Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

San Diego’s Top Cop: We can disarm Americans within a generation!

San Diego’s Top Cop: We can disarm Americans within a generation!

I recently reported that California was targeted for a massive effort by gun control activists intent on creating new and wide-ranging restrictions.

Now, the Chief of Police in my hometown of San Diego has unwittingly unveiled the real goal behind this movement: The complete disarming of Americans.

The details are offered by Breitbart writer Awr Hawkins:

San Diego Police Chief William Lansdowne is fully supportive of the Obama/Feinstein gun grab, and says if lawmakers play it right Americans can be completely disarmed within “a generation.”

Lansdowne has gone on record saying: “I could not be more supportive of the president for taking the position he has. I think it’s courageous with the politics involved in this process. [And] I think it’s going to eventually make the country safer.”

He made it clear that it may take “a generation,” but new laws could eventually take all guns off the streets.

Here is a video of the Chief’s interview on the local PBS station, during which he stresses his support for the President’s position on gun control.

San Diego area writer Kimberly Dvorak also reports Lansdowne is no fan of the National Rifle Association.

Take for instance San Diego Police Chief William Lansdowne, who in an interview last week called for tougher gun laws and clearly chafed at the influence the National Rifle Association has held for years over the national debate.

Lansdowne suggested the Newtown, Conn., massacre may have undercut the gun lobby’s power and opened the door for new gun control legislation. “We broke the NRA,” Lansdowne boasted in an off camera portion of an interview with San Diego 6 and the Washington Guardian. When asked to expound, he demurred.

One thing I will say in Lansdowne’s favor: He does bring people together. There is a local petition drive calling for his resignation from progressives who claim he manhandled the Occupy San Diego protests.

Truly, it is a rare politician or bureaucrat who can manage to unite both conservative and liberal citizen activists.  Lansdowne definitely has a special skill set.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

They “broke” the NRA by increasing its membership by 500,000-1,000,000.

This asshat is in an interview and he has his pistol strapped on. Although that female interviewer DOES look like a clear and present danger. Phallic Symbolism, it is..

Hey asshat, don’t know about Mexifornia (VDH), but come to the east and south, your pistol will find a NEW holster.

Brand new on the market it is..YEP, the ANUS! You’ll love it.

Landsdowne: gun control doesn’t work.

We need more gun control.

Völkischer Beobachter carried the text of Lansdowne’s interview. What the chief had to say will probably be used as the basis for the German Weapons Law (Waffengesetz) which I predict will be enacted on March 18, 1938.

“The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races [substitute American citizens] to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors [substitute Democrat Party] who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let’s not have any native militia or native police. German troops [including the San Diego Police] alone will bear the sole responsibility for the maintenance of law and order throughout the occupied Russian territories, and a system of military strong-points must be evolved to cover the entire occupied country.”
–Adolf Hitler, dinner talk on April 11, 1942, quoted in Hitler’s Table Talk 1941-44: His Private Conversations.
http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.com/hitler-leftist/id14.html

Don’t think it can’t happen here. It’s happening right now.

    turfmann in reply to Frank Scarn. | January 28, 2013 at 5:18 pm

    Except that this time it will not come to the same conclusion as it did in the Third Reich.

    Make no mistake, Americans are NOT purchasing arms at record levels in order to beat what they see is an inevitable ban on their sale.

    Americans are purchasing firearms in order to INVOKE their Second Amendment rights.

    It’s 1860 all over again, except we do not divide along geographic boundaries.

      David Yotham in reply to turfmann. | January 28, 2013 at 9:45 pm

      Yes, our Dear Leader has managed to Balkanize the country he has pledged to lead according to the Constitution. Amazing. Oh, he didn’t do it by himself, there were plenty of little helping hands in the Federal and State governmental agencies to support his divisive proclamations.

1. “We broke the NRA,” Lansdowne boasted in an off camera portion of an interview with San Diego 6 and the Washington Guardian. When asked to expound, he demurred.

