Sobriety is no longer the strong suit of the Thing that Used to Be Conservatism

Some internet rumor is all it takes for the TTUTBC to instantly have hysterics and imagine Hitler and Stalin are just about to seize power. We love the military and police–and dread that they are just about to launch a war against us that will require the firepower of every Minuteman in the country to, ‘ow you say? “take back America”. And yet, the TTUTBC has been foursquare in favor of a torture state and think the only really cool thing about Obama is how he unilaterally murders civilian Muslims in our War on Terror.

Our country is insane.  This is all light years from the gospel counsels–and Christians lead the charge on this madness.

  • Pseu

    Seems kind of a stretch to take Drudge linkbait and turn it into “Conservatism”.

    • Mark Shea

      Right. Because Drudge isn’t a go to aggregator for millions of conservatives or anything.

      • kenneth

        More than that, lunacy of this sort is not a point-source emission from Drudge or Beck or Limbaugh or any one person in the neo-conservative universe. It’s the core narrative of TTUTBC.

      • Will

        So if we don’t follow Drudge, we aren’t “real” conservatives?

        You know, like I am not a “real” Christian according to “liberal” Christian-baiters because I don’t fit THEIR stereotype?

      • http://chicagoboyz.net TMLutas

        Actually, Drudge is also a go to aggregator for millions of liberals as well. He’s just that good.

  • dabhidh

    Drudge’s headline is pure link-bait but I think that although it seems needlessly inflammatory, it is not entirely inappropriate. The prospect of the President bypassing Congress to make new, national gun control policy is uncomfortably close to a dictatorial exercise of power. It is unlikely that the forthcoming executive order will be an across the board gun grab but nevertheless, bypassing Congress to make new law by fiat is not the way our government is supposed to operate. We have representatives and a separation of powers for a reason.

    I know you have sympathy with the idea of gun control, and I can’t fault you for that, but I think you should consider that executive order is the wrong way to do it.

    • Chris

      This wasn’t a rumor. It was a trial balloon. White House is merely taking the public temperature so they can determine how far they can push this. There’s no way he would enact an executive order, because Congress will not relinquish that power to the executive over a debate involving an amendment. Any precedent set here could be returned with interest when a Republican is in the oval office, and they know it..

      • Mark Shea

        Ah! Well then, clearly we are living in Hitler’s Germany and Stalin’s USSR.

        • Chris

          So it’s not hyperbole to call Obama a tyrant god-king regarding religious liberty, but with regard to gun control it is?

          • Mark Shea

            Of course it’s hyperbole to call Obama the God King. Do you think I actually believe he is a Pharaoh? See, that’s the thing: when you use hyperbole as a satire, people know you aren’t seriously suggesting the Pres thinks he is divine. When Drudge uses it to compare him to Hitler/Stalin, an awful lot of people on the right seriously believe he is just about to shovel millions into concentration camps.

            • Anson

              Really? Like how big a percentage of those on the right seriously believe that Obama is getting ready to do that? Because I know a lot of righties and I live in a pretty red state, but I don’t think I know anyone that actually believes that. But we don’t get Alex Jones broadcasts here, so I might be misinformed.

            • dabhidh

              Please give me one example of someone on the right who believes that Obama is about to shovel millions of people into concentration camps. Alex Jones doesn’t count.

              • http://irenist.blogspot.com Irenist

                Beaven? He seems to think Obama is Dr. Evil or something.

                • Anson

                  No, probably not beavan. It would take nerves of steel to mouth off about someone on the internet who you seriously believed was going to start shovelling millions of people into concentration camps. We need to look for someone putting finishing touches on their own version of Anne Frank’s secret attic apartment.

                • dabhidh

                  Any example that I don’t have to Google to identify?

            • Nonymous

              Mark, hyperbole licenses are pretty cheap. I bet Druge has one. Taking your opponents’ hyperbole as dead-eyed serious is also a relatiely-inexpensive way to avoid addressing their points at all on the specious grounds that only lunatics would make such outrageous points.

              When the Vice President says the administration is going to bypass Congress and enact its own laws, that’s not an “internet rumor” that can only be taken seriously by wild-eyed conspiracy theorists. Things like that are also fit subjects for hyperbole, as a large number of your own posts prove on an almost-daily basis. I don’t think you seriously believe, for example, that the entire population of California is obsessed with fornicating. On the other hand, I think you have a point when you write things like that and that it doesn’t show you’re a fool who can’t be trusted.

              The Left has been upset about using executive orders to make law. Now it’s the right’s turn. That’s what they all get for opposing executive orders on grounds of their own will to power rather than democratic principle. I suspect, however, that we could find posts by you comparing Obama’s executive orders on drone strikes and kill lists to facsism. The fact that you think those right are important and Second Amendment rights aren’t doesn’t mean you have a good basis for portraying opponents of gun control by executive order as people who think Obama is literaly going to shovel millions into ovens, as opposed to people who think such things are small-f fascist programs.

      • dabhidh

        I agree that it’s a trial balloon but I don’t have that much confidence that a successful power grab by this President would translate into power grabs by future Presidents. Any Republican President who floated a trial balloon like this would be buried in an avalanche of media criticism within 12 hours. Tomorrow you will read editorials actively calling for the President to grab guns by executive order and defending his right to do so. That won’t happen with every President.

    • Mark Shea

      The guy doesn’t need links. He’s just passed a billion. The guy is expressing a perfectly common knee jerk sentiment on the wingnut right that, like the wingnut Left with its obsession with Bushitler, leaps with alacrity to hysterics instead of thought when assessing ideological foes. It”s poison and it makes people stupid.

