By David Codrea.
For some time now, particularly after changing their name from Handgun Control, Inc., the Brady Campaign has been assuring Americans they don’t want to ban guns. The idea of a “slippery slope” is something they ridicule as “gun lobby” paranoia. They acknowledge since the Heller decision this will be an unlikely goal (for now), claiming, “Now that the Court has struck down the District’s ban on handguns, while making it clear that the Constitution allows for reasonable restrictions on access to dangerous weapons, this ‘slippery slope’ argument is gone.”
It’s true that a narrow 5-4 decision by the high court makes what once was an openly-stated goal of the gungrabbers unlikely at present. But the composition of the court can change, and prior decisions can be overturned.
That’s why those making the most outrageous demands, while infuriating, are in an unintended way doing gun owners a favor. Take Dan Simpson—please.
We’re not talking about some random anti-gun zealot here, someone who can be just dismissed as an inconsequential kook who doesn’t speak for doctrinaire anti-gunners. He is, according to his newspaper bio, “a retired diplomat [and] a member of the editorial boards of The Blade and Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.”
And by “diplomat,” they mean a former United States Ambassador to the Central African Republic, Special Envoy to Somalia, and the Ambassador to the Congo-Kinshasa, as well as Deputy Commandant of the United States Army War College. The guy has political and journalistic “gravitas.”
Pre-Heller Dan Simpson had a laundry list of demands sure to ignite a civil war, including total civilian disarmament. Following a “three month amnesty… Special squads of police would be formed… 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 1 year in prison for each firearm… 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.’”
Post-Heller Dan is kinder and gentler—a man who knows his limitations, at least until that pesky 5-4 SCOTUS ruling reverses polarity. His latest missive is endearingly titled “It’s time to end the gun nuttery.”
Fortunately, Dan “see[s] no problem with the hunters.” As long as they know their place and obey him, they “can easily be accommodated,” he says. “They can deposit their weapons in an armory, to be reissued each season.”
As for non-hunters, well, you can have a gun too, in the home and with this caveat: “Each household can possess firearms, but they must be registered with the local police. The registration would be valid for one year and renewable on an annual basis.” And don’t worry if you’re a collector—Dan will let you have as many as you like—provided “they would have to be rendered unfireable.”
And we’re the slippery slope-hallucinating, paranoid nutjobs.