Is there audio? Please let there be audio.

The story is dated January 17. Since than it turned out that the NRA’s obituaries were highly premature. Nevertheless, the election should have taught us that enthusiasm on our side does not mean the other side has given up.

2. Truly, it is a rare politician or bureaucrat who can manage to unite both conservative and liberal citizen activists. Lansdowne definitely has a special skill set.

Still, I’m guessing that most San Diego voters agree with him on gun control. I’d be delighted to be wrong.

No doubt this fascist blackshirt has no intention of disarming himself or his troops.

Ask yourself this. What is the justification for arming police any differently than civilians?

Under our Constitution, a civilian police officer has no lawful right to use a firearm that is greater than or any different than a civilian’s right. A police officer’s right to use a firearm is governed by standards identical to those that govern a civilian’s use of a firearm.

Supreme Court authority is monolithic. A police officer may only use deadly force to defend himself or another from a significant threat of death or serious physical injury. That is precisely the same standard governing a civilian’s use of deadly force. Given that the standards are identical then it only follows that police officers have no right or necessity to be armed in any way superior to civilians.

Please, push back on this. I’d be interested to hear the counter-argument.

    I seem to remember Obamacare lawsuites being filed pretty quickly after it was “passed”. Why are we not hearing of any lawsuits against the NY law?

      Pretty sure the law doesn’t take effect until April. Until it takes effect it can’t be brought up as a lawsuit.
      You will lawsuits once it’s in effect.

The obituary was as premature as the reported demise of the Tea Party.
I upgraded my NRA membership to life as have many of my 2A friends.
Considering the rise in the membership of the NRA, there must be an epidemic of necrophilia!

Henry Hawkins | January 28, 2013 at 3:54 pm

MOLON LABE, m-er f-er.

Did anyone notice that the chief engraved his gun with a cop badge? I wonder how much of the police department budget he used for that.

    nutstuyu in reply to Karadion. | January 28, 2013 at 5:29 pm

    Obviously, he never shoots it. Otherwise that little badge engraving would hurt like a mofo after a couple “high-capacity clips” at the range.

myveryownpointofview | January 28, 2013 at 4:03 pm

One example of how they can/will pull off disarming us in a generation is the NY SAFE Act requirement that a widower/widow place all firearms owned by a (newly) deceased with “the authorities”, to be held while a sale is arranged by the administrator of the deceased’s will. The spouse and/or family of the deceased are NOT permitted to inherit any firearms. So, if not voluntarily turned in by the family, the authorities would have to confiscate that property. (I could be wrong – but I think the immediate family is prohibited from purchasing these family guns from the estate).

The rules regarding the sale of the firearms in these situations are unclear, but what is clear is that if the firearms are not sold legally within one year of the death of the owner, the state destroys the guns, and the living spouse/family will NOT be compensated a single penny. There are just too many things wrong with this to begin to list.

Saw this discussed in the broadcast of the NY Assembly meeting.

I’d like to see the gubmint try that, I really would, ’cause that would start CWII, and I think that’s what will eventually be required to clean out this mess.

    paddy in reply to walls. | January 28, 2013 at 7:31 pm

    It’s coming. Blood in the streets is exactly what the left is going for? With the press on their side, who do you think the public will support (the idiot public, I mean)?

    What they want is to wipe out Conservatism once and for all.

    Thank God the military will be on our side and the Oath Keepers too!

    But make no mistake….it’s coming…..

Call the San Diego Police Department and ask to speak with SDPD Chief William Lansdowne and tell them how you truly feel:

(619) 531-2777

or

(619) 531-2000

They’ve been giving me the run around and demanding my name before they’ll do anything so call

(619) 531-2001

and they will connect you to his office if you demand they do so. It probably won’t get you past their sudden demand for IDENTIFICATION REQUIREMENT — which had not previously existed — but it will get you his office in any event.