      • dabhidh

        So, just to be clear, you’re not concerned with the President bypassing Congress to create new national laws by executive order.

        A President who would settle extremely controversial issues by executive order without debate and without the involvement of elected representatives is much more dangerous than a blogger who posts a picture of Hitler and Stalin.

        • Mark Shea

          And the executive order will do what exactly?

          • dabhidh

            We don’t know yet. But it doesn’t look promising.

            Nevertheless I find the whole idea of executive orders to be loathsome, especially when poised to impact very controversial issues dealing with the freedom of private citizens. I’m surprised that you cannot agree with this in principle.

            • Mark Shea

              Okay. So from “it doesn’t look promising” we get “HITLER! STALIN!” Yeah. Sober words.

              I can’t agree or disagree with anything in this discussion “in principle” since people have yet to clarify what principles they hold. Are you saying that you have suddenly conceived a loathing of all executive orders? Or just this one which doesn’t exist, has no specifics, and may never exist? My only principle I’m defend at this point is “Don’t freak out and start screaming HITLER! on the basis of Joe Biden sounding off.”

              • dabhidh

                I appreciate your blog, Mark, but sometimes you’re just plain disagreeable.

                I look forward to Obama threatening some executive order regarding abortion or gay marriage or the HRS mandate so that you can recover some perspective in regard to executive orders.

                • ivan_the_mad

                  “or the HRS mandate” This was passed when Obama, suffering a drastic mood swing, repealed the HHS mandate and issued the HRS, or Hourly Religious Service, mandate.

                  • dabhidh

                    No, no, it was the Hair Replacement Systems Mandate, silly! There’ll be no Hourly Religious Service in our secular government!

                    • North West

                      I thought the hourly religious service was when we were to pray to Obama?

              • Beaven

                I agree with Dab. It’s surpassingly obvious that Obama has dictatorial urges and inclinations. It’s now to the point where his VP is actually telling us he’s going to infringe part of the Bill of Rights by executive order. Obama is the thing to worry about, not Drudge.

                • Tim in Cleveland

                  How is he planning on infringing them if we don’t know what the executive order will be? The 2nd Amendment right to bear arms isn’t absolute.

                  • dabhidh

                    And with an executive order, the issue of the limits on the 2nd Amendment will be a debate that we will not have.

                    That’s the point of concern.

                  • http://chicagoboyz.net TMLutas

                    Non-infringing orders on the unorganized militia would have a prep cycle that looks very different. Here’s a clue. If at the heart of the discussion you discuss defensive gun uses, how to measure them and encourage them as opposed to offensive gun uses, you’re probably in a discussion that is balanced and is worth a wait and see attitude to discern its constitutional status. Gun grabbers never talk about DGU unless it is to belittle the measure and improbably claim that such things are rare and not worth even measuring properly.

                    There was a lifelong Democrat out there who believed in gun control and seriously looked at DGU. His name is Gary Kleck. He actually did real studies seeking to figure out how guns are used and provide a scientific basis for gun policy. He ended up one of the intellectual pillars of the modern pro-gun movement.

                    • Tim in Cleveland

                      Well I’m sure we are all against unconstitutional discussions.

              • dabhidh

                I haven’t “suddenly conceived a loathing of executive orders,” I have always had a “loathing of executive orders.” I’m surprised that you don’t. I don’t think it’s an issue of “let’s wait around to see to what extent the dictatorial power of the executive branch will impact our lives,” again, there is a matter of principle here in regard to the separation of powers and democratic representation, ESPECIALLY in regards to the interpretation of freedoms outlined in the Bill of Rights. Now I’m sure you can find some examples of executive orders that seem agreeable to you and may even seem agreeable to me in hindsight, but again, this is a matter of fundamental Constitutional rights, and WHATEVER the President will propose, it deserves to be presented to our duly elected representatives and not imposed by fiat.

                • http://www.rosariesforlife.com Dave

                  I’m with you. I don’t like executive orders one bit. It circumvents the checks and balances our government is supposed to have, and their usage is going higher with every President. I’m sure that there is a legitimate use for executive orders, but it has long since passed into abuse.

                • Bryan

                  dabhidh is right.

              • North West

                Okay. So from “it doesn’t look promising” we get “HITLER! STALIN!” Yeah. Sober words.

                Oh please, Mark. You only use “sober words” in one post out of every 4-5. Are you just mad Drudge is aping your shtick?

                I can’t agree or disagree with anything in this discussion “in principle” since people have yet to clarify what principles they hold. Are you saying that you have suddenly conceived a loathing of all executive orders? Or just this one which doesn’t exist, has no specifics, and may never exist? My only principle I’m defend at this point is “Don’t freak out and start screaming HITLER! on the basis of Joe Biden sounding off.”

                “Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have the exact measure of the injustice and wrong which will be imposed on them.” -Frederick Douglas

                Yeah, it’s not like “not freaking out” before hasn’t allowed them to inch forward things like… oh the HHS mandate. How did you put it in another post, Mark? “Remembering everything, learning nothing” – How apt for the host here.

  • Chris

    Given the NYC handgun census provided by Gawker, I’d say it’s a shrill, shrieking fallacy that concern over impinging on the right to bear arms is just a “conservative” thing. Every single pontificating gov’t liberal is packing heat, I assure you, and apparently so are many of their constituents.

