Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The disarming of America (mega-barf, fascism is here)
The Toledo Blade ^ | 4-95-07 | Dan Simpson

Posted on 04/27/2007 3:47:48 AM PDT by atomic conspiracy

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-194 last
To: Abundy
He’s a retired diplomat...and a moron.

True, but what is frightening is that this person was responsible for representing and implementing the policies of the United States. I think we gain some insight into what goes on at foggy bottom.

Maybe this is his way of floating a job proposal to be implemented in '09.

151 posted on 04/27/2007 10:41:21 AM PDT by kitchen (Over gunned? Hell, that's better than the alternative!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Ajnin
"As a Federal Agent there is no way in hell that I would enforce such tyranny."

That's probably a good idea. It's also worthwhile to recall that land mines, flame throwers, A/P rockets, IEDs and other dreary home-built items are not beyond the grasp of really annoyed citizens. This guy Simpson must think we are all as stupid and nancypants as he is...

152 posted on 04/27/2007 10:49:11 AM PDT by jonascord ("Don't shoot 'em! Let 'em burn!...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Rick.Donaldson

Dan’s younger brother, Homer makes more sense than he does!


153 posted on 04/27/2007 10:49:44 AM PDT by rickomatic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: Lurker

Danny would flunk out in Arizona mighty fast : )


154 posted on 04/27/2007 11:00:28 AM PDT by stephenjohnbanker ( Hunter/Thompson/Thompson/Hunter in 08! Or Rudy/Hillary if you want to murder conservatism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Bluesguy
After a few of these incidents happen, the media will be quick to make the gubbermint thugs look like martyrs and the patriots will get painted like vermin.

The media won't propogandize it if they are at least as afraid to offend gun owners as they are to offend Al Sharpton, or Muslims, or gays.

155 posted on 04/27/2007 11:10:18 AM PDT by Betty Jane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
Black Arrow.

Unintended Consequences.

Enemies Foreign and Domestic.

Three Damn good books!

Go Henry...

156 posted on 04/27/2007 11:26:59 AM PDT by Doomonyou (Let them eat lead.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse

This one ain't bad either.

157 posted on 04/27/2007 11:28:50 AM PDT by Doomonyou (Let them eat lead.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: atomic conspiracy
Unbelievable. Hey Dan, COME GET SOME!
158 posted on 04/27/2007 11:38:25 AM PDT by Greystoke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: atomic conspiracy

The problem is, it wouldn’t be Dan coming to your house.

It would be a dozen cops in ninja suits and body armor with MP5s and licenses to kill.

Now if you get a dozen friends, and used rifles with enough penetration to punch through body armor, you might have a winning arguement, once. But the next time they’d do a Waco on you. Unless your friends got a dozen friends each to join ‘em. Then you’d have an insurrection. And the NG would be your next visitor.

And do you really want to shoot at cops and Guardsmen? This needs to be solved another level.


159 posted on 04/27/2007 11:41:46 AM PDT by Little Ray (Rudy Guiliani: if his wives can't trust him, why should we?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Little Ray

I’m law enforcement and have been for almost 13 years. I can say without hesitation that the day they tell us to do that 90% of us would quit.

I took an oath to support and uphold the constitution and that included the 2nd amendment.

I don’t think this scenario will ever happen in my lifetime and it would not be enforced as law enforcement agencies and agents would refuse to carry it out.

Everyone thinks Federal agents would do this but I know plenty of them and it’s no different for them than it is for cops and most of them are just regular Joe’s.

I was in the Army for 7 years before that and I don’t think they would do it either.

That’s my .02


160 posted on 04/27/2007 11:48:09 AM PDT by volunbeer (Dear heaven.... we really need President Reagan again!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]

To: volunbeer
Dunno. I’m glad you believe this and I hope you are correct. However, I’m near Atlanta and we have some cops up for murder charges for killing an old black woman. They basically admitted to lying to a judge to get a warrant. They did this in order to meet (idiotic) requirements set their by the superiors. I’d like to know a bit more about those requirements... But do think that cops that would lie to get a warrant would balk at rousting gun-owners?

Also, I recall that, a few years ago, they surveyed, at some level a bunch of Marines about conducting operations in the US to disarm American Citizens.
IIRC, a majority said they would do it.

