Ban Guns And Then The Jewish Lobby

Just in case anyone is wondering about the politics of former ambassador to Somalia Dan Simpson, who has a plan to remove all firearms from American society, you might want to check out his 2004 editorial discussing how badly Israel is governed, blames them for Palestinian violence and warns us of that dangerous Jewish American lobby. The Simpson editorial courtesy of Palestinian Media Watch. Below that is his plan, which calls for frisking Grandma on the street and special police units to scour America for every gun.

PMWATCH – July 29, 2004 -- The Op-ed below by Dan Simpson, a retired US ambassador, is sure to draw some angry fire from the usual quarters. It is very sad that a retired US ambassador would feel that by just writing an op-ed that was not completely one sided in its support for the Israeli occupation and that called for some wisdom and balance in US policy, would feel that he was putting himself “in peril”. It is also sad that this simple act of sharing one's perspective and offering some very basic advice on how to move forward to resolve the conflict between the Palestinians and the Israelis would require exceptional courage.

Please do write a letter to the editor to the Pittsburgh Post and support Dan Simpson. It is not every day that a former US ambassador would write something on Israel and Palestine that was not a boilerplate rehash of the standard AIPAC talking points

The retired diplomat tells us he is no shrieking liberal. Fine, then the only conclusion to be drawn from this is that he is either a complete idiot, or a former ambassador with absolutely no knowledge of, let alone respect for, the Constitution. The Government will simply give you your gun when you choose to hunt.

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.

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."

Comments

[seekeronos]

Jacking up little old ladies for a weapon?

Having my gun collection siezed so I could only see it in some museum, or hunt after jumping through 16 hoops (and of course, assuring the pinkos running the "Vault" that I was in step with the Party Line)..?

Purely unadulterated evil straight from the pit of hell.

The 2nd Ammendment exists to prevent atrocities just as this Dan Simpson proposes.

This ambadassor would be well at home in Communist China, or in the "Democratic" People's Republic of (North) Korea.

[templar knight]

Tree of Liberty----Dan Simpson. You do the math.

[Zifnab]

I christian this rhetorical strategy "Hiding Behind the Jews".

Using the age old "You're either with us or you're a terrorist" strategy, Dan has come to the conclusion that it's either AIPAC or Hitler. And if you can find an instance in which someone who argues against AIPAC also argues against one of your other pet perversions, you can make the arguement that people who oppose issuing firearms to the insane are, in fact, simply anti-semetic.

Because if there's one thing Virginia Tech taught us, its that Cho was embracing his 2nd Amendment Rights when he bought those pistols from a gun-dealer who was never able to know about his long history of mental illness. And if there's another thing it taught us, its that Cho was acting in the best interests of the Jewish people when he gunned down 32 of his classmates.

And if there's a third thing, it's that US Ambassadors can blow me if they say something I disagree with.

[seekeronos]

An after thought: even if in the bizzarest possible alignment of planets, stars, rogue liberal senators and congressmen, and a President to sign off on it...

Such a bill would put at least the western half of the nation out of the Union.

It's ludicrous to even think that the majority of Americans who own firearms would let themselves be disarmed; and I think it would be national suicide if we ever did seriously attempt to implement such a law nationwide.

[Dan Riehl]

Well, it might help theargument for staying in Iraq. If we're going to have another civil war here, might as well stay the course in that one, too. I don't think I've ever read as un-American editorial as his gun confiscation piece. And judging by the timing (80's) wouldn't that make him a Reagan appointee? Maybe he had a brain injury since.

[seekeronos]

"you can make the arguement that people who oppose issuing firearms to the insane are, in fact, simply anti-semetic."

Zif, put down the funny glass pipe for a sec.

...

"Because if there's one thing Virginia Tech taught us, its that Cho was embracing his 2nd Amendment Rights when he bought those pistols from a gun-dealer who was never able to know about his long history of mental illness."

....huh???

Look, this dingbat retired ambassador is trying to throw an extremely totalitarian, statist solution to something that could be solved by simply ping the NCIS database (or a similar database) to see if the buyer was ever committed to a mental institution.

And where is the connection to anti-semitism in this? I call thee by thy name, O non-seqitur!

[BARRASSO]

Ah the paranioa of the right, someone somewhere wants ta take mah guns!! Like any of this guys' pipe dream is going to come true. Wingnuts will stop dry humping thier guns once they stop being scared to death of everyone they meet. Then again most of the country supports better gun control laws, and the country is swinging mor left every year as the gen xers and gen yers become more of a majority so who knows sensible gun laws might come to fruition.