  • Dale Price

    Yes, it’s inflammatory. It’s also been provoked by the asinine actions of The Thing That Used To Be Liberalism. Politicians, including the not-very-obscure Governor Andrew Cuomo, have called for confiscation of firearms. Two media outlets have created Scarlet-Letter-style clickable databases of gun owners who properly obtained permits in a shame offensive that has led to threats against said lawful gun owners.

    There is also a pattern in recent history of brutal repression following gun confiscation. Throw in an administration with remarkably expansive notions of executive power, delighting in executive orders circumventing the law, and you get Drudge-tapositions like that.

    The mistake is letting fear have the steering wheel, presuming that President Present is going to do something other than preen and pretend to be above the fray as he delivers a rhetorical bauble to his gun-hating base. Confiscation is not on the agenda of the commission headed by our wacky Vice-President.

    • Mark Shea

      All the more reason at least one of our parties has to behave like grownups instead of teenage girls wetting themselves during a horror movie.

      • Dale Price

        The national GOP as a party has been remarkably toned down about this issue, Drudge not being anyone’s idea of a politician.

        It would be nice if Dems stopped musing about taking away guns, and offering legislation (Feinstein) that, while not confiscatory, is calculated to make gun ownership a bureaucratic minefield.

        • dabhidh

          This is true – the most inflammatory rhetoric and posturing has come from the left side of the aisle in this debate – we’ve had a newspaper and Gawker publish the names and addresses of gun owners in order to expose them to shame and humiliation (and physical danger), Vanity Fair has advocated expunging the 2nd Amendment from the Constitution, various left-leaning TV personalities have berated 2nd Amendment supporters in hostile interviews, and it just keeps coming. The Republican Party and the right-leaning media have been remarkably reserved in comparison.

          • http://mondayevening.wordpress.com/ Marcel

            At this point the Democrats are doing more to promote gun ownership than the Republicans – echoing Mike in KC below.

            I enjoy our host’s writing, but his attitude toward hyperbole is puzzling. On one hand, he’s quick to call it out when he sees it. On the other hand, he’s noted before that you “live, right now, in a lawless police surveillance state where the only thing protecting you is lack of manpower and some vestigial custom and culture.”

          • Sus

            Did you miss conservative talk radio Alex Jones’ appearance on Piers Morgan? Inflammatory is an understatement. He’s looking forward to civil war.

            • Dale Price

              That you consider Jones a conservative is…amusing. You must have missed him screaming at Michelle Malkin a few years back.

              Jones is a political version of Art Bell–only not as civil, genial or interesting to listen to.

    • http://irenist.blogspot.com Irenist

      Dale: agreed on those gun-owner databases. Despicable. Reminds me of EightMaps.

      • rjolly

        In Texas we call them Phone Books :).

  • Mark Windsor

    And it doesn’t bother you in the least that POTUS would be doing this by extra-Constitutional fiat?

    I’m not trying to bait you, Mark, and please don’t give me an equally knee-jerk reaction. The Second Amendment is not the hill I die on. Drudge is baiting based on the idea that it’s a Stalinesque move to bypass Congress based on how we do things in America – we’re not used to this type of governance. But then, I suppose someone from the Soviet of Washington might not see it so clearly as those of us in the Lone Star Republic. (humor intended…keep breathing…)

    Perhaps Drudge is trying to wake up the thing that used to be conservatism to the “used to be” part.

    If they can do this to the Second Amendment, why can’t they do it to the First?

    • Mark Shea

      Doing what? Do we know anything other than “Guns! Something something Executive order! Hitler! Stalin!”

      • Mike in KC, MO

        I strongly suspect that Biden is in the pay of the firearms industry. Everytime that cretin or his boss opens their mouths the shelves empty and I can’t even get a paltry 100 .223 bullets for a weekend worth of reloading.

        • c matt

          I suspect as much. It would be interesting to see Biden’s, Obama’s, Feinstein’s and Pelosi’s stock trades before the recent gun-control parade. Wouldn’t surprise me if they divested of GM and Ford and picked up some Smith & Wesson with a side of Remington.

      • http://chicagoboyz.net TMLutas

        Actually Mark, we know quite a bit more. We have Obama statements on tape in response to gun control activists criticizing his lack of action that he was going to push gun control in a 2nd term. We also have the whole mess with Fast and Furious which is still unclear but many suspect was an effort to gin up a false narrative that US gun stores are the big source of Mexican drug gang weapons. In other words, if you’ve actually been paying attention, it is not unreasonable to start the blowback early on any Obama trial balloons on gun policy.

  • Gary B

    Executive Orders are a pretty common thing. GW Bush issued 291 executive orders total in his 2 terms. Obama issue 141 executive orders in his first term, so per presidential term, about the same.
    http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/executive-orders/wbush.html
    http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/executive-orders/obama.html

    • http://irenist.blogspot.com Irenist

      ^TITCR. Executive orders are a pretty ho-hum part of post-New Deal administrative law: between them and agency regs, very little federal law gets made anymore through the mechanisms outlined in the Constitution that “I’m Just a Bill” has led us to expect. That’s not Obama-specific at all. Now, if it’s an awful E.O., that’s on him. But it’s merely being an E.O. isn’t new.

      • Peggy R

        Yes. It seems, however, that because “we” have let all these little things go in the past since they weren’t fatal to our country in one way or another, Barry now has license to use those not-really-lawful-but-excused tactics to take major “transformative” actions that threaten our nation, its prosperity, security and liberty. And the GOP is emasculated and doesn’t object or weakly objects.

    • c matt

      Agency regs (and proliferation of agencies themselves) and E.O.’s have been the death of a thousand cuts to the check on executive power.

  • Hezekiah Garrett

    I hope it is house to house confiscation by executive fiat.