161 posted on 04/27/2007 11:57:21 AM PDT by Little Ray (Rudy Guiliani: if his wives can't trust him, why should we?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: atomic conspiracy

Daniel Simpson
AKA Daniel H Simpson

Born: ?

Gender: Male
Race or Ethnicity: White
Occupation: Diplomat

Nationality: United States
Executive summary: US Ambassador to the Congo, 1995-98

University: English, Yale University
University: African Studies, Northwestern University
Teacher: Eghosa Anglican Boys’ School, Benin City, Nigeria (1961)
Teacher: Libyan Army Military College, Benghazi, Libya
Administrator: Deputy Commandant for International Affairs, US Army War College (1993-94)

US Ambassador to Congo 1995-98
US Ambassador to the Central African Republic 1990-92
American Academy of Diplomacy
US Institute of Peace

http://www.nndb.com/people/752/000120392/


162 posted on 04/27/2007 12:12:19 PM PDT by Oakleaf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: atomic conspiracy

Daniel Simpson
AKA Daniel H Simpson

Born: ?

Gender: Male
Race or Ethnicity: White
Occupation: Diplomat

Nationality: United States
Executive summary: US Ambassador to the Congo, 1995-98

University: English, Yale University
University: African Studies, Northwestern University
Teacher: Eghosa Anglican Boys’ School, Benin City, Nigeria (1961)
Teacher: Libyan Army Military College, Benghazi, Libya
Administrator: Deputy Commandant for International Affairs, US Army War College (1993-94)

US Ambassador to Congo 1995-98
US Ambassador to the Central African Republic 1990-92
American Academy of Diplomacy
US Institute of Peace

http://www.nndb.com/people/752/000120392/


163 posted on 04/27/2007 12:12:25 PM PDT by Oakleaf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Little Ray

I have always doubted the validity of that poll. I was an officer in the Army and my own informal polling on the topic led me to conclude that it would not happen.

Even if they started such a mission I don’t think very many would finish it after the first shoot-out with a regular Joe with a family.

Guns are an emotional issue for many but like most topics in the public debate today they seek more to assign blame rather than deal with the root causes of the problem.

With that said, I have taken plenty of heat on this board for my views which lean more towards more standard firearms instead of the exotic stuff where the risk to the public might outweigh my enjoyment of shooting said weapons.

I think we as firearms owners and the firearms industry as a whole need to try and be smart about what we do and don’t support. The first time someone uses a .50 caliber rifle to destroy an airliner full of people on the ground there will probably be massive public support for no more .50 calibers. That is one example that I can think of where maybe the risks to the public outweigh my individual rights. It’s not what I would do with it that I worry about...


164 posted on 04/27/2007 12:18:27 PM PDT by volunbeer (Dear heaven.... we really need President Reagan again!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: Little Ray

Re: the cops in Atlanta....

Sad case and if they lied I don’t feel bad about what happened to them. Narcotics is something I am very familiar with and I have written many warrants myself. I am not a major fan of no knock warrants although I have seen a few instances where it was justified.

Like most things in law enforcement you always hear about the one that screwed up but never think much about the hundreds and thousands of warrants that take place each day without incident.


165 posted on 04/27/2007 12:25:33 PM PDT by volunbeer (Dear heaven.... we really need President Reagan again!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: volunbeer

I’m a pretty radical pro-2nd Amdnedment type. I think that private citizens should have access to everything a Light Infantryman would... at minimum!

Have serious doubts about anybody ever using a .50 cal rifle to knock down an airliner. Maybe you could disable one on the ground with a few well placed shots, but taking out a flying one would be a heck of an achievment in marksmanship.


166 posted on 04/27/2007 12:37:55 PM PDT by Little Ray (Rudy Guiliani: if his wives can't trust him, why should we?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 164 | View Replies]

To: from occupied ga; Rummyfan
Short for “Jack Booted Thug” term used first by NRA spoksperson (who then backed down) ...

Actually, Rep. John Dingel (D-MI).

167 posted on 04/27/2007 12:42:46 PM PDT by DuncanWaring (The Lord uses the good ones; the bad ones use the Lord.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: Little Ray
Guardsmen?

