How To Create A Police State

A guy named Dan Simpson, who sits on the Editorial Board of The Toledo Blade has written a column wherein he takes a position I don’t think I’ve even seen Sarah Brady take; the complete disarmament of the American public.

[H]ow 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 submit a 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.


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. They 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.

It is, you see, quite easy. All you have to do is suspend civil liberties, forget about the concept of private property, ignore the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Amendments.

But, of course, even Simpson’s efficient little police state will need it’s Gestapo:

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.”

No search warrants,  no worries about probable cause, no right to a hearing. Just Dan Simpson’s gun-stealing Gestapo breaking your door down in the middle of the night. If that doesn’t send a chill down your spine, I don’t know what will. Even the cops who killed Kathryn Johnston went through the motions of getting a search warrant.

But what, you might ask about the possibility that guns might be imported from outside the United States ?

Commandant Simpson has an answer for that one too:

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.

Of course, given the lack of success the Coast Guard has had at keeping drugs out of the country, I don’t doubt that gun running would become the next hot line of business in Mexico.

Halfway through reading this thing, I was thinking that maybe Simpson was playing devil’s advocate. Maybe he really does believe in gun rights and he’s trying to create for readers a nightmare scenario of what the world would be like if we tried to take away every gun from every law abiding citizen.

But, no, I think he really believes it. Why else would he have spent the first half of the column talking about how he’s shot guns himself in the past ? The only reason I can think of is the one that McQ noted — by mentioning that, he can deny being an anti-gun zealot.

Whatever his motives,  Simpson has done us a great service, because he’s absolutely right. The only way that the forces who oppose the right of American citizens to keep and bear arms would able to truly accomplish their goals is to repeal not only the Second Amendment, but the rest of the Bill of Rights as well.

  • tkc

    I was stunned by it. I’m still not convinced that this guy is not just yanking chains. It is completely over the top and then some.

  • LLR

    We need more guys like this writing articles so people will know how these anti-gun people think. It only makes people more pro 2nd amendment.

  • chris

    Virginia tech was gun free. In fact they made such a big deal about how they created a new law that banned all guns on the campus.

    I’m sure the students followed this rule especially the injured and dead. It was supposed to be a hippie like commune of non violent non gun free safety zone.

    How did the gun get there then? A criminal didn’t follow the law. Criminals do this by their very nature. A thousand dollar fine and year in jail for both guns wouldn’t have mattered to CHO and it is meaningless to the dead.

    This is where the bliss that is a gun free society falls apart. A criminal who doesnt follow the law. This concept no matter how simple to the worlds people becomes lost when you become a politician who knows whats bets for the rest of us.

    The facts dont lie. The worst crime rates, both violent and non violent, are in American cities that have complete or nearly complete bans on guns, either one type or all. If you look to Australia you will see and explosion of crime since they disarmed the complete population. The same goes for the UK.

    Another thing perplexes me. the number of people killed by a gun during any given year is extremely small when compared to other death causes. Guns kill way under 100000 people a year. We arent counting suicides or legitimate justified shootings, only accidental and criminal gun deaths.

    Compare this to deaths caused by cars which is over half a million. Then deaths caused by accidents other than cars . What about deaths caused by knives clubs screw drivers food and air. these deaths add up to several million a year.

    Taking away cars, tools, baseball bats, knives, certain foods, alcohol and rocks, lamps, belts and rope would be much easier. None of these things are listed in the constitution and are not considered rights but privileges.

    Hell a signature by the president could make some or much of these things illegal and also enact a police force to do searches to make the country safe.

    Of course this wont happen as the country realised that these things dont hurt kill or do anything. They are inanimate objects that just sit there till a human decides he needs to kill.

    So we have determined that inanimate objects dont do anything they just are. We also see that if we really want to stop millions of deaths we can get rid of almost everything a human can use to hurt. Were talking stopping millions of deaths just by giving up cars tools and game pieces. It seems that the greater good would be served by getting rid of objects used most by killers.

    Just like every where that people think banning something will protect the uk is having extremely high numbers of stabbings beatings and killings by impact forces in addition to the guns.

    What! you mean people will just find something else to kill with. You got it.

    where is the police when you need them. Damn they dont have to raise a finger to protect us either. so says the law of the land.

    now your sitting naked in a rubber room with no sun light[ light causes cancer, come on you know that] eating vegetable matter cause meat is banned as it kills also.