    Those familiar with my “work” here might ask thrmselves why.

    • freddy

      I imagine that would have as much effect as revenue men lookin’ for moonshine! :)

  • http://davidgriffey.blogspot.com/ Dave G.

    Inflammatory? Perhaps pictures of Stalin and Hitler go too far. But resist the tyrant? It seems there’s equal concern about assaults on liberty from the same source that others are. I might question the tactics, but I won’t undermine the concern.

    • beaven

      Obama wants to destroy the country, he wants to cause chaos. Cause never ending crises. He relishes it. He’s never had a real job. Everyone knows this who has looked at his life. Mark Shea, who bemoans dictatorial and anti-First Amendment actions like HHS, is curiously mellow when Obama openly states that he’s going to infringe the 2d amendment. laughable. The Thing That Used to Be Mark Shea. TTTUBMS.

      • http://irenist.blogspot.com Irenist

        Why would Obama want to destroy the country and cause chaos? Do you think he wakes up and asks himself, “How can I be evil today?” and cackles? And how are law professor, senator, and President not real jobs?

        • Peggy R

          WEll, I suppose he has fit in some work here and there between golf outings and campaign stops these past several years. And then voted present. He was not a prof. He was adjunct instructor.

          He’s either out to destroy or he’s damned stupid.

          • http://irenist.blogspot.com/ Irenist

            There are a lot of very fine adjunct instructors out there. The main difference between them and full professors seems, in my experience, mostly to be whether they got in on the ground floor back when universities had a different faculty structure.

        • http://chicagoboyz.net TMLutas

          The left has never really denounced Cloward-Piven strategies. They’re either endorsed (the far left is fond of them) or they are pooh poohed as irrelevant academic statements. Cloward-Piven run as a real strategy on the presidential level would be a terrifying episode for our nation.

          The “real job” accusation can be understood by Sen. McGovern’s lament that he wished he had tried to run a business prior to his running for president in 1972. He said he would never have advocated much of his economic policy had he known then what he learned later when he attempted to run his own business. So no, Obama’s never had a “real job” because he’s never had to meet a private sector payroll and never had to seriously contend with regulatory compliance. It’s not a false accusation, just one that’s been shortened down so much that some people get confused by it.

          • http://irenist.blogspot.com/ Irenist

            So no, Obama’s never had a “real job” because he’s never had to meet a private sector payroll and never had to seriously contend with regulatory compliance.

            So, no one who isn’t a manager or an entrepreneur or otherwise doing the work in the private sector has a “real job”? You do realize that by your definition, most people in this country don’t have a “real job,” right? Does that sort of 47%-talk strike you as maybe why economic conservatives weren’t that popular with most people in this country last November? If I reduced “meeting a payroll” to “being Dilbert’s boss,” you’d say I was impugning important work and showcasing my ignorance. And it is important work. But not the only “real” work.

            He said he would never have advocated much of his economic policy had he known then what he learned later when he attempted to run his own business.

            Running a sovereign that prints its own currency, running a national economy in which a deduction in aggregate spending by public and private consumers necessarily represent a deduction in aggregate income for producers (i.e., the folks meeting those private sector payrolls), is very, very different, than running a household or an individual firm. Attempting to apply the intuitions gleaned from a lifetime running a household or a business to the Friedmanian, Keynesian world of political economy is like attempting to do relativistic physics with intuitions gleaned from the Newtonian physics of medium-sized objects, or like a hypochondriac second-guessing his doctor, or some like some private judgment zealot from a Bible college second-guessing the Magisterium, This overconfident misapplication of know-how across distinct domains of knowledge is why micro-economically proficient small business owners are even more likely than other macro-economically untrained laypeople to support counterproductive austerity measures of the sort that are crippling Europe and coming soon to a sequester/debt ceiling/new federal fiscal year debate near you.

            Know-nothingism about elementary fiscal and monetary policy stems from the sense that government is not a “real job.” Malarkey. Citizen juries and citizen electorates are fine things. But statesmanship is a craft, as Aristotle should teach every Thomist, and amateurs from other crafts who smugly think they know better because “meeting a payroll” is the only “real job” don’t are really, really not helping. By all means, be engaged in political discussion. But drop the preening over-valorization of what is only one important social role among very, very many in this very diverse continental economy.

            • http://chicagoboyz.net TMLutas

              The “real job” criticism has exclusively been leveled at Obama in his first campaign for president. I was trying to explain its genesis, not reasserting it for 2012. Running a multi-trillion budget organization including the most powerful military force on the planet is a huge challenge and nobody pooh poohs that experience. However, you might want to actually read what I wrote and address Sen. McGovern’s observation that government service really does shield you from certain realities. It’s not like McGovern was ever a right winger of any stripe. He remained to his dying day a left wing liberal. And he certainly had macroeconomics down prior to ever starting his business and learning how much he had yet to learn. A quick review, McGovern was a war hero, professor, then politician of national stature with decades of experience on the macroeconomic policy field. This is not where you would expect “Know-nothingism about elementary fiscal and monetary policy” to arise from.

              President Obama got a pass on his lack of large systems experience on the way to the Oval Office and it has cost the country. He had to get up to speed on a great deal and, to a certain extent, he succeeded. On other points, he has not.

              You make a couple of macroeconomic assumptions that are simply not true. First and foremost, the President of the United States does not run the US economy. He runs the US government which is, to date, still a separate matter. Secondly, government spending does not necessarily have a positive multiplier. It certainly does not have to have a multiplier equal to or greater than one so it is perfectly possible to reduce government spending and to end up being better off. We could end our spending on industrial hemp eradication tomorrow and be better off immediately; ditto for spending enforcing import quotas on sugar, and other corporate welfare boondoggles that reduce our income without increasing our welfare.