The day we get an order like that at my unit is the day that most of us head for the door. They might get UN forces to carry out such a plan, but not U.S. forces.

168 posted on 04/27/2007 12:55:20 PM PDT by 91B (God made man, Sam Colt made men equal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]

To: atomic conspiracy

Call your house a “woman’s health clinic” and see if Dan Simpson will still send in his goon squads.


169 posted on 04/27/2007 1:01:10 PM PDT by Alouette (Learned Mother of Zion)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bluesguy
Bluesguy said: "It’s one thing to fight to the death yourself but will you have the wife and kids leave the house first? Or will you arm them and go down as a family? Won’t that look lovely on CNN."

Once it becomes the policy of the government to confiscate firearms, then all government authority loses its legitimacy. You don't sit around waiting for these people to come to you. You dare not wait.

All police lose their legitimacy. Similarly, the army and national guard lose their legitimacy.

There would be no justification for anybody wearing a police uniform or a military uniform. If anybody does, then they would be claiming legitimacy for an unConstitutional gun confiscation. They would be the enemy.

As much as a uniformed officer might wish to continue drawing pay while such confiscations are contemplated, they would have an obligation to set aside their uniforms. Failing to do so makes them legitimate targets.

So, let's see what options a person might have.

He can sit idly at his own home waiting for the confiscators to arrive, risking the lives of his own family. Or he can visit those who threaten to confiscate firearms and let their families be at risk.

I have read that about one-third of the population during the American Revolution supported the rebels. About one-third were loyalists, and the remaining one-third were just trying to survive and remain in the middle. None of those roles was easy or without risk.

170 posted on 04/27/2007 1:21:51 PM PDT by William Tell (RKBA for California (rkba.members.sonic.net) - Volunteer by contacting Dave at rkba@sonic.net)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: atomic conspiracy

This is utter lunacy. I don’t think it was written tongue-in-cheek.

Also...some ex-diplomat he is - he’s pictured wearing 1) a button-down collar that 2) appears to be too small for his neck.


171 posted on 04/27/2007 1:57:55 PM PDT by oblomov
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: READINABLUESTATE
"delete the word “gun” and insert the word “liberal”

I agree, when do we start rounding them up?"

That is funny when you put in the context of taking them out of their protected environment when it is hunting season.

172 posted on 04/27/2007 2:09:32 PM PDT by DocRock (All they that take the sword shall perish with the sword. Matthew 26:52 ... Go ahead, look it up!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: usapatriot28

Well, you have to admit that Dan is right about what it would take to implement a gun ban. You’d have to trash the whole constitution, not just the 2nd amendment.


173 posted on 04/27/2007 2:24:38 PM PDT by absalom01 (The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: atomic conspiracy

Unfarginbelievable. No wait. Ah yes. The whiff of fascism Hillary was talking about!


174 posted on 04/27/2007 2:57:57 PM PDT by sam_paine (X .................................)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bulldawg Fan
I think Rosie O'Donnell's Giant Gun Magnet has a better chance of success.
175 posted on 04/27/2007 3:20:13 PM PDT by gridlock (Enough already about Virginia Tech!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Little Ray

This is the standard LEO argument as seen on the H&K forum, among others. Problem is, I am not the only gun owner in the country. You can’t isolate and surround a hundred million people piecemeal as you would a maniac or a drug gang, and reduce them one at a time.

What will those other millions of gun owners be doing while law enforcement applies massive force to a single target? People are not going to wait patiently in their homes for the jackboots to show up at the door. As we have seen here, many, many of the most skilled and experienced LEOs and military personnel would simply refuse orders to carry this out. The fascist authorities would still find plenty who would, or recruit low-level deputies from the thuggish moonbat population, but what are their chances of pulling it off?

Remember the resources that were concentrated at Waco. Now multiply that by a million or more.

If ATF had been trying to do the same thing to the whole state of Texas that they were trying to do to the Davidians, they never would have reached that compound.


176 posted on 04/27/2007 3:47:01 PM PDT by atomic conspiracy (Rousing the blog-rabble since 9-11-01)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]

To: marvlus
Yeah, well we're not Canada or Australia, we are still the U.S. I still have faith in my fellow conservatives.

