confiscation. It's going to be a grandfathering at worst. We're winning this fight. Let's just keep fighting and there'll be no bans.
Precisely.

Those who prepare for defeat, almost invariably achieve it.

eric.cartman
April 30, 2007, 11:59 AM
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.

****!!! Just like Stalinist Russia!!! Guns in deposit!!!

October
April 30, 2007, 12:03 PM
The guy thinks we invaded Syria in 2005, according to this article (http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05292/590727.stm) he wrote.

mp510
April 30, 2007, 12:17 PM
Actually, his hunting exemption would be very easy to manipulate. Here and in most states, there is something you can hunt at virtually any time of the year- especially when you consider the critters with no closed season.

sam1952
April 30, 2007, 12:20 PM
One thing not addresses:

Who's going to get the criminals to turn in their guns?

Why that $1000.00 fine and fear of one year imprisonment will get all those bad people to turn theirs guns in,,,

Local radio, KDKA in Pittsburgh, is going to try and get this guy on as a guest.
If I see a date and time will let you all know so you can listen on the web.

helpless
April 30, 2007, 12:27 PM
Total BS the way people manipulate others.

I dont even have a hinting rifle, where does that leave me?

Nathanael_Greene
April 30, 2007, 01:53 PM
Don't worry, protestants and Catholics. The Gestapo only targets Jews. You have nothing to fear from them.

HiroProX
April 30, 2007, 02:00 PM
Not particularly "high road" but he fails to address the "unintended/anticipated consequences" of the "gun sweeps".

SWModel19
April 30, 2007, 02:15 PM
Actually, his hunting exemption would be very easy to manipulate. Here and in most states, there is something you can hunt at virtually any time of the year- especially when you consider the critters with no closed season.I don't think you're seeing the other side of this. Once all the "hunting" guns were in lock-up, they'd ban hunting. Since there'd then be no need for hunting guns, they'd simply make lawn chairs out of them.

Mr White
April 30, 2007, 02:15 PM
Now now. We can't disagree with or point out the obvious major flaws in this esteemed diplomat's plan. That might offend him and those who agree with him. From the overwhelming views expressed in another current thread here, our goal should be to appease those contrary to our viewpoint at all costs. Because we all know that kissing our enemies' behinds is the best way to convert them to allies! :banghead:

Sam Adams
April 30, 2007, 02:16 PM
Reading things like that article honestly makes me feel sick. Arent these people aware of the Bill of Rights. They arent privileges. They are RIGHTS!

People like this are VERY well aware of our rights, and they understand them perfectly well (not that they'd admit it to you, but they DO understand). That's not the problem. The problem is that THEY DON'T LIKE US HAVING RIGHTS. Their entire object is to increase their power at our expense. It is nothing new - people have been enslaving one another for many thousands of years in one form or another, and Simp's son is only the last in a very long, very despicable line of scum.

He's not stupid - he's EVIL!!

Kaylee
April 30, 2007, 02:26 PM
Personally, I find his candor refreshing.

"You will now be escorted back to the Ministry, where you will be formally charged, then sent to Azkaban to wait trial!"
"Ah" said Dumbledore gently, "yes. Yes, I thought we might hit that little snag."
"Snag?" said Fudge, his voice still vibrating with joy. "I see no snag Dumbledore!"
"Well," said Dumbledore apologetically, "I'm afraid I do."
"Oh really?"
"Well – it's just that you seem to be laboring under the delusion that I am going to – what is the phrase – 'Come quietly.' I am afraid I am not going to come quietly at all, Cornelius. I have absolutely no intention of being sent to Azkaban...."

bring it. :)

bclark1
April 30, 2007, 03:14 PM
seriously, how did this guy get appointed by anyone? reads like a 6th grader wrote it. what a naive load. "we'd know there are swept, gun-free areas." just like drug-free school zones, right? even at nice schools more dealing gets done among students in homeroom than most places.

hi, my name is reality. it's nice to meet you mr. simpson, but i don't think we're very compatible.

Viking88
April 30, 2007, 03:38 PM
I'd be willing to bet there would be a short list of volunteers for the special squads that had to round up the guns.

Speer
April 30, 2007, 04:23 PM
"Relax! No one's going to take away your hunting rifle!"

Said the spider to the fly.

Sharps-shooter
April 30, 2007, 05:27 PM
Relax, no one's going to take my hunting rifle.

Where I'm at, it's always hunting season of one sort or another. an ar-15 is legal for deer hunting, as long as it only has a 10 round mag +1 in it at the time.

Moreover, I seriously doubt that anyone outside of my immediate family knows exactly how many and what kinds of guns I have. I'm pretty sure I could list them all, but maybe not even.

I can just about guarantee that anyone who shows up at my house with hostile inentions, is going to show up outgunned.

I would much favor a plan in which all tyrants were deposited in a special heavily guarded location, and only let out for "hunting season".

What I'm getting at, and what I think we must always bear in mind, is that we have not only the right to bear arms, but the MIGHT to bear arms.

