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.

Get More Gun Rights

6 thoughts on “EXCLUSIVE: The End Game

  1. John Caile

    I am 65 years old, and have been shooting since I was 8. I have been training people in self-defense and firearm skills for more than 35 years. I have also been active in protecting our rights for almost as long. And I can say with absolute certainty, that anyone who owns a gun today and votes for a Democrat, ANY Democrat, is a fool.

    Oh, sure, there have been a few Republicans who have gone along with “assault weapons” bans and other such nonsense, but the plain truth is that today’s Democrat Party (including Obama and his “gun-hater-in-chief” Eric Holder) is militantly anti-gun, and would like to see every privately held firearm in America either confiscated or made inoperable.

    Even Obamacare will ultimately be used to justify forcing you to remove guns from your home, on the grounds that it constitutes a “dangerous risk” – especially if you have children in the home. After all, when “the government” is paying for it, they have the power to demand compliance.

    In the 1930’s, some German Jews saw the handwriting on the wall, and left. But most stayed, deluding themselves that THEY didn’t have anything to worry about. We all know what happened.

    2012 is coming, and if you own a gun, but vote for Obama and company so you can “get free stuff from the government” then YOU will be responsible for the loss of our rights.

  2. Uncle Lar

    It is my understanding from the Heller trial that the finding of individual right was 9/0. The court in turn used that as basis for a 5/4 decision to overturn DC’s gun ban regulations.

    As for Danny boys modest proposal, him and what army? Many in the US military have already made it clear that they will not obey an such orders in violation of the Constitution. Sure there is always someone willing to do the dirty work, but as our friend Mike V. is fond of saying, “if you come to take my guns I will kill you!” Multiply that sentiment times millions of hard core gun owners and the herd of stasi/brown shirt/et al willing to do the ruler’s bidding quickly thins.

  3. nutz

    Very fine in theory but seemingly invalid in recent experience Totalitarian movements have succeeded in very sophisticated nations over the years. Both the seeds for subjugation and the seeds of revolution seem to be swirling all around as not seen since the late 1700’s. Be very fearful the tipping point may be near.

  4. Brent Emery Pieczynski

    The military loses weapons just like Police Departments and this is the central point of failure enforced by all gun control policies. Each worst possible situation is the crack to justify enforcing all restrictions by people that want to centralize authority. Most national disasters can be stopped when a constitutional militia is involved because the local government would then end looting and provide an environment where rebuilding can occur.

    Restoring order during a time of crisis will happen when a constitutional militia is allowed to exist again because looters will be shot on sight. This is because a formation of local militia with adequit distructive firepower can kill looters at an acceptable rate of speed as the local government will desire, because of the need for order.

    This difficulty with scaling up anything such as Government or martial arts is because around four out of every five people only think about gain. Personal gain can take the form of larger quantity always being called better such as with swine or the dogs only desiring status regaurdless of what suffering is caused. Human nature is denied by people desiring to scale up Government into being aggressively consuming people.

  5. Harry E

    Massachusetts under Obama’s close friend Gov. Patrick has already introduced legislation that would require individual bullets to have id numbers and a host of other Anti-gun measures. For example, they propose to require high cost insurance for all gun owners. If you have a cocealed carry permit, you will only be able to carry based on why you need a cc license. There will no longer be a license for unrestricted carry. Check the Massachusetts legislative page for the proposed legislation.

    You can be sure that if this passes in Massachusetts, Obama will push this through executive order for all states.

  6. Richard Nelson

    What I find stunning is that a so-called “diplomat” can advocate a solution that is in every sense a duplication of the Einsatzgruppen that Nazi Germany used to eradicate Jews, one bullet to the head at a time. The methodology he proposes is the same, and the results would be the same here, with the exception that those shot would mostly be gun owners and their families, weapons in hand trying to defend the Constitution, regardless of race, creed, or religion, and a lot of the “special police”. I was a police officer once myself, and would not only not support such a concept, I would consider those who did to be in violation of their oaths to protect the Constitution. The word I would have for such people is “traitors”. To propose such a repugnant Final Solution is totally unacceptable, and something that if Ubergruppenfueher Simpson and those in his Fascist cabal ever tried to put in place, they should face trials for treason. There’s a pretty serious penalty for treason–and it’s well deserved. Are you listening to me, Mr. Simpson, Mr. Holder, or Mr. Obama? What goes around, comes around.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

(Spamcheck Enabled)