I didn't mean to imply that there wouldn't be resistance if the Libs tried it here or that it could or would happen here that fast. I'm only pointing out how fast it did happen in two similar societies....frankly, I expected more out of our Aussie brethren....

177 posted on 04/27/2007 3:53:00 PM PDT by Thermalseeker (Just the facts, ma'am)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: Little Ray
Also, I recall that, a few years ago, they surveyed, at some level a bunch of Marines about conducting operations in the US to disarm American Citizens.

IIRC, a majority said they would do it.

Okay. I'm calling BS on that one. I spent 20 years in the Corps and I can say without a doubt that statement is utter BS!

178 posted on 04/27/2007 7:27:29 PM PDT by dpa5923 (Small minds talk about people, normal minds talk about events, great minds talk about ideas.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: atomic conspiracy

Simple fascist. He forgot to mention the need for brown shirts and jack boots.


179 posted on 04/27/2007 7:29:16 PM PDT by School of Rational Thought (Self-defense works)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: atomic conspiracy; All
Iowahawk’s take here.
180 posted on 04/27/2007 7:48:19 PM PDT by dighton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Arrowhead1952

Thus the Schutzstaffel (SS) or “protection squad” was


181 posted on 04/27/2007 8:02:43 PM PDT by School of Rational Thought (Self-defense works)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Little Ray

I think a .50 caliber could set a 747 on fire while sitting on the runway with an incendiary round quite easily. You don’t have to hit it in the air when it is essentially a rolling fuel tank with people on board.

If one were to get in the right spot at a busy airport I would imagine you could do tremendous damage with a rifle and cartridge designed to destroy light skinned vehicles.

I don’t imagine we will see a publicized test any time soon but from my time with Uncle Sam and the shooting I have done with .50 caliber rifles as a civilian I would bet you could light a commercial aircraft on fire quite easily.


182 posted on 04/27/2007 9:12:06 PM PDT by volunbeer (Dear heaven.... we really need President Reagan again!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | View Replies]

To: dpa5923
It was a survey done back on 1994 by LTC Guy Cunningham as part of a Masters thesis. It was called the "Combat Arms Survey" or "Twenty-nine Palms Survey". I remember it being a huge deal when it was first leaked. The responses were broken down by time in service and basically, the younger more inexperienced respondees were more likely to follow an order to fire upon American citizens if under orders to disarm American citizens. The purpose of the survey was to show how uninformed many of the younger soldiers were about the Constitution and history of the country.

Unfortunately, the majority of the younger soldiers agreed with this question:

46. The U.S. government declares a ban on the possession, sale, transportation, and transfer of all non-approved firearms. A 30-day amnesty period is established for these firearms to be turned over to the local authorities. At the end of this period, a number of irregular citizen groups and defiant individuals refuse to turn over their firearms to authority. Consider the following statement: [SD D A SA NO] "I would fire upon U.S. citizens who refuse or resist confiscation of firearms banned by the United States government."

183 posted on 04/27/2007 11:42:20 PM PDT by jess35
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | View Replies]

To: atomic conspiracy

Sounds like Germany in the 1930’s.


184 posted on 04/27/2007 11:56:41 PM PDT by lndrvr1972
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: atomic conspiracy

Liberalism is a mental disorder.


185 posted on 04/28/2007 10:39:40 AM PDT by magellan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: atomic conspiracy

Appearently Dan has never read, “Unintended Consequences”.


186 posted on 04/28/2007 10:44:35 AM PDT by tet68 ( " We would not die in that man's company, that fears his fellowship to die with us...." Henry V.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: atomic conspiracy

just a bump


187 posted on 04/28/2007 11:07:22 AM PDT by Clinging Bitterly (Oregon - a pro-militia and firearms state that looks just like Afghanistan .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: atomic conspiracy
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.

Imagine the weeks of outrage if an alleged conservative suggested these gestapo sweeps to round up a liberal interest group like abortionists or perverts or welfare frauds.

Politicians at all levels from both sides of the aisle would trample women and babies in their rush to a camera to publicly denounce the idea.