[TomB]

"Then again most of the country supports better gun control laws, and the country is swinging mor left every year as the gen xers and gen yers become more of a majority so who knows sensible gun laws might come to fruition."

Two questions:

1. Where do you find evidence that most of the country supports more gun control? Considering very few of even the most opportunistic Dems said anything about more gun control after VT, I don't see much support anywhere for more gun control.

2. What is a "sensible gun law"? What, exactly, would be its wording?

[Leatherneck]

WOW! I thought I was reading something out of East Germany. Next will be the taking of cars, because drunks killed people, then beer, wine, and sprits because they got people drunk, and then hammers etc...

All my weapons just got stolen. Will moon god worshippers, and MS-13 types still have their weapons, and autos?

[seekeronos]

Of course the Mexi-gangsters and the Islamists get a pass to keep their weapons and cars. They are on the Liberal Buddy List.

After all, who else will be there to hire to keep those Christofascist former gun owners in line?

For TomB:

(1) I dunno about all those GenXers and GenYers outbreeding gun laws into existence. Given the way the average liberal seems not to want to replenish the European-American gene-pool, I suspect that the liberals will simply fail breed their replacements.

Conservatives on the other hand, tend to want to have as many children as possible. Of course, there is no guarantee that all those anchor babies the Mex/OTMs are planting here won't grow up to cash in their meal tickets at the Dhimmicrat store for a vote to disarm "Whitey".

(2) Sensible gun law: "Disarm everyone, even that ornery looking grannie. Ya never know when grannie gonna bust a cap in you bad self!" Gotta take away the guns if you wanna have the ultimate Nanny State.

[BARRASSO]

well I would personally say that guns should be as well regulated as cars. I don't think that to be unreasonable, the 2nd does say well regulated militia, which does imply guns should be regulated. I can't say what the exact wording would be, as for what support there is for gun control I found this with one search but there are a lot more polls

http://www.pollingreport.com/guns.htm

I don't think guns should be banned but they should be well regulated. If you think guns are absolutely neccesary for protection of citzens against government I don't think you could resist the government for any length of time if they really wanted to take you down no matter what gun you had.

[Purple Avenger]

"It's ludicrous to even think that the majority of Americans who own firearms would let themselves be disarmed"

Unlike the Canadians, Brits, and Aussies, who did allow it? The power of a police state such as this can be very compelling.

[Purple Avenger]

"I don't think guns should be banned but they should be well regulated."

A few thousand gun laws state and local ain't enough I guess?

[TomB]

"well I would personally say that guns should be as well regulated as cars."

There are over 20,000 gun laws on the books right now. How many more will it take?

And how will making guns better "regulated" cut down on gun crime?

As far as the polls go, how do you explain the reluctance of Dem politicians to even approach any discussion on gun control after VT?

[BARRASSO]

Canadians can't own guns now? guns per capita are one in four for Canada and 8 out of ten in the US

[BARRASSO]

Maybe the dem pols don't have the balls currently, but I suspect the first time a group of terrorists open fire in a crowded place with legally owned weapons and kill over a few dozen people some righties might change thier thinking. 20,000 laws on the books should be narrowed and organized that would be the "well" of well regulated not the regulated of the laws. Of course anytime Govt gets involved "well" tends not to happen.

[TomB]

"Maybe the dem pols don't have the balls currently,"

If the poll clearly show the public favors more gun control, why would they need "balls"?

"but I suspect the first time a group of terrorists open fire in a crowded place with legally owned weapons and kill over a few dozen people some righties might change thier thinking."

Why is that? What is it about terrorists that make guns especially bad?

"20,000 laws on the books should be narrowed and organized that would be the "well" of well regulated not the regulated of the laws."

To what end? What specifically will these new laws say that will prevent gun crime?

[seekeronos]

Reality check people:

It wouldn't matter if there were 100,000,000,000,000 laws restricting gun ownership. Criminals and terrorists can always get whatever guns they like, and still hose down a room full of people.

The only thing that more gun laws and more regulation does is make the government even bigger and more willing to interefere in even the minutest details of our lives.

As for the doomsday scenario posed by P.A./Barasso... I would agree... if the President were to sign an executive order, or Congress pass some ultra-draconian anti-gun laws, and order/authorize the forcible seizure of all privately owned firearms, there would certainly be a bloodbath, and of course, it is without a shadow of a doubt that the govt. would succeed...

