Repeal of Second Amendment (Gotta Read Meida Gun Control Plan)
Date: Jul 2, 2007 7:25 AM
When you read Dan Simpson’s (The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette)
gun control plan you will understand why there is so much anti-gun
bias and misinformation published and broadcast in the major media.
************************************************************
The New GUN WEEK, July 1, 2007
Paqe 4

Repeal of Second Amendment, Fascist Gun Plan Advanced
by Joseph P. Tartaro
Executive Editor

The Virginia Tech shootings have brought out the extremists
in the debate over the right to keep and bear arms.

For example, while admitting that the Second Amendment
guarantees the right of an individual to own guns, a legal
affairs analyst recently recommended that because it
guarantees such a right it should be repealed.

?The Second Amendment is one of the clearest statements of
right in the Constitution,? said Benjamin Wittes, a guest
scholar at the center-left Brookings Institution, in a
discussion held on June 11. ?We?ve had decades of sort of
intellectual gymnastics to try to make those words not mean
what they say.?

Wittes, who said he has ?no particular enthusiasm for the
idea of a gun culture,? said that rather than try to limit
gun ownership through regulation that potentially violates
the Second Amendment, opponents of gun ownership should set
their sights on repealing the amendment altogether.

?Rather than debating the meaning of the Second Amendment, I
think the appropriate debate is whether we want a Second
Amendment,? Wittes said. He conceded, however, that the
political likelihood of getting the amendment repealed is
?pretty limited.?

According to CNSNews.com and other media outlets, Wittes
said the Second Amendment guarantee of the right to bear
arms meant more when it was crafted more than 200 years ago
than it does to day. Modern society is ?much more
ambivalent than they (the Founders) were about whether gun
ownership really is fundamental to liberty,? he said.

But challenging the Second Amendment on the basis that
society?s circumstances have changed since the drafting
would similarly open up to question all other constitutional
rights, according to Georgetown University law professor
Randy Barnett, who also participated in the same policy
discussion.

?The techniques that are used to show that the Second
Amendment really doesn?t have any contemporary relevance are
absolutely available to anybody who wants to show that
aspects of the First Amendment and the Fourth Amendment and
the Fifth Amendment have no contemporary relevance,? he
said.

Barnett said that advocates of warrantless searches could
make an ?appeal to changing circumstances,? on the basis
that the Fourth Amendment is ?archaic (and) we don?t need it
anymore,? he added.

But the Second Amendment isn?t the only part of the Bill of
Rights that contemporary commentators would trash. Given
the chances, they would gut the whole Bill of Rights to get
rid of the guns.

An example of this thinking comes in a late April column by
Dan Simpson of The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.

Simpson?s approach to getting rid of the hundreds of
millions of guns in US hands is sort of a fascist?s dream
linked to the Nike slogan: ?Just do it.?

?When people talk about doing some thing about guns in
America, one of the points that comes to the fore is, ?How
could America disarm even if it wanted to? There are so
many guns out there,?? Simpson wrote. Then he focused on
?how? to get the job done. But before proceeding, he
offered his own gun credentials, as a youth and in his
military service days.

Then Simpson lays out his plan.

?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,? Simpson continued, apparently oblivious to the
fact that anti-gun politicians such as then New York Gov.
Nelson Rockefeller had proposed a similar ?arsenal? plan
back in the 1960s.

Simpson continued:

?All antique or interesting non-hunting 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.??

Let?s see: That?s Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth and Sixth
Amendments trampled in one jackbooted scheme.

The Second Amendment IS Homeland Security !