The Intrinsically Marxist Nature Of Gun Control

I was going to write a piece on this theme, but (recovering Leftist) David Mamet does it much better than I could hope to:

Violence by firearms is most prevalent in big cities with the strictest gun laws. In Chicago and Washington, D.C., for example, it is only the criminals who have guns, the law-abiding populace having been disarmed, and so crime runs riot.

Cities of similar size in Texas, Florida, Arizona, and elsewhere, which leave the citizen the right to keep and bear arms, guaranteed in the Constitution, typically are much safer. More legal guns equal less crime. What criminal would be foolish enough to rob a gun store? But the government alleges that the citizen does not need this or that gun, number of guns, or amount of ammunition.

But President Obama, it seems, does.

He has just passed a bill that extends to him and his family protection, around the clock and for life, by the Secret Service. He, evidently, feels that he is best qualified to determine his needs, and, of course, he is. As I am best qualified to determine mine.

For it is, again, only the Marxists who assert that the government, which is to say the busy, corrupted, and hypocritical fools most elected officials are (have you ever had lunch with one?) should regulate gun ownership based on its assessment of needs.

…The individual is not only best qualified to provide his own personal defense, he is the only one qualified to do so: and his right to do so is guaranteed by the Constitution.


12 thoughts on “The Intrinsically Marxist Nature Of Gun Control”

  1. If some of the reports are right Ken, we didn’t allow them squat, they stole this current power. I know the inner cities love Obama and most likely voted heavily for Obama’s return. But there were numerous statistical anomalies and some outright ballot stuffing incidents in November last year. So we didn’t give him or allow him nuttin’, IMHO, the (D)’s stole it.

    And as lackluster as he is in my eyes, I don’t see Romney going full on anti-gun nut post Newtown. So a different election outcome would mean a vastly different response to Newtown.

    I do get that you were talking about a years long erosion of liberty, but the topic was guns, and now.

    1. You win or you lose. The details don’t matter. Yes, we allowed it. Taking responsibility is the first step to rectifying the situation. They can’t win if we don’t let them.

      We have to win even if they cheat because the alternative is the 2nd amendment solution and we don’t want that.

    2. there were numerous statistical anomalies and some outright ballot stuffing incidents in November last year

      Obama won the popular vote by nearly 4% (your prediction, if you recall, was that he’d lose by more than 7%). There were anomalies (e.g. 200,000 voters in FL who gave up due to long lines), there always are, but they affected supporters of both parties, and didn’t come close to swinging 4% of the vote.

      But go on thinking that the election was stolen, no doubt it’s easier than facing reality.

      1. As a newly minted Leftist Democrat, I want to echo Comrade Jim’s conclusion. And anyway, even if we did steal it, we stole it fair and square.

      2. What, Jim is not willing to discuss the topic of this post? Why is that? Afraid that you will end up like the antigunners zeke and techno at PJ Media’s comment sections?

      3. Sure, Obama won by a significant number of votes but that doesn’t mean there wasn’t any voter fraud or that the election was determined by voter fraud.

        Don’t you find it interesting that the cities with the strictest gun laws have the most gun violence? All while Obama and the Democrats focus in on rifles, which cause less deaths than hammers. But we have already established that it isn’t about facts or rational thought with you or the Democrats, it is about the morality of the existence and access to guns.

        Maybe if Obama’s rebels in Libya didn’t get any guns, they would not have killed so many people in Algeria last week.

  2. “What, Jim is not willing to discuss the topic of this post? Why is that?” You must be new here, RJ. It’s SOP for the State-fellators who post here to try to divert attention from the topics.

  3. Public personalities need to start applying the “You don’t need…..” criteria to lefty socialist elites….

    You don’t NEED to send your kid to a private school – inner city schools are good enough for you…

    You don’t NEED that SUV – a Hyundai subcompact is all you need…

    You don’t NEED that house with multiple bedrooms – one is enough and you will find that everyone in a single bedroom will come in handy those cold Winter nights because……

    You don’t NEED that modern central heat and AC system – fireplaces were good enough for our hardy colonists.

    In fact you don’t NEED that fancy house in the burbs… an inner city project apartment is fine for you. And besides it’s all you’ll be able to afford because……

    You don’t NEED that 6 figure salary – 50,000 is all you need to sustain life.

    You don’t NEED jewelry…

    You don’t NEED a tv………music player…….carpets…..magazine subscriptions…..more than a couple sets of sheets or changes of clothes…..

    You don’t NEED to eat out at a restaurant – communal feeding halls is good enough……

    You don’t NEED dessert…….

    And you, DiFi, don’t NEED armed protection….

    1. You got it right the first time. Because one thing you left out is “you don’t need an education.”

      1. Well clearly you didn’t reed the first example.

        People need an education. But what they do not need is a state run, sclerotic, pension-heavy,ineffective, propaganda factory.

Comments are closed.