The odds are that we lose our right to bear arms. This is because the Left has a proven template for victory, and we do not have an effective template for resistance. This has been demonstrated over and over and over again. Additionally, our mindset is defensive, based on resistance, and our battle skills generally lacking in organized and coherent passion at the very top. Theirs is the complete opposite: coherent, confident, unified, aggressive and relentless. It’s just a fact of the jungle. It has nothing to do with who’s right or wrong. Until we develop a proactive model of attack within a conscious and fearless understanding of war, this pattern will keep playing itself out.

    myveryownpointofview in reply to raven. | January 28, 2013 at 4:43 pm

    Damnit, shut up Raven! I don’t like it that you are correct.

    How do we get past this? How do we become effective? If we had more conservative (normal) teachers and Professors it would be possible to turn things around in a fairly short period of time. We need media as well, and not that Fox news variety either.

    Henry Hawkins in reply to raven. | January 28, 2013 at 5:06 pm

    The 2nd Amendment can only be changed or repealed by enacting another amendment to override it, done one of two ways:

    1) Both Houses of Congress vote 2/3s approval on a resolution calling for the new amendment. It doesn’t need the prez’ signature. Then it must be ratified by 3/4s of the 50 states to take effect.

    Or….

    2) 2/3s of the states vote for a constitutional convention at which the new amendment is proposed, then 3/4s of the states have to ratify it.

    Neither is remotely viable politically, never happen. Therefore, it would take a dismantling of the constitution itself – in other words, effectively it would take victory in a civil war against the American people.

      I would suggest that since the right to keep and bear arms is not granted by government and since the government is prohibited from infringing on that right, they can’t erase the 2nd amendment through any government action, including the amendment process.

      iconotastic in reply to Henry Hawkins. | January 29, 2013 at 6:59 am

      Or appointing one Supreme Court judge like the “wise Latina” and the 2nd Amendment will disappear.

    turfmann in reply to raven. | January 28, 2013 at 5:31 pm

    Or…

    The Second Amendment can be invoked, as in put into motion.

    There would be no difference between revolting against a tyrannical government that was openly and maliciously ignoring the clear and unambiguous words of the Constitution than the original argument presented in opposition to King George III.

    None.

    In fact, it is our DUTY as American citizens, as progeny of the Founders, to do so.

    The day has come that Madison feared might one day arrive – a day in which that evil necessity, our Federal government, had finally run afoul of its charter and is in the process of turning upon the very citizens that it is supposed to be representing.

    I have said it many times (and been mocked for it) that PBHO is the Anti-Madison, the man who came to take our Constitution away from us.

    Be not afraid, my fellow patriots, this is our time and our burden.

    Embrace it.

    Instead of lamenting the unsustainable welfare state that is to be our children’s burden, let’s make it our goal to rid our children of this monster that is infecting the body politic like a cancer.

    persecutor in reply to raven. | January 28, 2013 at 7:47 pm

    I’m not saying that smoking is right or wrong, but what I’m saying is that little by little it went from smoking wherever you wanted to not being able to smoke in your own apartment in some cities.

    Each step of the way it was a little bit at a time, with each little bit a “reasonable” restriction.

    No more incrementalism. If they want my firearms, it’s that handy old Greek saying for me: Molon Labe!

Wow, Police Chief William Lansdowne stood up well under that withering cross examination.

San Diego needs Joe Friday and the Dragnet guys from LAPD.

    Sadly, the Dragnet from the late ’60s was all for gun control. There were two episodes that specifically addressed it — one had Joe posing as a neo-nazi to get into an organization that was smuggling in automatic weapons to start a race war, the other had Joe and his partner on duty at the station’s main desk. A guy came in to apply for a pistol permit, and it was quickly established that he was a literal tin-foil wearing lunatic.

      Phillep Harding in reply to Crawford. | January 28, 2013 at 8:18 pm

      There was a third in which a home owner called in a prowler, then took a shot at the prowler who had a power tool in his hand. Blew the heck out of a birdbath. (The home owner should not have gone hunting after calling that in, agreed.)

