Headlines

David Mamet

Hands off our guns

Healthy government, as that based upon our Constitution, is strife. It awakens anxiety, passion, fervor, and, indeed, hatred and chicanery, both in pursuit of private gain and of public good. Those who promise to relieve us of the burden through their personal or ideological excellence, those who claim to hold the Magic Beans, are simply confidence men. Their emergence is inevitable, and our individual opposition to and rejection of them, as they emerge, must be blunt and sure; if they are arrogant, willful, duplicitous, or simply wrong, they must be replaced, else they will consolidate power, and use the treasury to buy votes, and deprive us of our liberties. It was to guard us against this inevitable decay of government that the Constitution was written. Its purpose was and is not to enthrone a Government superior to an imperfect and confused electorate, but to protect us from such a government.

Many are opposed to private ownership of firearms, and their opposition comes under several heads. Their specific objections are answerable retail, but a wholesale response is that the Second Amendment guarantees the right of the citizens to keep and bear arms. On a lower level of abstraction, there are more than 2 million instances a year of the armed citizen deterring or stopping armed criminals; a number four times that of all crimes involving firearms.

The Left loves a phantom statistic that a firearm in the hands of a citizen is X times more likely to cause accidental damage than to be used in the prevention of crime, but what is there about criminals that ensures that their gun use is accident-free? If, indeed, a firearm were more dangerous to its possessors than to potential aggressors, would it not make sense for the government to arm all criminals, and let them accidentally shoot themselves? Is this absurd? Yes, and yet the government, of course, is arming criminals.

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

Apparently, lostnannystate’s shame and embarrassment campaign isn’t working.

CurtZHP on January 25, 2013 at 12:13 PM

If guns are so dangerous, why will government officials be exempt from these new laws:

The Huffington Post confirms these exemptions, and adds that guns owned prior to the legislation becoming law will be permissible, too. “[T]he bill includes a number of exemptions: It exempts more than 2,200 hunting and sporting weapons; any gun manually operated by a bolt, pump, lever or slide action; any weapons used by government officials and law enforcement; and any weapons legally owned as of the date of the bill’s enactment.”

Hmmm?

Rebar on January 25, 2013 at 12:14 PM

Poll: Two-Thirds of Gun Owners Say They’ll Defy New Restrictions
http://reason.com/24-7/2013/01/24/poll-two-thirds-of-gun-owners-say-theyll

Question 46 in the wide-ranging survey of more than 1,000 registered voters asks if there is a gun in the household. Overall, 52 percent of the respondents said yes, someone in their home owned a gun. That number included 65 percent of Republicans, 59 percent of conservatives, 38 percent of Democrats and 41 percent of liberals.

But on to Question 47, addressed to those with a gun in their home: “If the government passed a law to take your guns, would you give up your guns or defy the law and keep your guns?”

The response: 65 percent reported they would “defy the law.”

Galt2009 on January 25, 2013 at 12:22 PM

The Left loves a phantom statistic that a firearm in the hands of a citizen is X times more likely to cause accidental damage than to be used in the prevention of crime, but what is there about criminals that ensures that their gun use is accident-free? If, indeed, a firearm were more dangerous to its possessors than to potential aggressors, would it not make sense for the government to arm all criminals, and let them accidentally shoot themselves?

LMAO!

Is this absurd? Yes, and yet the government, of course, is arming criminals.

Of course: Obama’s Guns for Gangsters Operation.

Galt2009 on January 25, 2013 at 12:25 PM

I went to the site to read the entire article (mainly because I really like Mamet) and what should appear in the lower right hand corner? A box encouraging me to “Speed Read” just the “naughty parts” of Shades of Gray/Grey(? don’t know, don’t care) under the heading NSFW. Geez, they really try to distract and corrupt.

Oh, if you do go there (Newsweak/Daily Beast), don’t forget to take the poll on whether you agree with Mamet’s position on guns or not. You can imagine which way it’s leaning right now.

Fallon on January 25, 2013 at 12:29 PM

And the left’s disowning of Mamet continues…

apostic on January 25, 2013 at 12:31 PM

If, indeed, a firearm were more dangerous to its possessors than to potential aggressors, would it not make sense for the government to arm all criminals, and let them accidentally shoot themselves?