    You look up and another naked person is there and he wants to kill you. You laugh and say “you cant hurt me every object that can be used to hurt or kill me is banned”

    he then slips his hands around you neck and is slowly choking you to death. you call for help and hear a recording say “911 can you please hold”. your almost blacking out when you hear a person say “911 what is your emergency” You choke out “im being killed” the operator says “sir we banned everything that can kill you. Making false police reports is a crime. we cant get an officer out to take the report on false reporting and give you a summons case they are all busy elsewhere” she continues “Sir i estimate 10 minutes till an officer gets there please dont waste 911 resources there are real crimes and our officers are taking reports all over the city”

    it is in this minute you realise how completely stupid the country has become. you then feel the grip on you throat relaxing as your attacker is tireing and think you might live only to see the murderer pull out his gun and shoot you.

    the last thought you have, as blood and brain is running out of your head, he cant shoot me we banned guns in 2010.

  • Rudy Kohn

    What a frightening article. All the more frightening because Mr. Simpson’s description is not too far off from what could really happen someday, but probably not as quickly as he says. Every time the anti-gun activists get another measure through is one more step.

    We need more people to stop fretting about their safety and start worrying about their freedom. The latter is far more valuable, because the former is protected and, more importantly, made valuable by the latter.

    There’s very little point to living completely under the thumb of another, and revoking a person’s right to defend himself from those who would infringe upon his other rights makes him an easy target for those who would put him there.

  • trumpetbob15

    This may be a little off topic, but every time I read one of these “suggestions” that specify some prison sentence for breaking a gun law, I always think back to debates I have had with people over the death penalty. For some reason, opponents of the death penalty say that the threat of execution is not a deterrent, yet then most of these people turn around and say, “If we only had one more gun law, that would have stopped the shooter.” Must be me not being a criminal, but I have always thought the death penalty was a lot scarier than a minor prison sentence. Why else would convicts appeal so often and choose prison over death?

    By the way, I would actually hope Mr. Simpson was at the head of the gun finding Gestapo groups. Well, the first one at least since I don’t think he would survive for a second raid, even if he has shot a gun before.

  • Nick M.

    See, the gun laws stop them before they stop caring about death. It’s a preemtive(hyphen?) measure. Try to follow the math:

    Normal person + gun = psycho killer who doesn’t care about life or death.

    Obviously, the gun laws take out an essential part of the equation and keep an otherwise normal person from being transormed into a monster. The death penalty isn’t a deterrent because the evil magic of the gun has already poisoned them.[/sarc]


  • trumpetbob15

    Thanks Nick. I should have known the gun was the problem. I mean, I went to public school! Could I really have not learned that simple lesson? [/sarcasm]

  • Nick M.


    Don’t worry, it’s not your fault(nothing is). You probably had some non-union teachers. We’ve had some problems with them before. Why don’t you go ahead and send me your real name, address, and the names and addresses of your teachers. We will send some people to pick you up and take y’all to re-educaction centers to remove these thoughts about choice and responsibility.

  • Wulf

    Among the many asinine assumptions this jackass makes is the one that I am incapable of building my own guns. If you melted down every firearm on the planet, even those owned by the military of every nation, they would soon exist again. They just aren’t that hard to make.

  • notmellow

    i’m in the coast guard, do you have any idea how large the oceans are! do you have any idea how much we do stop. i would much rather being up in alaska fishing fisherman back out of the freezing water than sitting of the coast of central america stopping everything that comes our way, then trying to find some place to off load our detainees, without them getting shot in the head for getting caught. it happens all the time trust me in this.

    probation never works, where there is a demand, there will be those who will fill that need. make drugs legal then tax it. hold people for responsible for their actions.

    i’m reminded of the Warsaw ghettos, i for one am fighting for my liberty and will continue too, no matter the coat.

    Sic Vis Pacem Parabellum – if you want peace prepare for war

  • Steve

    Quote:”‘gun lobby’ would no doubt try to head off in the courts the new laws”

    The problem implementing this Nazi state would not be the gun lobbby, it would be the gun I would put in the face of every policeman that tried to take my gun away. I honestly don’t know any gun owners that would do differently.

