doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com The Disarming of America -- editorial

May I illuminate the source a bit? dsimpson@post-gazette.com.

The newspapers in question, and their owner-publisher [Block Communications] are rabid and elitist antigun prohibitionists. In fact 'phobic beyond reason' would be an accurate description.

My request is that you convey directly to Block Communications, the sentiments of your reaction. This article has been posted on BBSs, with the view, that from around the world and country they receive firm non-local [and regular] dissent. For that reason, I have requested that it be crossposted, as well as being copied and E-pasted to y'r gun-owning friends.

I harbor no belief that it will change one mind in that newspaper. However, it may repudiate their idea of the ease with which the people will roll over for such totalitarian ideas. Should it be a satire, then the same purpose is accomplished, tho knowing that paper and its staff, I doubt very much that they are capable of such an elevated level of humor.

However, when I first read it, I did think what a complete takeoff it was on the explicit goals of gun confiscation. If it is, indeed, such an effort, then ol' Johnnie Swift would be proud to have written it. Also, Simpson prolly would have had a personality transplant.

Thank you for your attention to the item, and please convey your regards to the article's author via the links provided.

John Meeker

Satire? No way.
Dan Simpson's other editorials are extremely leftist - not Democratic leftist but Fist-In-The-Air leftist - so I don't think this is satire. Google up some of his other stuff, I don't see any satire.

As Sam Hoggson pointed out this is the gun grabber's complete plan, not just the "nose of the camel" that HCI usually shows us.

I thought it the plan was interesting in that he bypassed gun registration as a first step. After witnessing the wide non-compliance in Canada, he knows that it might not be the most useful first step to conficscation.

For "rabid elitist antigun prohibitionists," the newspaper published some pretty cogent responses to the VT shooting: http://toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070422/OPINION03/704210311

Below is the reason we have the second amendment, and must defend it.

"In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

"In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated”.

"Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.

"China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

"Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981,100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

"Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

"Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million 'educated' people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated."

Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.

The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, ask them "Who do YOU want to round up and exterminate?" With guns, we are citizens. Without them, we are subjects.

The Bible says, "A strong man armed protects his home."

Sorry to disillusion you, but the liberal democratic Weimar government established gun control in Germany in 1928. Their goal was to disarm the Nazis and other militants; obviously, it didn't work. Hitler's 1938 gun laws were - in some ways - less restrictive.

Hitler didn't take over because of gun controls. He was democratically elected by the German people, and remained popular almost to the end. His anti-semitism was cheerfully accepted and even supported by most Germans.

Gun laws had little to do with the Holocaust. There never was a significant opposition which could have - or would have - taken up arms against the Nazis. In fact, the only serious opposition to Hitler came from the army, which certainly wasn't lacking in weapons!

The Weimar gun "controls" only prove how ineffective repressive gun laws can be.

"For "rabid elitist antigun prohibitionists," the newspaper published some pretty cogent responses to the VT shooting: http://toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070422/OPINION03/704210311"

Context:

Those 'civilian' writers, including Richard Iott, are known to me either personaly or as regular writers in defense of gun ownership via op-ed "Letters to the Editor". Those opinions from citizens were published all in one day, in one column, taking up one quarter, at most, of the daily Editorial page.

Those letters from readers do not reflect the newspaper's long term, continuous, and consistent opposistion to gun ownership. They are there, because some appearance of even-handed readership response is expected. The cited replies to Blade editorials are most definitely not reflective of the paper's own policy.

As well, due to my involvment with Ohio CCW issues; plank-owner in organized opposistion to the passage of Toledo's city-specific gun laws [which the Blade fervently supported]; personal conversations with their editors and assorted reporters; and years of facing the director[Toby Hoover]of the very active Ohio anti-gun org --- then my best estimate of the newspaper's policy is 'anti-gun, to the point of total prohibition'.

Jack,

You are probably spot on with the German thing, but I think there are enough other examples in my post to make my point valid.

There were uprisings in the Ghettos. Guns would have helped. I wish I knew more about it.

I don't believe Simpson is being sarcastic - the way I read this editorial, he's serious about warrantless searches, "special squads of police" and confiscation. And even if he was trying to play devil's advocate, there are plenty of people who would be all for such a loony program.

I'm not going to lose a lot of sleep over something as Orwellian as this proposal coming to pass. I'm far more concerned that legal gun ownership in the US will die the death of 1000 cuts - one "reasonable" restriction at a time.

Wrong again Jack: There was a significient Jewish uprising in the Warsaw Ghetto. The Jews managed to arm themselves with a motley assemblage of pistols,rifles and other small ordenance an held off the German forces who were attempting to tranport the residents to a death camp. Of course,in the end, they were overwhelmed and the end result was the same in that they died on the spot or were sent to camps but they did take several German soldiers with them. I like to think they at least they went out with their heads held high and not like a bunch of sheep being herded to the slaughter.
Jim