High humor, and food for thought.

The beneficent Obama vision for America doesn’t mention if you don’t pay your federal income taxes they will come to your house pointing guns at your head and put you in jail. No, Obama says, quote, “[W]hat we then do is ask for the wealthy to pay a little bit more”. Well, gun owners will ask for the criminals not to break into our homes. Like the Feds do, if their answer is “no”, we’ll shoot them in the head. See, President Obama, you’re not that much different than us.

Paul-Cincy on January 25, 2013 at 12:35 PM

So,

Idea going around in conservative circles here in Texas.

Make any $ donations to the NRA for the next two to four years as they are much more effective that the RNC on message, getting out voters and putting in better Constitutional Senators and Congressmembers than the RNC.

We have to find a way to win, and the RINO infested RNC seems not up to the job.

Go with the people who have the skills and a record of success.

APACHEWHOKNOWS on January 25, 2013 at 12:37 PM

And the left’s disowning of Mamet continues…

apostic on January 25, 2013 at 12:31 PM

It seems it started with Mamet’s defense of Palin..:)

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/19/books/review/book-review-the-secret-knowledge-by-david-mamet.html

idesign on January 25, 2013 at 12:47 PM

Too many words.

Hayabusa on January 25, 2013 at 12:47 PM

APACHEWHOKNOWS on January 25, 2013 at 12:37 PM

Hmmm.

National Rifle Party.

Tea and Rifle Party?

Dunno….

apostic on January 25, 2013 at 12:48 PM

In his opening paragraph, he quickly and concisely dismantles redistributivism and all associated ideologies in a way that few conservatives have ever managed to do.

I’m glad he’s on our side, now.

mintycrys on January 25, 2013 at 1:17 PM

Karl Marx summed up Communism as “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.” This is a good, pithy saying, which, in practice, has succeeded in bringing, upon those under its sway, misery, poverty, rape, torture, slavery, and death.

Thank you. God help us as we continue toward this slippery slope.

Christian Conservative on January 25, 2013 at 1:29 PM

“… Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. ….”

It is for just this reasoning that the Bill of Rights came into being and it is unfortunate that the order of events occurred in the formation of the Constitution such that a flaw was unintentionally introduced. The Bill of Rights are merely an acknowledgement of what is immutable and that which the government must, in its workings, guarantee the people. These rights stand above the Constitution as measures of those sworn to adherence to the Constitution, not as footnotes to constitutional governmental structure and powers, which may be altered by any size of a majority.

But even as it is placed, as a footnote in the structure of the Constitution, the 2nd Amendment provides the most fundamental Constitutional method in which the Constitution itself may be altered, without amendment and in keeping with those ideas most eloquently put to writing by Thomas Jefferson.

Dusty on January 25, 2013 at 1:38 PM

apostic,

The idea is to use the NRA to do what these hapless RNC types can not or will not do.

Not a new party , just a quick fix deal.

If it works the RNC and the Senate and House will have new members who will change the whole deal.

APACHEWHOKNOWS on January 25, 2013 at 1:44 PM

Apparently, lostnannystate’s shame and embarrassment campaign isn’t working.
CurtZHP on January 25, 2013 at 12:13 PM

This is the real reason guns are hated. The children are withholding power from the Nanny

The public argument used by enemies of guns, that guns are less useful than they are dangerous is easily refuted by statistics.

The second layer of argument, to redefine the purpose of guns as reserved for hunting, is not just a cheap propagandists’ trick. The argument is used to build a public understanding that citizens should not undertake their own defense

There is a mass attempt to train the public understanding of it’s own powers. The public is to remain passive, turtle, and wait for Nanny to rescue them. This has become the standard for public school. Children are instructed to hide under the desk if threatened

When passive obedience does not save victims, the call goes out to increase Nanny’s powers

If a man comes to believe he has no right to retain lethal power, he serves the Nanny.

Right now, Nanny fears the children and is attempting t remove their so dangerous toys. When the children are weaponless, Nanny will be able to control their wicked ways.