    Plus, how many policeman are going to be willing to disarm people (many of which are gun enthusiasts themselves)?

    They can have my guns…. they can pry them from my cold dead hands.

  • Peter

    Such a vigorous dialog amongst the gun lovers on these pages! Such a diverse set of views! Such an interest in entertaining and considering a full range of opinions on the issue of gun control! Such a committed belief in the intelligence and integrity of those who don’t agree with them! Such a broad and deep view of freedom!

    Let’s see. Do I detect a current of paranoia consistently running through your comments? A rigid sense of boundaries – that freedom is about what’s mine, and anything that is mine cannot be yours? Is it possible that your guns represent extensions of your own bravado – give me my own shallow, car- and beer- and hunting-crazed freedoms, or give me death! Is it possible that your anger – at what? who the hell knows – has consumed your souls?

    Here is what I suggest. Invite some guests to post on your pages who do not agree with you. Engage them in debate. Careful now. Keep it polite and respectful! Can you do that? Good. You’re good boys. Good GI Joes. Maybe some day you’ll grow up and put away your foolish toys.

  • tarran

    No peter, you’re actually just projecting, but thanks for stopping by. Also, thank you for not typing in all capital letters too.

  • Ted

    Do I detect a current of paranoia consistently running through your comments?

    It is not paranoia if they are really out to get you.


    Such a committed belief in the intelligence and integrity of those who don’t agree with them! Such a broad and deep view of freedom!

    Freedom does not mean I have to agree with what you say. It does not mean that I have to believe you are intelligent because you oppose my views. Instead, you have to prove your views in an intelligent manner for me to be swayed.

    I have my views for a reason.

    And if you are intelligent, and make a good argument, I’ll listen to it. I have been swayed before by elegant argument and divine prose.

    As for integrity, it depends where you disagree with me. I have a hard time believing in the integrity of anyone who would take away my rights, or the ability to defend those rights.

    I am not saying you are one of those people. I have not spoken to you enough to know what your beliefs are. All I know is that you seem to attack through sarcastic remarks, without actually laying down what you believe.

    So lay it down, and lay it bare, and we’ll see where it goes…

  • Steve

    Peter, does my honesty scare you?

    The reason I will never lay down my arms is because once the people lay down their arms, the true power of the government will no longer lie with its people. I’m not a crazy anarchist, but I firmly believe that the rise of a Police State can only be accomplished once the citizenry lay down their own personal firearms.

    What is freedom to you? You act as though a sense of personal possession is bad. My definition of freedom is a personal one, the right to choose, or own, or act, or feel in whatever manner I decide.

    I say YES anything that is mine cannot be yours!!!! I believe in personal responsibility, personal reward, and personal ownership. What is free in sharing everything?

    guns represent extensions of your own bravado – give me my own shallow, car- and beer- and hunting-crazed freedoms

    What!? Who said anything about Cars or Beer or Hunting? Pull your pants up, your BIAS is showing.

    And by the way, who is angry? I was being honest, and honestly I do believe that the largest problem to implementing the plan in the original article are people like me who would not willingly hand over their guns along with their own personal freedoms.

    Here is what I suggest. Invite some guests to post on your pages who do not agree with you. Engage them in debate. Careful now. Keep it polite and respectful! Can you do that? Good. You’re good boys. Good GI Joes. Maybe some day you’ll grow up and put away your foolish toys.

    I invite you Peter to come back and debate me. As far as polite and respectful goes, the largest flamer in this thread is you, throwing around names and gun toting biases (ie drunk driving hunters as you so cleverly disguised before).

    Governments want to eliminate guns because it allows for the rights of the citizens to be infringed or destroyed without fear of uprising. Governments that later enslave or kill portions of their citizens typically start by banning or registering guns “for the common good.”

    True freedom has no limits. There must be laws. Laws are not meant to restrict or regulate freedom, but to establish civility between people. Laws are not meant to be broken, but a truly free man should be free to break them if they are prepared to take responsibility for the consequences. Because this freedom exists, for man to break the laws that society has established, is reason enough to allow the individual to defend themselves.

    What common good can come out of confiscating all firearms and, in the same motion, establishing a police state that destroys the bill of rights?

    I’ll be checking back for your response Peter, I hope you accept my invitation.