...however, this would come at such a phenomenal cost in terms of damage to the national economy and our identity as Americans, and to say that certain segments of the population would not turn insurgent and perpetuate a geurilla war against that rebellious government... that even the most authoritarian-minded nanny-statist liberals would think twice about even pursuing such a disastrous course of action.

The current laws on the books more than adequately regulate well the two forms of militia (both organized and unorganized militiae) in accordance with the 2nd Ammendment.

Remember also, that the Constitution of the USA is as perfect a document as human hands and minds can make, but as such, a product of human intuition, the interpretation of it is subject to the very same faults of human minds.

We can only pray that those whose job it is to interpret and implement laws based upon this Constitution will do so from a perspective that preserves the institutions the Founding Fathers saw for our nation.

[Hard Right]

"the 2nd does say well regulated militia"

Hey dumbass, I know being a liberal you instantly think "well regulated" means govt involvement by fascist lefties, but as usual you're wrong.

The definition of WELL REGULATED is from 1776, not 2007. Well Regulated back then meant a militia that was well supplied and trained.

[Purple Avenger]

"there would certainly be a bloodbath"

40 years ago, maybe. Not so much today. The pussification of the public is almost complete.

[Purple Avenger]

Substituting a few other objects into the 2nd's sentence structure soon reveals how retarded those taking the "militia" angle are. Bananas and banana splits are one good example.

The militia angle morons are also ignorant of what the currently operative Federal definition of "militia" is:

"The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard." 10 USC 311

[seekeronos]

A thorough breakdown of the meaning of the words of the 2nd Ammendment.

A good read, considering the usage of words ca. 1776.

http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndmea.html

[Buzzy]

All I know is that just as soon as the Democratic Party (or anyone else) goes after America's guns or enacts repressive gun controls they just lost the next election.

[templar knight]

Maybe, Buzzy, but don't underestimate the power of the media and its allies. Just like old Barbarosa above, the public at large, in large cities and suburbs, are not familiar with firearms, are subject to crime, have very little, if any, exposure to the tenet of self defense, and are in education systems that focus very little on tradition.

Frankly, I wish I could find out more about the shootings at Virginia Tech. I heard, I can't remember where now, that Cho had the students line up and shot them in the head, and that was why so many were killed with what I consider to be two of the least powerful handgun cartridges, the .22 and 9mm. Did the students just stand there and allow this guy to shoot them in the head? Did anyone resist? Did several bum rush the guy? I just wish I had the answer to some of these questions.

The implication of people just standing there and allowing themselves to be shot one by one is just too much for me to imagine. I'm not saying I believe this, but I do consider it a possibility.

[TomB]

"The implication of people just standing there and allowing themselves to be shot one by one is just too much for me to imagine. I'm not saying I believe this, but I do consider it a possibility"

Believe it, TK. It happened in the Montreal Massacre.

"He (Marc Lépine) left the office and was subsequently seen in other parts of the building before entering a second floor mechanical engineering class of about sixty students at about 5:10 p.m.[1] After approaching the student giving a presentation, he asked everyone to stop everything and ordered the women and men to opposite sides of the classroom. No one moved at first, believing it was a joke until he fired a shot into the ceiling.

Lépine then separated the nine women from the approximately fifty men and ordered the men to leave."

____________________________

The shooter was armed with one semi-auto rifle. He made it clear he was going to shoot the women. When he was done, a number of the male students were still in the hall and did nothing.

[imaginewhirledpeas]

Hey Barrasso, barbarossa, whatever; "Well Regulated" means equipped with all the necessary military accoutrements.........NOT a bunch of rules and regulations.
And Ziffy, Just guess why the cops and even parents can't get into YOUR medical records. Comeon, just guess.

[bloodrage bob]

once again, class: liberal math. ready?

15 million wetbacks in the US? the liberals tell us "they're too many to deport! it'd be *impossible* to do it! we have to learn to live with it!"

**100** million handguns in the us? the liberals tell us "all we need to do is ignore the constitution and pass some laws making them all illegal! problem solved!"

discuss.

[Dean Berry]

The Israel Lobby isn't comprised of real Jews. They're descended from Esau (edomites), not Jacob (Israel). They're the "synagogue of satan" that Jesus warned us about. http://deanberryministries.net

[Guy]

All this yammin back and forth about "more" gun laws.
We've got plenty of gun laws (maybe too many?).
But, and this is the crux- we don't enforce the damned things.
Some of them are quite reasonable- such as "you can't pack if you've
been involuntarily commited to the filbert factory- are a convicted
felon- etc- etc.