      Friday chastised the home owner about how no property was worth killing a human over, the prowler was all snivelly and was looking to the police for protection from the dastardly home owner.

I was thinking – he didn’t say he could get criminals “off the street” in a generation. Nor did he say he could reduce violent crime to zero in a generation. So he’s trying to prevent the response to a problem, rather than addressing the problem.

Sort of like: if we outlaw cold remedies, nobody will get colds.

Obamacare hides the true costs of health care through increasing the pool of contributors. It does not address the cause of progressive inflation in the medical and pharmaceutical sectors.

Amnesty serves to increase democratic leverage, thereby disenfranchising Americans. Deporting only “criminal” illegal aliens serves to establish a de facto penal colony in Mexico principally. It’s one positive is that it formalizes the exploitation and displacement of Americans.

Environmentalism serves to punish “bad” industry while rewarding “good” industry. It has been the means by which “green” industry shifts environmental disruption while benefiting from perceptions of realizing “progress”.

Welfare serves to corrupt individuals and institutions. It is not rehabilitation, but a taxpayer funded program to enrich a select group of Americans, both providers and beneficiaries, while increasing democratic leverage.

Disarming Americans serves to empower minority interests, including: criminals, cartels, and government, to intimidate and commit involuntary exploitation of citizens.

Abortion serves the purpose of appealing to men and women’s priority for physical, material, and ego gratification. Elective abortion (i.e. premeditated murder) is illegal under our law (i.e. national charter and Constitution) without a defensible cause and due process. Normalizing dysfunctional behaviors serves the interests of men, women, and confused.

The Democrats are inveterate liars. They feign concern for civil and human rights. They routinely violate both.

If the Republicans compromise with them again, then they are similarly objectionable.

    paddy in reply to n.n. | January 28, 2013 at 7:26 pm

    Agreed. Any Republican who compromises on 2nd Amendment rights is just as much an enemy of freedom as the kenyan…..

Henry Hawkins: They don’t have to repeal the 2nd Amendment. All they have to do is get their 5-4 majority back on the United States Supreme Court, who can then rule that Heller and McDonald were incorrectly decided, overrule them, and then rule that “reasonable regulation” of guns is perfectly fine, including requiring them to be disassembled at all times, and including complete bans on concealed carry, etc., etc. I agree that the 2nd Amendment will never be repealed, but it can be legislated out of effective existence.

    nutstuyu in reply to ssns4ever. | January 28, 2013 at 5:47 pm

    And right after that, they’ll determine that Roe v Wade was incorrectly decided too right? I mean as long as they’re willing to go back on their own long-standing rule of overturning precident.

      walls in reply to nutstuyu. | January 28, 2013 at 6:46 pm

      They could redo Dred Scott, claim that Odumbo is not a US citizen, and kick him out … as long as we are redoing USSC decisions.

      crashland in reply to nutstuyu. | January 28, 2013 at 6:47 pm

      Rules are for conservatives. Progressives are the righteous and therefore exempt from any rules. Just ask them, they are the forces of light and our constitution is a “flawed document.” They must correct this by any means.

    Phillep Harding in reply to ssns4ever. | January 28, 2013 at 8:23 pm

    True. Take a look at the Mexican equiv of the US 2ndA. It includes a clause allowing laws for crime prevention, and the Mexican gov’t used it to, for all practical purposes, ban civilian ownership of firearms. (1964)

What is it about these police chiefs and gun control? They all seem to think cops are the only ones who know how to fire a weapon.

At my range, many of the members are cops or ex or current military. They have no such misconception.

Since the Sheriff where I live revoked 90% of the CCW’s when she (yes, SHE) took office, the cops on the street are actually advising me to carry illegally. Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6!

I’m making it my mission in life to see Lansdowne and his ilk removed and getting real sheriffs in their places like the one in Wisconsin!

