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

Status
Not open for further replies.
R

ReadyontheRight

Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2002
Messages
4,337
Location
Minnesota - nine months of ice and snow...three mo
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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:
 
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
 
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."
 
Didn't Zumbo foul up an otherwise good career for slightly similar pontifications.

As Red from that 70's show would say - "Dumba$$!"
 
"Special squads" of police
Click to expand...
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
 
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.
 
No wonder GHW Bush lost reelection

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.?
 
kludge = BINGO

If this morons plan is so good why not start with the known felons. Oh wait the ACLU wouldn't like that.
 
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.
 
"Relax! No one's going to take away your hunting rifle!"
Click to expand...
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?
Click to expand...
Only three member cells are effective in countering crimes against the people
 
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.
Click to expand...
Precisely.

Those who prepare for defeat, almost invariably achieve it.
 
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.
Click to expand...

****!!! Just like Stalinist Russia!!! Guns in deposit!!!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

V
  • Locked
Dan Simpson's gun control public policy, first draft
Replies
18
Views
1K
Mongo the Mutterer
M
D
  • Locked
US Cavalry revolvers in Greece???
Replies
8
Views
639
Old Fuff
O
C
  • Locked
here's an interesting little article
Replies
2
Views
351
Coronach
C
C
  • Locked
Breaking Traditions Against Hunting and Firearms Ownership?
2
Replies
35
Views
2K
geekWithA.45
G
M
  • Locked
Candidates take aim at gun owners
Replies
18
Views
1K
Larry Ashcraft
Larry Ashcraft
Back
Top