Latest Entry: Yes Boston YES! Show America the way! - Border Crisis!     Latest Comments: Talk Back Here

« MSNBC Host Touré: "Thank God and Country Abortion Was There to Save Me" | Main | Texting woman falls into friged canal »

January 28, 2013

David Mamet's Must-Read On Gun Laws

Topics:

Screen-Shot-2013-01-26-at-7.41.57-PM-469x620.pngDavid Mamet's scathing take-down and cutting analysis of centralized government and the specious arguments made by Barack Obama and his fellow gun-grabbing liberals over the past few weeks is absolutely a must-read. Although Mamet has spent most of his life with a worldview built on assumptions and liberal-progressivism, his conversion to a much more libertarian, occasionally somewhat conservative, world-view led him to write an essay for the Village Voice called Why I Am No Longer a 'Brain-Dead Liberal' in 2008 and, last year, a full book titled The Secret Knowledge: On the Dismantling of American Culture.

Here are a few excerpts from Mamet's piece to pique your interest:

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.

For the saying implies but does not name the effective agency of its supposed utopia. The agency is called "The State," and the motto, fleshed out, for the benefit of the easily confused must read "The State will take from each according to his ability: the State will give to each according to his needs." "Needs and abilities" are, of course, subjective. So the operative statement may be reduced to "the State shall take, the State shall give."

[...] Rule by bureaucrats and functionaries is an example of the first part of the Marxist equation: that the Government shall determine the individual's abilities.

As rules by the Government are one-size-fits-all, any governmental determination of an individual's abilities must be based on a bureaucratic assessment of the lowest possible denominator. The government, for example, has determined that black people (somehow) have fewer abilities than white people, and, so, must be given certain preferences. Anyone acquainted with both black and white people knows this assessment is not only absurd but monstrous. And yet it is the law.

President Obama, in his reelection campaign, referred frequently to the "needs" of himself and his opponent, alleging that each has more money than he "needs."

But where in the Constitution is it written that the Government is in charge of determining "needs"? And note that the president did not say "I have more money than I need," but "You and I have more than we need." Who elected him to speak for another citizen?

It is not the constitutional prerogative of the Government to determine needs. One person may need (or want) more leisure, another more work; one more adventure, another more security, and so on. It is this diversity that makes a country, indeed a state, a city, a church, or a family, healthy. "One-size-fits-all," and that size determined by the State has a name, and that name is "slavery."

The Founding Fathers, far from being ideologues, were not even politicians. They were an assortment of businessmen, writers, teachers, planters; men, in short, who knew something of the world, which is to say, of Human Nature. Their struggle to draft a set of rules acceptable to each other was based on the assumption that we human beings, in the mass, are no damned good -- that we are biddable, easily confused, and that we may easily be motivated by a Politician, which is to say, a huckster, mounting a soapbox and inflaming our passions. ...

Take the time to read the whole thing. As Mamet goes on to point out, 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. Furthermore, that 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.

Related reads:
Charles C. W. Cooke - Mamet Is No Anarchist
New York Times Op-Ed - Confessions of a Liberal Gun Owner

Posted by Hyscience at January 28, 2013 9:43 AM



Articles Related to :