  • Consistency

    Guys, this is America. Stuff like that only happens in countries like Germany and Russia. Think of all the governments in history that chose not to accumulate and centralize power. No need to worry.

  • Tim in Cleveland

    The funny thing about all this gun-mania-cum-anti-government sentiment is that even if (God forbid) the government decides to turn against its citizens, having a gun would be like bringing a knife to a tank fight:

    “Since the 1990s, the Pentagon has made military equipment available to local police departments for free or at steep discounts. This, along with drug war-related policies, has spurred a trend toward a more militarized domestic police force in America. Law enforcement and elected officials have argued for years that better-armed, high-powered police departments are needed to fight the war on drugs…

    “Since the Sept. 11 attacks, the war on terror has accelerated the trend toward militarization. Homeland Security hands out anti-terrorism grants to cities and towns, many specifically to buy military-grade equipment from companies like Lenco.”

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/16/police-tank-purchase-new-hampshire_n_1279983.html

    Maybe we should be concentrating on confiscating unnecessary police weapons first.

    • Dale Price

      No, it wouldn’t. While I am no fan of militarizing the police, history–some quite recent–demonstrates that the mere possession of (and willingness to use) superior weaponry is no guarantee of victory. And in the nightmare scenario you outline, there is no guarantee the police or military would be uniformly willing to so use it.

      • Tim in Cleveland

        It’s also no guarantee that the Harlem Globetrotters will beat the Washington Generals, but they probably will.

        • Stu

          As a retired officer, Dale is right on this.

          We don’t just follow blind-orders and that would be especially true if directed to take action on the American populace, In fact, a group of officer I am a part of used to comment on those among us that we believed would go “corporate” in such a situation and therefore would require our “attention.”

          We took an oath to defend the Constitution from all enemies “foreign and domestic.” No telling from which vector the domestic ones would come from.

          • North West

            Yeah, I know plenty of police and military that, if the nightmare happened, is probably more likely to side with their friends and family then with their “bosses”. Heck, some get so frustrated with orders from the top, they’re probably itching for a reason to rebel. ;)

            (and as a friend of mine pointed out, you wouldn’t even need to fight back that much, just turn or get rid of all the support staff and none of that fancy hardware is going to work)

            • rjolly

              There has been a trial of this- after Katrina there were gun confiscations. New Orleans, State Police, and some National Guard units did in fact confiscate guns from law abiding citizens.
              Interestingly, at least one other Guard unit found out about this and discussed it among themselves and deciding that they would not participate in these orders- went to their superior officers and explained that they had heard this was going on asked if they would be ordered to confiscate, and if so that they would refuse the orders.
              The commanding officer assured them that they would not be ordered to confiscate weapons.

              I think you would see the same thing IF a large scale confiscation was tried- some units/areas would participate- others would refuse- probably along red/blue rural/city lines. After that I have no idea what would happen.

    • http://chicagoboyz.net TMLutas

      Read “How David beats Goliath” to gain a better understanding of your error. If David (armed citizenry) goes into the field and fights Goliath style, of course David will lose. But that is a choice, not an inevitable strategy. Unconventional strategies raise military success at 1:10 odds fro about a quarter to a bit shy of two thirds.

      Assassination would be a far more likely use for pistols than in-the-field sidearms. Hunting rifles will not stand against assault rifles in the field. They work just fine for sniper work. The movement to modern hunting rifles and the normalization of the AR series for that work should tell you something but I doubt that you’ve been watching that trend.

      • Tim in Cleveland

        You’re right. I should think more seriously about silly fantasies of the government turning on its citizens. Does anyone know what time Glenn Beck is on?

        • Dale Price

          Yeah, because the American government has never turned on its citizens in its entire, stainless history. Other than the Trail of Tears, Jim Crow, Executive Order 9066, etc.

          • Tim in Cleveland

            Yeah, because I was arguing that American government has always been immaculate throughout its history.

            Sarcasm, it makes every argument a winning argument.

            • Dale Price

              People who use sarcasm shouldn’t kvetch about it.

              Let me add more “They’re From The Government And They’re Here to Help You–Into The Next Life” data”

              Drone assassinations of American citizens, passing an statute authorizing indefinite detention of American citizens, reauthorization of expansive wiretapping authority, passing a massive “health care” law that grants life and death treatment decisions to an unelected, unaccountable board…all just in the last three years.

              All the handwaving in the world doesn’t negate the fact we have a national government that has cracked its foundations as it amasses ever greater power. Paranoids, enemies, etc.

              • Tim in Cleveland

                Who says I was kvetching? Honestly, I don’t even know where this conversation is going.

        • http://chicagoboyz.net TMLutas

          Even in low probability futures, there’s an obligation to analyze them realistically. Some poor schmuck in the Canadian military gets the job every x years to game out what to do in case the US invades. It’s probably a very unpleasant exercise but I have no doubt he approaches it professionally and comes up with the best possible strategy. Were he to adopt your cavalier approach, he would likely find his career options as a military planner distinctly limited afterwards.

          In short, you’re being a shill for Goliath.

    • c matt

      I suppose bringing a knife is better than nothing at all.

  • Mike in KC, MO

    I do wonder if, in the same video clip showing Biden that was provided in the link (did Mark even look at it I wonder? Somehow I doubt it) the VP had instead said that the president was considering using executive orders to enforce the contraception mandate, would we be the ones telling HIM to calm down?

  • Mike in KC, MO

    And yes Mark, the picture is total link bait. I think you need to take a breath and calm down before you start seeing neocon boogymen under your bed again.

    It’s a typical tactic for getting people to click on something. I see it a lot, and I do a bit of internet marketing (it’s the type of marketing that either says something outrageous, or promises sexy… or both). Is it responsible? No, not really. Does it work? Yeah.

    He doesn’t need the clicks? ‘Clicks’ is how Drudge makes money. Coming from someone like you who is always harping on the news being there to sell ‘beer and shampoo’, did you SERIOUSLY think Drudge isn’t in it for money? Seriously man, have a drink and calm down.

  • ivan_the_mad

    Being a not infrequent visitor of Drudge, I am especially amused by such hysterics on Drudge’s part because I can remember more than a few links posted in umbrage about folks on the left calling folks on the right fascists, Hitler, etc.

    • dabhidh

      Well, that bar has been lowered so far it’s yards underfoot. The left has called the right “fascists” and “Hitler” in the past, are doing so today, and will continue to do so tomorrow, with or without the slightest provocation, and with neither shame nor apology. They have literally no moral authority with which to criticize anyone on the right for doing the same.

      • ivan_the_mad

        That’s nice, but you’re replying to a comment from a guy on the right criticizing a righty news aggregator for doing the very thing for which it has criticized others.

        • dabhidh

          I think my point stands either way. After 20 years of hearing the left tar the right with the “Hitler” card (and it’s been going on much longer than that), it is a matter of complete indifference to me when the right turns around and does the same. As I said, any moral authority anyone might have had in regard to this practice has long ago been exhausted. When it becomes truly, manifestly understood that playing the Hitler card is out of bounds, and not just another bad faith stick to beat the right with, then I’ll join the chorus in correcting anyone who uses it.

          • ivan_the_mad

            Have fun with that tribal foolishness.

            • dabhidh

              Have fun with that moral superiority!

          • Mark Shea

            Ah! So you don’t mind the stupidity of the Left as long as it’s the Right doing it. Got it.

            • David K. Monroe

              You both miss the point – the old saw has been played so often that it doesn’t even sing anymore.

            • http://chicagoboyz.net TMLutas

              Past a certain point, you just let go on certain arguments. Liberal in the US will never recover its 18th century usage in America. I understand your pro-sobriety point but you lost that when Saul Alinsky became required reading on the right as well as the left.

      • http://irenist.blogspot.com Irenist

        The right were calling the left communists and anarchists before there even was a fascism.

        • David K. Monroe

          I forgot that there was no link whatsoever between leftism and communism. But I’m not surprised that it’s the right’s fault. Everything is, of course.

          • http://irenist.blogspot.com Irenist

            Hmm. Well, with the French and Russian revolutions, I suppose the left “started it.” But, children of Adam that we are, I guess we all “started it.” God bless you, David.

  • Elmwood

    Drudgereport was staunchly behind the nomination of Romney. Why would this surprise anyone? I look at that stupid website hourly. It’s easier to go win people over with fear and hate than logic and reason. This is the tactic of both political parties buy I’m afraid the GOP is even more stupid with this sort of thing.

  • Peggy R

    Who has defined “The THing that USed to Be Conservatism” to know that it has lost its mooring?
    Drudge is a media guy with sympathies to the Right to be sure, but his own business is his primary agenda. Nothing wrong with that.

    Mark, you have called Barry a “tyrant” in regard to the HHS mandate. Why can’t those who believe strongly in 2nd amendment rights consider Barry’s attempts to control gun rights without consent of the people (through their elected representatives and through the constitution) to be tyrannical as well?

    The man in the WH has no regard for the constitution or liberty. We should be concerned at any and all such attempts of his to limit our constitutional freedoms in anyway. You can go along like a good sheep until you’ve woken up and find it’s all gone. Or you can work to stop them now.

  • http://pavelspoetry.com Pavel Chichikov

    I dunno, I have a hard time visualizing a militia armed with large-clip rifles taking on even a local Swat team, much less the Marines. Is this vision based on Rambo movies? In any case, they’d be infiltrated and closed down before they even started.

    Ask the insurgents in Fallujah what happened to them. Ask the Chechens what happened to them when they seriously annoyed the Russian Army.

    My in-laws live in a town where they close the schools on the first day of deer season. They have all the firearms they need. For that.

    • ivan_the_mad

      “all the firearms they need” Thrift is to be commended. Some of my friends and relations are spending inordinate amounts of money securing firearms, lowers, ammo, etc in the fear of some draconian measure. While some of us binge on bullets, others elsewhere starve or die of exposure. We should all reflect on Luke 12:48.

      • http://chicagoboyz.net TMLutas

        Starvation and dying of exposure in non-disaster ways (earthquake, tsunami, etc) is overwhelmingly because politicians, somewhere, have put in place policies that makes that happen. The cheapest solution to that is to simply shoot such politicians. The correct solution is to fight against such policies so they do not continue to be enacted. This is a global fight that has been going on for a long time. Just to let you know, the good guys are winning.

        Part of what is necessary for the fight to be taken to a victorious conclusion is to maintain at least one major refuge of strongly differing policy choices so that the orwellian newspeak side can’t sweep alternatives to tyranny, starvation, and serfdom down the memory hole. The US is the frontline refuge in this fight and the best hope of ultimately winning the fight. That’s ultimately what the gun battle is all about, making the US undigestible to tyrannical plans and maintaining that status in perpetuity so that evil men cannot hide their evil by destroying all alternatives.

        I apologize if this does not personally apply to you but my experience with people who pull out Luke 12:48 in these sorts of discussions is that such people, when they are not evil and cynical advocates for the other side do not believe some or all of the following facts:
        1. Population starvation is a political policy problem, not a problem of lack of food.
        2. We are not currently exceeding the carrying capacity of our ecosystems to support our population and are unlikely to exceed carrying capacity absent political intervention stopping ordinary people from supporting themselves to the best of their ability. We are not in a “lifeboat situation”.

        There are others, but they get more controversial. You strike me as someone whose disconnect from reality is on point one, not two but I could be wrong. I strongly urge you to read up on the literature. It’s been fairly well studied, though not well publicized to the average person outside the field.

        • ivan_the_mad

          The point is that you shouldn’t buy things you don’t need when others lack the basic necessities. It’s common sense. None of your points apply to me, and suggesting a disconnect from reality is exceedingly rich coming from you. Bye now.

          • North West

            Said Ivan… using a computer.

            Thus, you have bought something you didn’t need while others lack necessities. I trust we won’t be hearing from you any more since you’ll be selling that computer forthwith?

            • ivan_the_mad

              That’s an eminently risible response to my admonition against stockpiling. Rerum Novarum 22:

              True, no one is commanded to distribute to others that which is required for his own needs and those of his household; nor even to give away what is reasonably required to keep up becomingly his condition in life, “for no one ought to live other than becomingly.”(13) But, when what necessity demands has been supplied, and one’s standing fairly taken thought for, it becomes a duty to give to the indigent out of what remains over. “Of that which remaineth, give alms.”

              • North West

                And how do you know which people are “stockpiling” and which people are getting what they need? Since you judged what others need, seems only fair to judge what you need.

                And with the caliber of your comments, we can determine that you really don’t need that computer. ;)

                • ivan_the_mad

                  I see that it is your habit to bring a knife to a gun fight.

                • Marthe Lépine

                  In my country, “stockpiling” might be accumulating more weapons than needed for hunting… I have asked before: who needs 4 weapons, including an assault rifle, if they live in cities away from possibly dangerous wildlife?

                  • http://chicagoboyz.net TMLutas

                    Assault rifles are not legal in the United States. They haven’t been legal since the 1930s for civilian possession. They are, however, legal in Switzerland and virtually all households have one.

          • http://chicagoboyz.net TMLutas

            You are supporting a fallacy, that want in this world is largely because the wealthy hoard their wealth. Correct that and you will likely understand how you’ve been misapplying the gospel without further intervention.

            • ivan_the_mad

              Actually, no, what I’m doing is reiterating the teaching of the Church.
              Rerum Novarum 22:
              But if the question be asked: How must one’s possessions be used? – the Church replies without hesitation in the words of the same holy Doctor: “Man should not consider his material possessions as his own, but as common to all, so as to share them without hesitation when others are in need. Whence the Apostle with, ‘Command the rich of this world… to offer with no stint, to apportion largely.’”(12) True, no one is commanded to distribute to others that which is required for his own needs and those of his household; nor even to give away what is reasonably required to keep up becomingly his condition in life, “for no one ought to live other than becomingly.”(13) But, when what necessity demands has been supplied, and one’s standing fairly taken thought for, it becomes a duty to give to the indigent out of what remains over. “Of that which remaineth, give alms.”

    • Bryan

      Indeed. Ask the *still-alive-and-quite-active* insurgents in Iraq or Afghanistan what happened to them. You can do so easily because they are still alive and kicking.

      Most active-duty US military members would never–NEVER–comply with any order, whether executive or legislative, to forcibly disarm American civilians. You are out of touch with reality, my friend.

    • kenneth

      The revolution fantasies of these homegrown militia guys are so delusional that they’re pitable, not laughable. Taking on a modern military with rifles is a picturesque form of suicide, nothing more. If you don’t have serious anti-aircraft and anti-tank capability, at a minimum, you’re just chum in the water. Anyone who thinks otherwise should ask the Palestinians or Chechens or Tamils how that’s working for them.

      Those who fantasize about “asymetric warfare” should realize that “victory” is, at best, a stalemate or negotiated settlement (sometimes followed by a genocide). Getting even that far takes decades of fighting, seeing most of your family killed or disappeared, lots of people willing to die as suicide bombers etc. I don’t think most of these self-styled hard guys have thought that through. The vast majority have never gone to actual war or fired at anything more dangerous than a piece of paper or video game enemies.

      • http://davidgriffey.blogspot.com/ Dave G.

        I would agree had I not spent the last 10 years watching a bunch of guys in caves with improvised weapons kick the hell out of the biggest army in the world that had access to billion dollar weapons. Though I doubt any revolution would win, it has nothing to do with the weapons used against what army. It’s because there’s no way Americans would even bother trying. Losing has become as American as apple pie and baseball scandals. As Mark says, Paris Hilton generation. My guess is that applies to revolutions, too.

        • http://pavelspoetry.com Pavel Chichikov

          Afghanistan is a different country with a different society and a different topography. It might take a million troops rotated over decades to pacify it. It’s half way around the world. And they don’t have to kick hell out of anyone – they just have to endure.

          Don’t compare.

          • http://chicagoboyz.net TMLutas

            Of course we should compare, but compare intelligently. Green on blue violence, assassination campaigns, intimidation and conversion of local authorities, these are the relevant scenarios that are directly applicable. Go read your US history on how popular threats of assassination and vigilantism have shaped public policy throughout our country’s history and the scales may fall from your eyes.