Nekron
April 30, 2007, 05:35 PM
From the OP:
The likely underestimate of how many guns are wandering around America runs at 240 million in a population of about 300 million.

Y'all know what I'm going to say right here, dontcha?? Do I even have to say it??

Kaylee
April 30, 2007, 05:41 PM
The likely underestimate of how many guns are wandering around America runs at 240 million in a population of about 300 million.
Y'all know what I'm going to say right here, dontcha?? Do I even have to say it??

That sixty million people aren't holding up their end? ;)

-K

Caimlas
April 30, 2007, 06:08 PM
1. i never understood why killing defenseless animals is more moral than killing someone who wants to kill you or your family.


Do you eat meat? If so, then having someone else do your killing could argued to be less moral than doing the deed one's self.

It could also be that animals are just animals. Yes, I view them (as a whole) as sacred, just as I consider my yard or the woods down the street 'sacred' - something higher than just a single individual, and I'm not going to desecrate them heedlessly. But I need meet to survive, and I am not so gone in the head that I am willing to try and explain how my own existence is 'moral'.

2. Aside from wanting to take away my second amendment, i love the blatant 4th amendment violation

There's not thing there to prevent them from doing so once the 2nd is gone, now is there? :(

I can't even begin to imagine the attrition rates in their 'search and destroy' squads. They'd probably have to import thugs for that, or just recruit them from the ghettos.

3. why do anti-gun folks always feel the need to explain to us their experience with firearms?

Why, don't you see? They're just like you, and me! It's just their not-so-subtle way of saying, "yo homey, I'm up with that shiznit you brothas talkin' bout!"

4. Our guns heavily guarded in a fortress? Ok when society collapses under an out of control government we'll just go ask them if we can have our weapons

No, that is the out-of-control government that will have ceased the weapons.

Caimlas
April 30, 2007, 06:16 PM
This guy probably believes a plan like his could work and is a good thing.

Precisely, and unfortunately. These people do not think in the platitudes of "could it work?" but "how long would it take to work?" and "what percentage of the population must be killed or otherwise forcefully subverted?"

TallPine
April 30, 2007, 06:20 PM
Sounds like a recipe for starting a new civil war :uhoh:

Werewolf
April 30, 2007, 06:32 PM
Dan Simpson must have graduated Magna Cum Laude from the Joseph Stalin School of Government.

All his plan would result in is a lot of dead police and dead citizens and for what? So some elitist control freak with his head up his anal orifice can feel like he's made the world a safer place.

Where do these guys come from and why does anyone put up with them?

Not a whack job? :confused: That plan's the craziest thing I've read in a very, very long time.

obxned
April 30, 2007, 10:14 PM
Sorry, but without a Constitutional amendment, you hain't gonna get away with that kind of crap!

marksman13
April 30, 2007, 10:32 PM
Hell, I wonder if Mr. Simpson has looked at the disarmament program in Iraq? The conflict should be over since we took the weapons away from everyone but the good guys. Riiiiiiiggggghhhhhhtttttt. The average Iraqi can have one AK-47 and one mag for it. They are reduced to relying on us for protection. I guess some would like to see the US in the same predicament.

thexrayboy
April 30, 2007, 10:46 PM
This guy is a closet nazi starting to ooze out of the closet.

"special squads" he says. Wonder whether he has a contingent of brownshirts in mind or a fully funded and equipped schutzstaffel (SS).

telomerase
April 30, 2007, 10:54 PM
Hunters would be able to deposit their hunting weapons in a centrally located arsenal,

Just like we deposited all our gold with the Fed in 1933 :uhoh:

(For the history-challenged, all privately held gold in the US was seized in 1933. I'm sure the government will be giving it back any day now... oh wait, they already sold it off to foreign banks at $35 an ounce in the 1960s :rolleyes: )

thexrayboy
May 1, 2007, 01:45 AM
Sorry, but without a Constitutional amendment, you hain't gonna get away with that kind of crap!



Well I don't know about that....Seems like they got away with it in Waco, at Ruby Ridge, in Arkansas and plenty of other less infamous places.

They have gotten away with seizing money, property and cars without benefit of a judge also. Seems like the BofR is mostly a window dressing to some who are in power.

The whole key to his logic is basically that the government will get to decide if guns are allowed, what kinds of guns, who gets to use them, how they will be used, where they will be stored etc.etc. Once that little line is crossed and they have stolen that authority its but a small matter to ban them outright, declare the rest of the Bill of Rights in abeyance and start shipping dissidents of to the gulags...and they get to decide who is a dissident.

No thanks. Molon Labe in the most classic of meanings. I'd rather be dead than live in a country like that. And I suspect there are plenty of Pollys in DC that would be happy to oblige me.

Glockfan.45
May 1, 2007, 02:15 AM
I am all in favor of going forward with Mr.Simpsons plan. I think it is a great idea as I am tired of all this gradual erosion of the B.O.R, we need to speed things up. Thats what it would take to see if the "from my cold dead hands" or "molon labe" crowd really means business. Otherwise we will go out with a whimper registration, grandfathering, ATF tax stamps on EBRs, ect :barf: . I say lay it all out on the table now!

