TexasCHLforum.com

Something from 2007 that I just came across today. Make no mistake, this is exactly what the left wants to see, but few are as bold as Mr. Simpson in sharing their dreams. And this snake was a government employee who presumably took an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America.

http://www.toledoblade.com/Op-Ed-Column ... erica.html

Excerpt:

"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.""

Liberals like to wail about how much blood in the streets there is going to be every time another carry law is passed.

If they really want to see blood in the streets, I'm afraid this would be a way to make it happen. Scary stuff.

Not this liberal

loadedliberal wrote:Not this liberal

Maybe I should say a "left wing" dream or use some other terminology. OTOH, while you call yourself a liberal you sound more like a libertarian in your posts, or perhaps a "classical" liberal, and I'm not using the term in the classical sense. In fact, I think the terms "liberal" and "conservative" (even libertarian) have been co-opted by parties that have corrupted their classical or traditional meanings --and a lot of people who now call themselves "conservatives" are not conservatives in the tradition conservatives represented in my youth.

The way I see it, his citation of "gun swept, gun free areas" is defective right from the start. Where would the most obvious place be to move your, now illicit, guns to? The recently swept area! Yes, the sweeps are supposed to be random and so on, but even doing it on a county by county basis, and accounting for independent municipalities, there are more than 2000 such in the US, so the likelyhood of a "resweep" would be slim, if not none, making the swept areas great places to move your guns to. And logistically some of the major metropolitan areas would require sweeps to be exponentially smaller on a geographical basis.

I envision a "Keystone Kops" or "Three Stooges" scenario with the gun cops raiding here right after the gun owners moved there, etc.

Some of those anti-rights types are just plain stupid.

I hope he has since been fired and confined to a mental institution.

VMI77 wrote:

loadedliberal wrote:Not this liberal

Maybe I should say a "left wing" dream or use some other terminology. OTOH, while you call yourself a liberal you sound more like a libertarian in your posts, or perhaps a "classical" liberal, and I'm not using the term in the classical sense. In fact, I think the terms "liberal" and "conservative" (even libertarian) have been co-opted by parties that have corrupted their classical or traditional meanings --and a lot of people who now call themselves "conservatives" are not conservatives in the tradition conservatives represented in my youth.

I wasn't upset at all by the title, I have become accustom to the liberal bashing here, as well as my own family for years. And I agree with you Classic liberal/libertarian comment. I am by no means a left winger.

Amazing. This concept has been used in the past, and this article would fit right in with a variety of newspapers published long ago.

1938 Germany...

Excerpt:

"The [elimination] process would begin after the initial three-month amnesty. Special squads of [Schutzstaffeln] 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 [Juden] would be seized. The owners of [the property concealing the Juden] found in the searches would be prosecuted: $1,000 and one year in prison for each [Juden].

Clearly, since such sweeps could not take place all across the country at the same time. But fairly quickly there would begin to be [Juden-swept], [Juden-free] areas where there should be no [Juden]. If there were, those [harboring] them would be subject to quick [detainment] 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 [harboring Juden].

HH!


Something tells me that this technique wouldn't work out so well if it was ever attempted here, as it would certainly ignite violent rebellion.

Texas Dan Mosby wrote:Amazing. This concept has been used in the past, and this article would fit right in with a variety of newspapers published long ago.

1938 Germany...

Excerpt:

"The [elimination] process would begin after the initial three-month amnesty. Special squads of [Schutzstaffeln] 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 [Juden] would be seized. The owners of [the property concealing the Juden] found in the searches would be prosecuted: $1,000 and one year in prison for each [Juden].

Clearly, since such sweeps could not take place all across the country at the same time. But fairly quickly there would begin to be [Juden-swept], [Juden-free] areas where there should be no [Juden]. If there were, those [harboring] them would be subject to quick [detainment] 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 [harboring Juden].

HH!


Something tells me that this technique wouldn't work out so well if it was ever attempted here, as it would certainly ignite violent rebellion.

I particularly found this part of his article ironic:

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.

Given the current realities over at BATF, I nearly fell out laughing over that. Clearly the man is insane. And he tried to paint himself as being pro-gun simply because he learned to fire a .357 as an embassy officer. No mention is made as to whether guns are part of his private life.

I'd like to think they'd have a hard time finding enough cops or soldiers to do this nation wide. To say it would not be pretty would be a gross under-statement.

Once the last of that blood had been washed from the street and it was decided that knives should be confiscated, I'd like to know how they'd propose getting rid of all of those since there are no doubt an even larger amount of knives present in the country.

This excerpt in particular made me chortle:

"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."

Since he doesn't qualify his statement, maybe he means every war which in that case, bans even muzzle loaders. I can be ridiculous too.

As a practical matter they would probably pick up all the knives, baseball bats, claw hammers, hatchets and screwdrivers / ice picks when they picked up the guns.

"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."

Do people not read what they write, or he is really a mini Stalin/Hitler/Polpot kind of guy in real life. Does he not realize how it sounds or is this what really happens when absolute power corrupts.

Obama aide: Gun legislation in 'near future'

http://content.usatoday.com/communities ... csp=34news" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Poldark wrote:Obama aide: Gun legislation in 'near future'

http://content.usatoday.com/communities ... csp=34news" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"I'm willing to bet that responsible, law-abiding gun owners agree that we should be able to keep an irresponsible, law-breaking few -- dangerous criminals and fugitives, for example -- from getting their hands on a gun in the first place."

Finally I agree with someone in the Obama administration! I have an idea of a way to keep the irresponsible, law breaking few, such as dangerous criminals and fugitives from getting their hands on a gun in the first place..........................put them in prison where it's almost impossible to purchase a firearm. Then you can quit worrying about the rest of us.

How's that for common sense gun control?

VMI77 wrote: "...Special squads of police would be formed and trained to carry out the work. "

Sure hope they figure out how to not pick officers that are sworn to this: http://oathkeepers.org/oath/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Liberals forget that not all police officers are thugs that are on power trips.