Congress would stage investigations. They would push through a TOLERANCE (Treat Our Leftist Enemies with Respect; Allow No Christian Expression) Act to ban such speech in the future.

But when the liberals openly talk about doing these things to us, it's free exchange of ideas or some such garbage and the only place it's criticized is to each other on the rightwing blogs.

Dan Simpson, come and take them.

188 posted on 04/28/2007 11:25:52 AM PDT by CGTRWK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jess35

I am having a hell of a time finding the survey or official results on the survey.

I was able to find this link on Free Republic (of all places) discussing the survey (http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a385270a0236b.htm). Serious questions about the survey are raised of course. It seems, according to some posters, that a large number of Marines refused to take the survey, thus grossly skewing any results. Also the infamous question 46 results are broken down as such...

The Responses
Of the 300 U.S. Marines asked this question, 264, or 88% of them responded. The outcome of the survey was as follows:

Strongly disagree - 127 (42.33%)
Disagree - 58 (19.33%)
Agree - 56 (18.67%)
Strongly agree - 23 (7.67%)
No opinion - 36 (12.00%)

Total: 300 (100.00%)

That would mean over 61% disagree and could be assumed would not fire on American citizens in order to enforce gun confiscation.

12% reportedly have no opinion, and 23.34% would agree and hence assumed would fire upon American citizens. A disturbing number, but hardly a majority as claimed.

Again, I am having trouble finding certified results on line. If you have a link, please present it.

But until someone can show me a scientific poll was conducted and the results indicate that a majority of US Marine would fire on American citizens to confiscate firearms, I am raising the BS flag.

I was born in Missouri...

Show me!


189 posted on 04/28/2007 11:29:47 AM PDT by dpa5923 (Small minds talk about people, normal minds talk about events, great minds talk about ideas.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 183 | View Replies]

To: atomic conspiracy
"Special squads of police would be formed and trained to carry out the work."

Nice tought?

What a Maroon, he is from another planet, Space or Time.

190 posted on 04/28/2007 11:31:56 AM PDT by Afronaut (Supporting Republican Liberals is the Undeniable End to Freedom)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: atomic conspiracy
Well during the amnesty period...I'd just hide my guns. Then once their little "sweep" happened...I'd go get my gun's.

I'm just a dumb okie...but if I can figure that out..so can the bad guys.

191 posted on 04/28/2007 11:34:33 AM PDT by Osage Orange (The old/liberal/socialist media is the most ruthless and destructive enemy of this country.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jess35
I am still finding it difficult to find the actual survey and results, but I can find articles discussing the survey. This one (http://www.ncc-1776.org/tle2003/libe209-20030203-05.html) provides this interesting tidbit...

"The U.S. government declares a ban on the possession, sale, transportation, and transfer of all non-sporting firearms. A thirty (30) day amnesty period is permitted for these firearms to be turned over to the local authorities. At the end of this period, a number of citizen groups refuse to turn over their firearms. Consider the following statement: I would fire upon U.S. citizens who refuse or resist confiscation of firearms banned by the U.S. government."

"Based on the disagreement expressed by 61 percent of the Marines, Cunningham concluded that "a complete unit breakdown would occur in a unit tasked to execute this mission."

Twenty-Nine Palms Survey: What Really Motivated Its Author? by John F. McManus
The New American Magazine October 2, 1994

It appears that my BS flag was a good call. A majority of those surveyed (even in this grossly unscientific poll) would not fire on American citizens in order to enforce gun confiscation.

192 posted on 04/29/2007 6:42:59 AM PDT by dpa5923 (Small minds talk about people, normal minds talk about events, great minds talk about ideas.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 183 | View Replies]

To: dpa5923

One other article I read on said survey a while back quoted one of the respondents (part of the 61%, I presume) as saying “I’d shoot the officer who gave me that order”.


193 posted on 04/29/2007 10:44:47 PM PDT by DuncanWaring (The Lord uses the good ones; the bad ones use the Lord.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 192 | View Replies]

To: lakeman
The part that compares the British dealings with the IRA to what a gun-grabber American government would face is particularly telling.

-Eric

194 posted on 04/30/2007 7:20:12 AM PDT by E Rocc (Myspace "Freepers" group moderator)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-194 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson