Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
road-runner

The disarming of america

Recommended Posts

Wow, just wow. The second amendment was put in so people could protect themselves from a tyrannical government. I think that this would fall under that category. Random, without warrant, searches of entire blocks? Putting guns in museums and arsenals? Crazy talk.

 

Quite honestly, it reminds me of the letter by [Jonathan Swift] that says to eat Irish babies as an obserd solution that would never happen. Only difference is, this guy makes no "real" solution in his article. I hope he isn't actually serious.

 

Edit - corrected author.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

where is his proposal to remove knives, sticks, and bricks?

handguns are used far more in self defense in the US than for any other purpose.

a fact that is convieniently overlooked by the anti gun crowd...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What he said sounds like just a bad idea in general. It would cause more harm then good to take away all guns in the U.S. I'm sure criminals would still find a way to get the guns. Also it would open another black market in the US. Probably all the law would do is take away guns from responsible people and criminals would still keep theres.

 

I really didn't like this though

 

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.

 

If that was allowed to happen who knows they might use the secret police to raid for more then just guns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
where is his proposal to remove knives, sticks, and bricks?

Apparently you neglected to actually READ the article. If you had you would know that he was only discussing the how he thinks the government could disarm a population, noting direct about how he thinks it should happen.

Because I have little or no power to influence the "if" part of the issue, I will stick with the "how."

In all honesty I found the article an interesting read, if nothing more than to see the way someone outside of the leftwing nut-job group thinks such situations should be controled. Of course it's still fartoo unrealistic and would NOT work for a large percentage of the American population. Also one statement that bothers me:

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."

Isnt it usually the same group of people who want to stop the goverment from "spying on citizens" that wants to ban these guns? If so why don't authorities need probable cause to search for weapons? Granny walking down the street going about her business shouldn't be seached for guns, and if you allow it police will no longer bother with search warrents, just say you were looking for guns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest christopher3393

Jonathan Swift's essay, "A Modest Proposal", suggesting Irish babies as a cheap source of meat in a time of economic crisis, is intented as a parody, even though some readers thought it was worth considering (!). I think Dan Simpson is being serious, although with a few changes, the piece would work better as satire.

 

I find it worthwhile to try to distinguish between what CAN be done and what the American people are WILLING to do. One of the most frequent arguments against the average gun control position is " even if it should be done it can't be done, impossible, impractical, etc.". He attempts to challenge this position through a radical, sweeping proposal, a very flawed one in my opinion, perhaps even ludicrous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i did in fact read the article and found his theory lacking any merit since it would in no way disable anyones ability to kill...

it would however defeat a main source of them defending themseleves...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

Sounds like Germany pre WW2, SS squads anyone?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.
Yeah like that would work... :closedeyes:

What about all the people who have them securely hidden away?

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.
That is how hostile takeovers of towns cities or states happen...
The owners of weapons found in the searches would be prosecuted: $1,000 and one year in prison for each firearm.
I know people that would be in debt to the government for a very very long time and be in jail for a very very long time if that were to happen, that is if they were found...

 

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.

I'm not sure whether he's referring to hunting now or post-ban (most likely after the ban).

You've already taken away all the guns, there is no need to turn hunters into baddies too...

Edited by Andrewr05

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...