Headlines

Hendrik Hertzberg

I am not a fan of these gun-rights people

After Sandy Hook, as after the Columbine horror, in 1999, and the dozens of mass shootings since, many Americans, gun owners among them, wondered why any sane person would require a rapid-fire killing machine with a foot-long banana clip to feel safe in his or her home or person, let alone to take target practice, shoot skeet, or hunt rabbits. But, for Hobbesian gun nuts of Gohmert’s ilk, the essence of the Second Amendment, when all is said and done, is not about any of that. Its real, irreducible purpose is to enable some self-designated fraction of the American people, in a pinch, to make war against the American government—to overthrow it by force and violence, if that is deemed necessary. If that’s the line you draw, then where, logically, do you stop? In Georgian times, when the amendment was ratified, the most fearsome weapon anyone, soldier or civilian, could carry was a single-shot musket. And today? “Shoulder-launched surface-to-air missiles don’t shoot down black helicopters, people with shoulder-launched surface-to-air missiles shoot down black helicopters”? Gohmert is a fringe figure, but the fringe is as long as an AR-15’s barrel. His seditious fantasies of freelance insurrection are shared by a nontrivial portion of the N.R.A. membership and board, by the N.R.A.’s feral kid brother, the Gun Owners of America, and by a gaggle of locked-and-loaded politicians who, not long ago, were threatening “Second Amendment remedies” for policy offenses like the Affordable Care Act.

Read the Article

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

How fitting that the author of this dreck has a German-sounding name.

Go back to your fantasies of a 1000-year liberal utopia, schwein. You’re not welcome among any group of people who value their right to not being helpless when danger and/or tyranny come knocking.

MelonCollie on January 1, 2013 at 3:44 PM

Article created in the cozy confines of a fashionable Manhattan condo; a building with a doorman, front desk, 24/7 armed security and located in a part of town far away from the crime-ridden ghettos.

Just using the term “Banana clip” is worthy of scorn and dismissal.

Bishop on January 1, 2013 at 3:45 PM

Statist.

Charlemagne on January 1, 2013 at 3:45 PM

Well, that’s fair.

I’m not a fan of people who want to take guns from decent citizens.

So I’m guessing that I’m not a fan of Hendrik…

Or the New Yorker

What a bunch of asinine idiots.

ProfShadow on January 1, 2013 at 3:45 PM

If you think the 2nd amendment is no longer needed, have the Constitution amended to repeal it.

Simple.

Until then, leave us gunowners the hell alone.

Rebar on January 1, 2013 at 3:47 PM

His seditious fantasies of freelance insurrection are shared by a nontrivial portion of the N.R.A. membership and board, by the N.R.A.’s feral kid brother, the Gun Owners of America…

http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/28-12-2012/123335-americans_guns-0/

Sounds like Pravda…wait…no it doesn’t…

One of the first things they did was to disarm the population. From that point, mass repression, mass arrests, mass deportations, mass murder, mass starvation were all a safe game for the powers that were. The worst they had to fear was a pitchfork in the guts or a knife in the back or the occasional hunting rifle. Not much for soldiers.

To this day, with the Soviet Union now dead 21 years, with a whole generation born and raised to adulthood without the SU, we are still denied our basic and traditional rights to self defense. Why? We are told that everyone would just start shooting each other and crime would be everywhere….but criminals are still armed and still murdering and to often, especially in the far regions, those criminals wear the uniforms of the police.

For those of us fighting for our traditional rights, the US 2nd Amendment is a rare light in an ever darkening room. Governments will use the excuse of trying to protect the people from maniacs and crime, but are in reality, it is the bureaucrats protecting their power and position. In all cases where guns are banned, gun crime continues and often increases. As for maniacs, be it nuts with cars (NYC, Chapel Hill NC), swords (Japan), knives (China) or home made bombs (everywhere), insane people strike. They throw acid (Pakistan, UK), they throw fire bombs (France), they attack. What is worse, is, that the best way to stop a maniac is not psychology or jail or “talking to them”, it is a bullet in the head, that is why they are a maniac, because they are incapable of living in reality or stopping themselves.

The excuse that people will start shooting each other is also plain and silly. So it is our politicians saying that our society is full of incapable adolescents who can never be trusted? Then, please explain how we can trust them or the police, who themselves grew up and came from the same culture?

sharrukin on January 1, 2013 at 3:47 PM

His seditious fantasies of freelance insurrection

Ad hominem, which only makes Herr Hertzberg look like a dumbass.

Nobody fantasizes about using guns allowed under the Second Amendment to engage in overthrow, just like nobody fantasizes about using Congress’ impeachment power to remove POTUS’s. It’s a check on governmental power, one that if it works, never has to be used.

But Hertzberg is too much of a political incompetent to understand that, I suppose…

JohnGalt23 on January 1, 2013 at 3:48 PM

This guy is completely unhinged.

His emotions are clouding any remaining shred of good judgement that he may have once possessed.

UltimateBob on January 1, 2013 at 3:49 PM

In Georgian times, when the amendment was ratified, the most fearsome weapon anyone, soldier or civilian, could carry was a single-shot musket.

That’s the point. The founders wanted the average citizen as well armed as the average soldier.

And it was not just so we could take up arms against a tyrannical US government and not get our clocks cleaned in the first 30 seconds.

It was so we could also take up the fight against foreign invaders should our standing army fail us. Why do think this nation hasn’t seen a full scale military invasion since 1812?

CurtZHP on January 1, 2013 at 3:51 PM

Just using the term “Banana clip” is worthy of scorn and dismissal.

Bishop on January 1, 2013 at 3:45 PM

Was he talking about something firearms-related there?

I thought it was a reference to something used for hanging tropical fruits in your kitchen to keep them fresh. At least, that’s what comes to my mind when I hear the words “banana clip.”

UltimateBob on January 1, 2013 at 3:51 PM

Article created in the cozy confines of a fashionable Manhattan condo; a building with a doorman, front desk, 24/7 armed security and located in a part of town far away from the crime-ridden ghettos.

Bishop on January 1, 2013 at 3:45 PM

Cluebatting at .1000, Bishop.

If this sheltered ninny suddenly had to live somewhere he wasn’t constantly sheltered from the consequences of liberal foolishness, he’d be scared out of his pea-sized mind.

Dollars to donuts that his doorman is working two min-wage-slave jobs with no health insurance just to pay the bills. And his security guards probably worry about being sued if they actually have to shoot a Uzi-packing ghetto rat who charges the front door.

MelonCollie on January 1, 2013 at 3:53 PM

In Georgian times, when the amendment was ratified, the most fearsome weapon anyone, soldier or civilian, could carry was a single-shot musket.

Enh, no. That would be the rifle.Far superior to your musket.

JohnBrown on January 1, 2013 at 3:53 PM

But Hertzberg is too much of a political incompetent to understand that, I suppose…

JohnGalt23 on January 1, 2013 at 3:48 PM

So are his readers.

Not us, of course. We see him as a target for our well-deserved ridicule and derision. But there are people who actually buy this crap. And they vote.

UltimateBob on January 1, 2013 at 3:54 PM

Hey at least these unhinged libtards are starting to admit to themselves what the true purpose of the 2nd amendment is. I guess that’s a start.

Kataklysmic on January 1, 2013 at 3:55 PM

Not only did the Founding Fathers never imagine 30 round magazines they also never imagined pretentious online magazines. Or pornographic or gay-rights or women’s fashion magazines.

None of these, or most other types of magazines are any more necessary than a “rapid-fire killing machine with a foot-long banana clip” and many are more dangerous. The First Amendment was written to protect political and religious speech, not to ensure that you know 20 Ways to Cheat on your Boyfriend Without Getting Caught.

The purpose of several magazines has been “to overthrow it by force and violence” and some have cost American’s their lives. Where do we draw the line?

I recommend we outlaw all magazines…for the children.

29Victor on January 1, 2013 at 3:55 PM

That’s the point. The founders wanted the average citizen as well armed as the average soldier. (snip) Why do think this nation hasn’t seen a full scale military invasion since 1812?

CurtZHP on January 1, 2013 at 3:51 PM

Egg-zactly. Imagine the Wolverines having to fight the Soviet paratroopers with melee weapons and maybe hunting bows. Wouldn’t have gone too darn well for them, wouldn’t it?

MelonCollie on January 1, 2013 at 3:56 PM

Well Mr Hertzberg,

Since your opinion of me as a gun owner didn’t matter to me yesterday, it stands to reason, it definitely doesn’t today.

Happy New Year to you sir, and sorry if I can’t find it in my gun totin’ soul to wish you a healthy one.

waterytart on January 1, 2013 at 3:57 PM

I am not a fan of these gun-rights people

Well then you just stay there in your secure leftist enclave protected by men with guns, Hendrick. The rest of the country is ours and we’ll protect ourselves and each other with our own guns.
You leave us alone and we’ll leave you alone. Try to take our guns and we’ll make you understand your stupidity very quickly.

single stack on January 1, 2013 at 3:58 PM

That’s the point. The founders wanted the average citizen as well armed as the average soldier.

CurtZHP on January 1, 2013 at 3:51 PM

So the hidden assumption of his article is that the 2nd Amendment was written by men felt that the government should fear the people and not the other way around and that this attitude is no longer acceptable.

29Victor on January 1, 2013 at 3:59 PM

Im not a fan of the gun grabbers and I don’t want my taxes paying police officers to protect those that have no desire to protect themsselves

unseen on January 1, 2013 at 4:00 PM

Hertzberg was born in New York City, New York, the son of Hazel Manross (née Whitman), a professor of history and education at Columbia University, and Sidney Hertzberg, a journalist and political activist. His father was Jewish (and had become an atheist); his mother was a Quaker with a Congregationalist background, and of English descent. Hertzberg was educated in the public schools of Rockland County, New York, and Harvard College, from which he graduated in 1965.

In 1967 he enlisted in the United States Navy and became an officer posted in New York City. By late 1968 due to his growing opposition to the Vietnam War he requested conscientious-objector status, which was denied. He was discharged at the end of his commitment in 1969.

——————————————————————–

Everything one needs to know about Hertzberg’s background and it’s bearing on an objective look at his stance on guns is in the above Wiki entries.

Yoop on January 1, 2013 at 4:01 PM

Cinerama.

Del Dolemonte on January 1, 2013 at 4:01 PM

In 1967 he enlisted in the United States Navy and became an officer posted in New York City. By late 1968 due to his growing opposition to the Vietnam War he requested conscientious-objector status, which was denied. He was discharged at the end of his commitment in 1969.

Yoop on January 1, 2013 at 4:01 PM

So he was cool with assisting in the deaths of 750 thousand Vietnamese and 2 million Cambodians but wants us to believe he cares about 20 grade school kids?

29Victor on January 1, 2013 at 4:07 PM

Everything one needs to know about Hertzberg’s background and it’s bearing on an objective look at his stance on guns is in the above Wiki entries.

Yoop on January 1, 2013 at 4:01 PM

Thanks for the information. Nothing surprising in his history, is there?

Son of a liberal ‘professor’ and a ‘journalist and political activist’ (read: moonbat propagandist/rabble-rouser). Enlisted in the Navy and got posted to a cushy officer’s job in NYC, then turned chicken and tried to list himself as a con-obj. And what conscience does this oaf have to object to anything in the first place?

Bet at least a few people wanted to discharge him from a boat in the middle of the Atlantic.

MelonCollie on January 1, 2013 at 4:08 PM

But, for Hobbesian

These leftists cannot help themselves. I bet Rush has a montage.

CW on January 1, 2013 at 4:10 PM

But, for Hobbesian gun nuts of Gohmert’s ilk, the essence of the Second Amendment, when all is said and done, is not about any of that. Its real, irreducible purpose is to enable some self-designated fraction of the American people, in a pinch, to make war against the American government—to overthrow it by force and violence, if that is deemed necessary.

Gohmert is correct. It may make Leftists feel uncomfortable, uneasy, or perhaps even ill, but it is what it is.

If Leftists want to amend the Constitution then the first step is to primary any and all Dems that are soft on gun-grabbing. They can start by going after Harry Reid who recently received a “B” rating from the evil, hateful, bigoted, racist, greedy, 1%er, racist NRA.

visions on January 1, 2013 at 4:11 PM

From the New Yorker-

Hertzberg originally joined The New Yorker as a Talk of the Town reporter in 1969, after serving as an officer in the U.S. Navy. After the 1976 Presidential election, he became a White House speechwriter under President Jimmy Carter. From 1981 until 1991, he was associated with The New Republic, serving two terms as its editor. During his second stint, between 1988 and 1991, The New Republic won three National Magazine Awards, including back-to-back awards for General Excellence. In 1992, he returned to The New Yorker. In 2006, his Comment essays won the National Magazine Award for Columns and Commentary.

Per wiki

Hertzberg was born in New York City, New York, the son of Hazel Manross (née Whitman), a professor of history and education at Columbia University, and Sidney Hertzberg, a journalist and political activist.[2][3] His father was Jewish (and had become an atheist); his mother was a Quaker with a Congregationalist background, and of English descent.[4][5] Hertzberg was educated in the public schools of Rockland County, New York, and Harvard College, from which he graduated in 1965

CW on January 1, 2013 at 4:13 PM

Its real, irreducible purpose is to enable some self-designated fraction of the American people, in a pinch, to make war against the American government—to overthrow it by force and violence, if that is deemed necessary.

OMG, Hertzberg has read Jefferson. et al, and really does know the reason for the Second Amendment.

That he still argues against it, and denigrates those who argue in support of maintaining it, certainly leads one to think he’s a fan of tyranny.

His seditious fantasies of freelance insurrection are shared by a nontrivial portion of the N.R.A. membership and board, by the N.R.A.’s feral kid brother, the Gun Owners of America, and by a gaggle of locked-and-loaded politicians who, not long ago, were threatening “Second Amendment remedies” for policy offenses like the Affordable Care Act.

Kind of funny coming from a guy who owes his allegiance to a country born of seditious fantasies.

Dusty on January 1, 2013 at 4:18 PM

In Georgian times, when the amendment was ratified, the most fearsome weapon anyone, soldier or civilian, could carry was a single-shot musket.

LOL. Back then individuals privately owned the equivalent of battleships, you blithering idiot. And individuals could have cannons at their houses.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on January 1, 2013 at 4:20 PM

After Sandy Hook, as after the Columbine horror, in 1999, and the dozens of mass shootings since, many Americans, gun owners among them, wondered why any sane person would require a rapid-fire killing machine

I think that the rapid fire killing machines carried by Harris and Klebold were pump-action shotguns. The AR-15 is semi-automatic; one squeeze of the trigger fires one round. I guess Hendrick here would grant us a muzzle-loader, but then a lot of those monsters are .56 caliber.

ddrintn on January 1, 2013 at 4:22 PM

In Georgian times, when the amendment was ratified, the most fearsome weapon anyone, soldier or civilian, could carry was a single-shot musket.

LOL. Back then individuals privately owned the equivalent of battleships, you blithering idiot. And individuals could have cannons at their houses.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on January 1, 2013 at 4:20 PM

Put another way, though, the Founders apparently believed that ordinary citizens were entitled to own the most fearsome weapon anyone could carry.

ddrintn on January 1, 2013 at 4:26 PM

But Hertzberg is too much of a political incompetent to understand that, I suppose…

JohnGalt23 on January 1, 2013 at 3:48 PM

He’s intellectually lazy and ignorant of history AND current events. He probably cheers the muslim spring without realizing that a large number of muslim “gun rights enthusiasts” made it happen. People like him refuse to look at Syria and see Assad with all his tanks, jets and WMDs is losing to a rabble armed with small arms.

They don’t WANT to get it.

dogsoldier on January 1, 2013 at 4:29 PM

Put another way, though, the Founders apparently believed that ordinary citizens were entitled to own the most fearsome weapon anyone could carry.

ddrintn on January 1, 2013 at 4:26 PM

Even that kind of ‘compromise’ would be far and above what anyone but the very hardcore would really want.

We make jokes about owning a tank or jet sometimes, but really, that would only even be an option for the top 1%. Having the right to keep and bear anything you can physically carry is not only actually realistic, but would be a way bigger deterrent to tyranny.

For example, what if the Waco defenders had had access to anti-tank rockets? Or what if people were stocking up on anti-drone SAMs?

MelonCollie on January 1, 2013 at 4:30 PM

The “well-regulated militia” clause you gun-control folks liked so much when you thought it could limit availability could also be interpreted as requiring the availability of semi-automatic rifles that use military cartridges (.223 et al). Logistics being the fulcrum of effective military power, and all. You would logically want your volunteers to need what you have.

JeffWeimer on January 1, 2013 at 4:37 PM

At least 11 people shot, 1 fatally, in early hours of new year

SUN-TIMES MEDIA January 1, 2013 4:50AM

http://www.suntimes.com/17331248-761/at-least-9-people-shot-in-early-hours-of-new-year.html

Note the time stamp. And then note the numbers in the link and the headline.

davidk on January 1, 2013 at 4:42 PM

I guess Hendrick here would grant us a muzzle-loader, but then a lot of those monsters are .56 caliber.

ddrintn on January 1, 2013 at 4:22 PM

I wouldn’t mind confronting an intruder with a blunderbuss. The “crap your pants” factor when I pulled the trigger would be well worth it.

CurtZHP on January 1, 2013 at 4:45 PM

For example, what if the Waco defenders had had access to anti-tank rockets?

They might still be alive.

Or what if people were stocking up on anti-drone SAMs?

They might take away one of the tyrants’ tools of repression.

The “well-regulated militia” clause you gun-control folks liked so much when you thought it could limit availability could also be interpreted as requiring the availability of semi-automatic rifles that use military cartridges (.223 et al). Logistics being the fulcrum of effective military power, and all. You would logically want your volunteers to need what you have.

It already has been – in 1939.

UNITED STATES v. MILLER, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a ‘shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length’ at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.

single stack on January 1, 2013 at 4:54 PM

I wouldn’t mind confronting an intruder with a blunderbuss. The “crap your pants” factor when I pulled the trigger would be well worth it.

CurtZHP on January 1, 2013 at 4:45 PM

And how! If you’re looking for a weapon with a huge don’t-eff-with-me factor, you could do far worse.

gryphon202 on January 1, 2013 at 4:59 PM

How fitting that the author of this dreck has a German-sounding name.

Go back to your fantasies of a 1000-year liberal utopia, schwein. You’re not welcome among any group of people who value their right to not being helpless when danger and/or tyranny come knocking.

MelonCollie on January 1, 2013 at 3:44 PM

Actually he’s Jewish.

It’s the old gas chamber mentality again.

fossten on January 1, 2013 at 5:31 PM