Rush just said under Obamacare, people over 55 will have to fork out about 4K extra a year to buy their mandated Obamacare. Life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, not if Nanny has her way

entagor on January 25, 2013 at 1:58 PM

Rush just said under Obamacare, people over 55 will have to fork out about 4K extra a year to buy their mandated Obamacare. Life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, not if Nanny has her way

entagor on January 25, 2013 at 1:58 PM

Whoops, typo: Under Obamacare, people over 55 who smoke will have to pay 4K extra to buy health insurance, as punishment for smoking and supposedly to pay for the extra medical cost. However, the fact other behaviors are not taxed shows the lie.

Incrementally, Nanny will control behavior via this new tax and who will defy her? The sheep people will support Nanny, as the right to pursue happiness becomes replaced by the obligation not to cost Nanny

32 And Esau said, Behold, I am at the point to die: and what profit shall this birthright do to me?

33 And Jacob said, Swear to me this day; and he sware unto him: and he sold his birthright unto Jacob. Genesis 25

entagor on January 25, 2013 at 2:08 PM

I’m glad he’s on our side, now.

mintycrys on January 25, 2013 at 1:17 PM

Me too. Mamet is a superb thinker. Right up there with V.D. Hanson, Sowell, Krauthammer, Horowitz et al.

For anyone who hasn’t read it yet, don’t miss his recent book, The Secret Knowledge: On the Dismantling of American Culture. It’s a real treat.

petefrt on January 25, 2013 at 2:20 PM

Under Obamacare, people over 55 who smoke will have to pay 4K extra to buy health insurance, as punishment for smoking and supposedly to pay for the extra medical cost.

entagor on January 25, 2013 at 2:08 PM

How much is the surcharge for gun ownership?

petefrt on January 25, 2013 at 2:22 PM

Despite being a well written article (Mamet is, after all, a writer), he misses a core point of the Second Amendment, which is for American Patriots to maintain armament parity and readiness, independent of government, in order to provide for the defense and security of a free state. Laws that place the people at an armament disadvantage are unconstitutional (the Founders did not go up against the British Empire with bows and arrows, they had armament parity). If government has machine guns and assault rifles, the people must have at least the same.

Tripwhipper on January 25, 2013 at 4:06 PM

I have a better idea. How about our hands on our guns?

Bmore on January 25, 2013 at 4:19 PM

While Mamet was largely making the self-defense argument for 2A, he recognizes full well it’s main purpose:

The Constitution’s drafters did not require a wag to teach them that power corrupts: they had experienced it in the person of King George. The American secession was announced by reference to his abuses of power: “He has obstructed the administration of Justice … he has made Judges dependent on his will alone … He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our Constitution, and unacknowledged by our Laws … He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass out people and to eat out their substance … imposed taxes upon us without our consent… [He has] fundamentally altered the forms of our government.”
This is a chillingly familiar set of grievances; and its recrudescence was foreseen by the Founders. They realized that King George was not an individual case, but the inevitable outcome of unfettered power; that any person or group with the power to tax, to form laws, and to enforce them by arms will default to dictatorship, absent the constant unflagging scrutiny of the governed, and their severe untempered insistence upon compliance with law.

The Founders recognized that Government is quite literally a necessary evil, that there must be opposition, between its various branches, and between political parties, for these are the only ways to temper the individual’s greed for power and the electorates’ desires for peace by submission to coercion or blandishment.

Healthy government, as that based upon our Constitution, is strife. It awakens anxiety, passion, fervor, and, indeed, hatred and chicanery, both in pursuit of private gain and of public good. Those who promise to relieve us of the burden through their personal or ideological excellence, those who claim to hold the Magic Beans, are simply confidence men. Their emergence is inevitable, and our individual opposition to and rejection of them, as they emerge, must be blunt and sure; if they are arrogant, willful, duplicitous, or simply wrong, they must be replaced, else they will consolidate power, and use the treasury to buy votes, and deprive us of our liberties. It was to guard us against this inevitable decay of government that the Constitution was written. Its purpose was and is not to enthrone a Government superior to an imperfect and confused electorate, but to protect us from such a government.

petefrt on January 25, 2013 at 6:30 PM