I hope I am wrong about my fellow citizens.

SVT93
May 1, 2007, 04:01 AM
^ I agree, lets get this crap over with.

TexasP226
May 1, 2007, 04:12 AM
Who's going to get the criminals to turn in their guns?

Oh, didn't you read it? They will be caught when the special police when they cordon off the city blocks and suburbs! Easy as pie!

freakazoid
May 1, 2007, 04:49 AM
I can see this happening in my lifetime (Im under 35). Maybe its necessary for something like this to come to pass in order to wake Americans up.?

I am all in favor of going forward with Mr.Simpsons plan. I think it is a great idea as I am tired of all this gradual erosion of the B.O.R, we need to speed things up. Thats what it would take to see if the "from my cold dead hands" or "molon labe" crowd really means business. Otherwise we will go out with a whimper registration, grandfathering, ATF tax stamps on EBRs, ect . I say lay it all out on the table now!

I hope I am wrong about my fellow citizens.

I also agree with this. A big reason that nothing has been done to take back what is rightfully our RIGHTS is because it is always small changes. In order to finally wake the people up something big needs to happen. Perhaps we shouldn't even try to stop any new anti Second Amendment Rights, let them come all at once. That way when they do actually come to our doors to take what is ours we can show them what the Bill Of Rights is really for.

Notch
May 1, 2007, 11:57 AM
"Do you eat meat? If so, then having someone else do your killing could argued to be less moral than doing the deed one's self."

Ya use water and electricity dont ya? Ya get that for yourself too? And lets not act like ANY of us here with computers and internet access are hurtin enough so that hunting (durring the short seasons ya can) is saving your family from starvation... Some folks think that since the killin's been done, there aint no reason to add to it.

Rumble
May 1, 2007, 12:05 PM
Who's going to get the criminals to turn in their guns?

Ah, well, you see, we are the criminals. It's built right in.

Megistopoda
May 1, 2007, 12:27 PM
Write to him yourselves...I did. dsimpson@post-gazette.com
______________________

Dear Mr. Simpson:

I read your 25 April 2007 article in the Blade, entitled "The Disarming of America." I thought about what you had written, and considered how I might address you in response. I considered many options and lines of approach, including the logic surrounding gun bans and confiscation, and the historical consequences of those actions elsewhere, and at different times, in humanity's past.

But after all that thought, I concluded that my response needed only two words:

Molon Labe.

Sincerely,
"Megistopoda"

USSR
May 1, 2007, 01:17 PM
Great idea, Megistopoda. So, here is the email I sent:

Dear Mr. Simpson:

This letter is in regards to your April 25th article in the Blade, entitled "The Disarming of America.". I thought it was a great idea and a well thought out plan. However, there are just a couple of "pesky" parts of the US Constitution that will have to be overcome, such as the people's right to keep and bear arms and the people's right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure, before your plan can be implemented. I look forward to the day when your gun police can perform warrant less searches of all the homes and businesses in my area, to make me feel safe. Keep up the good work.

Sincerely,

Don Kakretz

Green Lantern
May 3, 2007, 11:12 PM
Amazing. I hate to give the guy the pleasure of letting him know his "article" almost made me physically ill, but it's the truth.

What chills me to my core is, for every 'anti' like him with the guts to say EXACTLY what he REALLY thinks - how many others out there are as "hardcore" but just keep it quiet? :what:

"Throwing down the gauntlet" indeed....

HiWayMan
May 4, 2007, 12:01 PM
Quote:
2. Aside from wanting to take away my second amendment, i love the blatant 4th amendment violation
There's not thing there to prevent them from doing so once the 2nd is gone, now is there?

I can't even begin to imagine the attrition rates in their 'search and destroy' squads. They'd probably have to import thugs for that, or just recruit them from the ghettos.


Has someone been reading banned books again?

Turner Diaries anyone................?

MHBushmaster
May 4, 2007, 04:22 PM
:barf: I feel so nauseated when people even accept an iota of the dung this guy is shoveling,,,,the thought of even saying that they won't get my guns because it can always be hunting season or someother concession to his arguement is defeatist. The 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with hunting or sport shooting, it is all about being armed. When political types go, "oh, I like hunting..." I just realize it is vote shopping at its worst. Now if we had a presidential candidate that unilaterally supported CHL, target shooting, the overturning of NFA, etc then we would really have an ally.

This Simpson character is a domestic enemy, he is a menace to all of our rights...

A good read that has a good take on these issues is, "Unintended Consequences", I would love to get all Henry Bowman on folks that ascribe to gun grabbing

Kaylee
May 4, 2007, 05:02 PM
Turner Diaries anyone................?

ugh.. yeah, that did kinda stand out, didn't it? I think I actually managed to get through about the first chapter or so of that, just to see what the fuss was about.

Ick.

If you enjoyed reading about "Relax! No one's going to take away your hunting rifle!" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!