Here’s how retired former ambassador to Somalia Dan Simpson recommends that law abiding Americans be disarmed:

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.

Hunters would be able to deposit their hunting weapons in a centrally located arsenal, heavily guarded, from which they would be able to withdraw them each hunting season upon presentation of a valid hunting license. The weapons would be required to be redeposited at the end of the season on pain of arrest. When hunters submitted their request for their weapons, federal, state and local checks would be made to establish that they had not been convicted of a violent crime since the last time they withdrew their weapons. In the process, arsenal staff would take at least a quick look at each hunter to try to affirm that he was not obviously unhinged.

{snip}

All antique or interesting nonhunting weapons would be required to be delivered to a local or regional museum, also to be under strict 24-hour-a-day guard. There they would be on display, if the owner desired, as part of an interesting exhibit of antique American weapons, as family heirlooms from proud wars past or as part of collections.

Gun dealers could continue their work, selling hunting and antique firearms. Dealers would be required to maintain very tight inventories. Any gun sold would be delivered immediately by the dealer to the nearest arsenal or the museum, not to the buyer.

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. Thoroughness would be at the level of the sort of search that is carried out in Crime Scene Investigations. 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 a city, county, state or the country at the same time, guns would move. 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 stopping and searching anyone, even Grandma with her walker, with the same penalties for “carrying.”

{snip}

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.

First off, notice how this writer has no qualms about harassing and intruding in the lives of ordinary Americans, yet if it was a matter of paying extra special attention to Middle Eastern men on a plane, this writer and the other gun grabbers would be screaming about racial profiling. Also, notice how he insists that guarding our Southern border against guns is doable. Yet when it’s a matter of guarding against illegal aliens coming here for benefits and to take jobs away from Americans, they scream that militarizing the border in nonsense, and that a fence will accomplish nothing.

Finally Mr. Simpson’s recommendations sound a lot like the Nazi gun control laws, and the previous laws that enabled the Nazis to take power.

In 1928, five years before the rise of Hitler, Germany’s freely elected government enacted a “Law on Firearms and Ammunition.” This law required anyone who owned a firearm, or who wanted to own a firearm, to make themselves known to the authorities. Anyone who wanted to purchase a firearm had to get a “Firearms Acquisition Permit.” If you needed ammunition, you had to get an “Ammunition Acquisition Permit.” When you wanted to go hunting, you had to get an “Annual Hunting Permit.” Every firearm that changed hands professionally had to have a serial number and the maker’s or dealers name stamped into the metal. “Proof of need” was made a condition for issuance of all licenses, not just the carry permit. Mandatory prison sentences were imposed on anyone who professionally sold or transferred a firearm or ammunition without a license. Truncheons and stabbing weapons were subject to the same licensing requirements as firearms, in terms of their manufacture and sale.

As a result of the 1928 Law, all firearms and firearms owners were registered. To take firearms from anyone they distrusted, the Nazis simply did not renew permits. Under the law, their privately created law, the Nazis could now easily confiscate all firearms and ammunition from any, or all, selected groups. The gun law of 1928 had served the Nazis well. It made almost all law abiding firearms owners known to the authorities. The 1928 law on firearms and ammunition helped the Nazis to destroy democracy in Germany, by disarming the law abiding majority, whom they feared.

By the end of 1931, a rising tide of violence, mainly between Nazi and Communist street fighters, moved the authorities to tighten restrictions. Under new regulations, the police could order everyone’s firearms and ammunition … even items not normally used as weapons … to be put into police custody.

{snip}

…The Nazis used the 1928 Law on Firearms and Ammunition to disarm their opponents and to prevent any armed resistance. The Nazis, at most, were a minority of the German population, not the majority. The Nazis operated within the Law. But in Germany, as here, a small private elite group wrote and defined the Law. WHEN YOU CREATE THE LAW, YOU CAN DEFINE THE LAW. IT CAN BE AS LEGAL TO ABOLISH LAWS AS IT IS TO INSTITUTE THEM. Hitler not only came to power legally, but instituted dictatorship legally.

{snip}

On March 18 1938, the Nazis enacted a new, tougher, gun control law. The Nazi Weapons Law (Waffengesetz) ensured that only Nazis and their friends could own or carry weapons, especially handguns. Licenses to sell, own, or carry firearms were required, except for exempted Nazi organizations and officials. Private persons were not exempt, but a Nazi Party Membership Card was proof of political reliability. The Nazi Weapons Law stated that no Jew could be involved in any business involving firearms. On November 11 1938, one day after the SS were unleashed against the Jews, new regulations under the Nazi Weapons Law barred Jews from owning any weapons.

Now ambassadors to foreign countries are not usually the local village idiots, although it may often seem that way. And I don’t think Simpson is stupid. His position on gun control is almost identical to that of the Nazis. And more recently, Simpson has written in favor of the illegal alien, fifth column Arab Nazi squatters in Israel. I wonder if Simpson feels the same way after these Amalekites celebrated on 9/11. He probably does, as reality is something left-tards always ignore.

11.07.2010

We need a man like Ron Paul as the speaker of the house so he can control what legislation comes to the floor.

Infowars.com
November 5, 2010

Reuters’ report Ron Paul vows renewed Fed audit push next year demonstrates one significant political gain from the midterms. Grassroots efforts to expose the private Federal Reserve bank, audit its secretive affairs and end its mandate to print money out of thin air helped fuel the Tea Party Movement and now it has, in part, helped Ron Paul in his campaign against the Fed.

Ron Paul, leading critic of the Federal Reserve and author of ‘End the Fed,’ is poised to head the subcommittee that deals with monetary policy in the Republican majority House. Paul has vowed to use the new position to renew the case against the Fed.

From Reuters:

(Reuters) – Republican Representative Ron Paul on Thursday said he will push to examine the Federal Reserve’s monetary policy decisions if he takes control of the congressional subcommittee that oversees the central bank as expected in January.

“I think they’re way too independent. They just shouldn’t have this power,” Paul, a longtime Fed critic, said in an interview with Reuters. “Up until recently it has been modest but now it’s totally out of control.”

Paul is currently the top Republican on the House of Representatives subcommittee that oversees domestic monetary policy, and is likely to head the panel when Republicans take control of the chamber in January.

Reuters reported that Ron Paul would also scrutinize the role of the IMF and the dollar’s unsustainable status as the world’s reserve currency. He would also examine monetary policy and advocate a return to sound money.

Significantly, Reuters noted the political mandate for Paul’s position on the Fed bank issue, demonstrated in the Tea Party movement victories:

But grassroots outrage over the bank bailouts and other Fed actions helped propel many Republican candidates to victory in Tuesday’s congressional elections — including Paul’s son, Rand Paul, who will represent Kentucky in the Senate.