.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

The Asylum

Welcome to the Asylum. This is a site devoted to politics and current events in America, and around the globe. The THREE lunatics posting here are unabashed conservatives that go after the liberal lies and deceit prevalent in the debate of the day. We'd like to add that the views expressed here do not reflect the views of other inmates, nor were any inmates harmed in the creation of this site.

Location: Mesa, Arizona, United States

Who are we? We're a married couple who has a passion for politics and current events. That's what this site is about. If you read us, you know what we stand for.

Friday, April 27, 2007

Dan Simpson Wants All The Guns Seized

In the wake of the Virginia Tech shootings, the emem of gun control has once again seeped itno the collective societal conscience with fools like Dan Simpson offering up utterly ridiculous ways to take our guns. Bryan @ Hot Air shows us his startling example:

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.”

I would like to address his third idiotic paragraph. Assault weapons such as an AK-47, or an H & K MP5 rifle may be legally purchased by firearms owners only if they have the appropriate license. Furthermore, those types of firearms are usually purchased by enthusiasts and collectors, and when they take them out to shoot them, they abide by the regulations under the license that allows them to have them. Do we think this is "right" in our society? To each their own as the Second Amendment does not exclude any such firearms, and specifically states that the right to keep and bear arms "shall not be infringed." Gun grabbers always miss that last part.

Secondly, no one in America is allowed to own the other weapons he lists or the ordnance he cites. Even if you do have the license to own an assault rifle, that does not give you the legal ability to own a grenade launcher. What sort of nutty ideas does Mr. Simpson live under? Does he have a neighbor who owns one or something? I have never seen a private citizen own such a weapon UNLESS it is non-working. (We have a friend here in Arizona that has a .50 machine gun from a B-17 bomber that is encased in glass, and serves as a coffee table. That is about as rare a weapon as we have ever seen in someone's possession.)

Moreover, Mr. Simpson is demanding that every domicile and building in America be searched for firearms. No warrants. No probable cause. And all a direct violation of our rights. This is typical Leftist thinking, and it is reminiscent of the gun grab in Nazi Germany in 1935, which left a nation defenseless against a madman.

Lastly, this is Americ. This is not Australia, England, or even Canada. Does Mr. Simpson really think that the firearms owners in this country (according to Hugh Hewitt's book "If It's Not Close They Can't Cheat," there are approximately 235 million homes with guns in them) would willingly give up their firearms? Better question, does Mr. Simpson think that there would be enough people in Congress to pass such a nutty piece of legislation, and not have it overturned by the Supreme Court? Or is Mr. Simpson preparing for the first dictator of this nation to be sworn in as president?

The gun grabbers will never understand it. They see guns as evil rather than the ones pulling the trigger in a crime. Firearms are used more often in this country to prevent crime than to commit crime. The very presence of a firearm usually can deter crimes. The Appalachian Law School incident back in 2005 is a perfect example of what happens when a criminal is met with equal force in return. The criminal in question got down on the ground, held there by a couple of students with firearms, until police arrived.

Mr. Simpson can come up with all the ideas he would like when it comes to grabbing guns. The part of his plan that will always fail is when it comes around to making that decision, and having the force of law to back it up. No politician worth their salt would sign onto a total firearms ban in America. They would like to keep their jobs, and calling for an all-out ban will get them thrown out of office quicker than being caught with a dead hooker in a hotel room.

No, I am sorry to say that the gun grabbers will simply have to deal with the fact that we are an armed nation. That is the primary reason why we are still a free nation. If they would rather live amongst a disarmed citizenry, I suggest moving to another country. There is no shortage of such countries around the globe, and their moving would be a win/win.

They would not be in a nation that is armed, and we would be rid of their meddlesome attempts to take from us that which is guaranteed.



Post a Comment

<< Home

weight loss product