    Crawford in reply to paddy. | January 28, 2013 at 8:36 pm

    Police chiefs are politicians, not patrol officers. They have two routes for advancement: corruption, or moving to a bigger city. (Those who pick Chicago are, of course, picking both.)

    Since bigger cities are always run by lefty liberals, the process selects for lefty police chiefs.

Nonchalantly announcing you can disarm citizens in a generation? The hell you can.

Given the recent USA tactical exercises in Miami and Huston, and last year in LA, Chicago, and Mpls, and before in Phoenix, yep our current federal administration seems to be developing tactics to ensure that we the people are well mannered and perhaps even compliant when it comes to ordering us to turn in our arms; talking about black helicopters is not truly a bad thing if it’s true. Maybe that’s one reason that that Lower Hudson newspaper wanted to identify people with NY gun permits; nah, that’s way too obvious, isn’t?

So, maybe the Feds don’t really want to disarm we the people but I suspect that most senior administration officials really do!

These urban tactical exercises the USA has conducted certainly seem to tie in with the rumored repeat of Clinton’s 1994 circa survey on whether Marine grunts would fire on US civilians and the new reported rumor about whether our current commanders would obey an order to do so.

Officer Friendly can sometimes act like a beer-hall Gestapo goon. That seems to be what’s afoot with the San Diego copper.

Henry Hawkins | January 29, 2013 at 9:55 am

The Andy Griffith Show taught us that when it comes to police officers, sometimes you get Andy and sometimes you get Barney. This clown is a Barney.

Just a quick note … this guy is a poseur. Clearly this is complete bluster.

Can you imagine how the folks in San Diego are going to sleep tonight knowing that their chief of police is a raving loon?

[…] Tell that to the San Diego Police Chief. The anti-gunners keep telling us that’s not the goal, and we’re crazy, paranoid rednecks for thinking so. But then people keep coming out of the woodwork saying that is the goal any time they start to feel the slightest wind at their back. But we know the end game. […]

The only people who want you disarmed are your enemies. This man has identified himself.

Calif has the legislative corrections availabble of Initiative, referendum, and recall.
For this situation it is recall but not of the Police chief, but the city council. they hired him. But it will take a group of citizens to effect it.
You need “X” number of signatures in a certain specified period of time. One item only on the ballot, recall of —
councilor. It will mightily tick off the council, and you’ll still needa majority of 3 to change things. worth an effort tho.but be prepared for a fight. And remember where I line in calif we were told the city atty is the council’s atty. Expect nothing.

[…] » San Diego’s Top Cop: We can disarm Americans within a generation! – Le·ga… […]

behindenemylines | January 29, 2013 at 11:17 pm

Lansdowne continues the grand tradition of anti-gun San Diego police chiefs who loudly support new anti-gun legislation while demonstrating at the same time amazing ignorance of current law regulating firearms.

Sorry Lansdowne, you are dead wrong. A Californian can not evade the California ban on so-called “assault weapons” by crossing the border to purchase a weapon then returning to California. Such a purchase would be illegal under existing law. The Federal Gun Control Act of 1968 strictly regulates interstate sales of rifles and shotguns in addition to completely banning interstate sale of handguns. For a California resident to legally buy a rifle in Arizona he still has to comply with all the relevant laws which apply to rifle possession inside California. To do otherwise is an illegal sale.

This stupidity by Lansdowne is almost the exact same stupidity that was demonstrated by ex-mayor Jerry Sanders, who used to be the police chief of San Diego back in 1993 when Clinton was pushing the Brady Bill. At the time California already had a waiting period and background check for the purchase of handguns. But stupid Sanders asserted during a newspaper interview that he supported the Federal Brady Bill because Californians could evade the California law by crossing the border to buy handguns!

Some things never seem to change.

Noblesse Oblige | January 30, 2013 at 11:33 pm

Imagine a state in which felons are let out of prison, but the head of a major city police department talks about disarming the public. With loons like this running the asylum, it should more clear than ever that we are on our own.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend