Speaking of jack-booted thugs and statist swine,

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. 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 the country at the same time. 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 stop-and-search of anyone, even grandma with her walker, with the same penalties for "carrying."

And where does this wondrous piece of shit come from? Why, from a liberal(in the modern sense) jackass who seems to think a police state is a wonderful idea. Since we'd all be 'safe', you see. Let's see, at the bottom of the piece it says "Dan Simpson, a retired diplomat, is a member of the editorial boards of The Blade and Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Oh, joy, he is/was a diplomat. You know, one of those types who seem to think the UN should control all. Who says "And before anyone starts to hyperventilate and think I'm a crazed liberal zealot wanting to take his gun from his cold, dead hands, let me share my experience of guns."

Mr. Simpson, got news for you: you ARE a 'crazed liberal zealot'. You prove it by your own words. Your willingness to trash various parts of the Constitution(which, as a diplomat, I would've thought you'd have sworn to protect it. Or is that only something the lower orders in the military and such do?), your contempt for those who don't agree with you show it.

And take note of this:
The "gun lobby" would no doubt try to head off in the courts the new laws and the actions to implement them. They might succeed in doing so, although the new approach would undoubtedly prompt new, vigorous debate on the subject. In any case, some jurisdictions would undoubtedly take the opportunity of the chronic slowness of the courts to begin implementing the new approach.

Got that? Only the 'gun lobby' would have a problem with warrantless searches, with all the other crap he proposes. And if this were proposed, and 'some jurisdictions'(Chicago, you think?) sort of jump the gun and start doing it, this jackass seems to think it's just fine for state/local governments to ignore the Constitution and the law in hopes that the law will change and take them off the hook for violating it.

I know people who dislike guns who would be flat horrified by this. And everyone should be, because a police state like that described will ALWAYS find something else that their widened powers should be used on. Think of the crap Bloomberg and Daley & Co. would like to make us do, and then imagine them with this kind of power to force you to do it.

Dammit, this kind of crap makes me want to put some more ammo aside. Just in case.