            The unorganized militia will never take the field against the US armed forces. They don’t have to in order to win. Go read “How David beats Goliath” in the New Yorker.

          • http://davidgriffey.blogspot.com/ Dave G.

            Don’t compare? If this was the first war we’ve tanked on, you might have a point. My point is that the real problem is something far more fundamental flowing through America’s blood stream. Of course a revolution could still happen. But it wouldn’t in our country, not because militias could never win, but because in the 21st century, it’s our country.

      • Stu

        Kenneth said…” The vast majority have never gone to actual war or fired at anything more dangerous than a piece of paper or video game enemies.”

        Well, I have been in actual ware and fired things of a very dangerous nature and I disagree with you assertion completely. A citizen army could give a wayward US government a very credible threat especially given a great many in the military would NOT take part in putting down our own. And that is not even taking into account that many in such a citizen army would be former military. Further, in such a situation a citizen army would not take engage the government forces on its terms. It would engage to its advantage with the aim of simply turning the base around on the government itself.

        You then paint a picture of a potentially prolonged engagement filled with pain. That could happen. That’s part of war. Nobody wants it. But sometimes people are called to rise up and defend against injustices. Yours seems to be a position that any resistance is futile therefore why bother.

        • http://chicagoboyz.net TMLutas

          One of the great markers that confirmed civilians like me have over whether the government remains legitimate is whether the USG is making changes to purge the military of people not willing to shoot on US citizens. Simply by being armed, civilians create a threat to the imposition of tyranny that causes would be tyrants to have to expose themselves in large bureaucratic operations where they can be stopped before a shot is ever fired. This is a major benefit of the unorganized militia, how it forces behavior that disfavors tyrannical plots so they may be exposed and destroyed prior to anybody dying.

          We are currently in a cold civil war. God willing, people like me and you will be able to fight this one and win without us ever having to go into the field.

        • kenneth

          I just think we ought to give the old civic engagement thing a try and back down a few notches from the fantasies of civil war. We have a large swath of people in this country who are not merely worried about civil war, they are lusting for it and making veiled threats of terrorism and treason if they don’t get their way in a public policy debate about gun laws. A debate which has just barely been initiated and which has many balancing mechanisms of elected officials and courts to moderate.

          Those who think armed insurgencies and civil wars are paths to freedom are simply delusional, and have not paid any attention to what has happened in 99.99% of recent world history. They are no more realistic than the chickenhawks who believed killing Saddam would lead to democracy and throngs of Iraqis throwing flowers at their liberators.

          Anyone who makes war plans on the assumption that Americans would never fire on their countrymen would do well to dust off a history book and flip to the section covering the first half of the 1860s, If that’s too ancient for you, read up on Kent State, the Democratic convention of 1968, Ruby Ridge, Waco, the internment of Japanese Americans, Wounded Knee or the experiences of the Occupy Movement.

          • Stu

            I don’t anyone is asserting that there are those in the military that would fire on our own. In fact, I pointed out earlier that with a group of fellow military officers, we had identified those among us that we believed would fire on our own no matter what the circumstance. It was a mental listing that we had in the rare event it was needed to take care of that threat before it became realized. We also routinely discuss how we would take done a drone. Does this make “lusting for civil war?” Hardly, we are military officers. We “war game” all the time. It’s part of preparation.

            There is indeed much more debate to be had on the issue before we get to such an extreme. But given we are talking about an individual’s right to self defense, I don’t think people getting a bit worked up is unreasonable, especially when our ostensibly responsible Federal Government is throwing out nondescript suggestions of “Executive Action.”

  • David Davies

    The point is not that we have the government of Hitler and Stalin. We don’t. Not yet. The point is that we don’t WANT that kind of government. Rule by decree. Executions by ‘Executive Order’. And you have to understand that both Hitler and Stalin were very big advocates of ‘gun control’.

    Does anyone seriously think that your local SWAT team or the Marines are going to open up on their friends and relatives? Recruits to these organizations come from the ‘gun culture’. Gun owners would have to first be demonized a la the Branch Davidians. Not going to happen in numbers sufficient to ensure that the police and military will obey illegal orders.

  • Will

    So, is it Drudge or Glenn Beck who is the Conservative Pope, according to Mark?

    (Repeat, I never so much as HEARD of Glenn Beck until Mark started ranting about TheConservatives blindly following him.)

    • Mark Shea

      Pagan sects don’t have popes.

      • North West

        Which is convenient because then you just get to assert whoever as a spokesman for them, right Mark? Sort of like how atheists like to claim Westboro represents all Christians. (even if it should technically be just protestants, you expect them to know the difference?)

        • Mark Shea

          Yeah. Cuz Westboro is totally a hugely popular news aggregator with the TTUTBC that passed its billionth customer lately.

          • North West

            As pointed out above, liberals use Drudge too, it’s not exclusively conservative.

            • Mark Shea

              And Righties read the NY Times, so obviously it doesn’t write from or cater to a lefty worldview.

              • North West

                Wait, I thought you said all Righties were in a bubble. (seems hard to be if they read the New York Times)

                • Mark Shea

                  No. I didn’t say that. “All” Righties are not anything. However, you are not reading in order to talk. You are reading in order to attack. This makes your contributions to my comboxes tedious and dumb and a time suck. So goodbye.

  • http://pavelspoetry.com Pavel Chichikov

    I’ve seen enough fire breathing on blogs, and IMHO anyone who publicly endorses, approves of, anticipates or predicts mutiny on the part of US law enforcement or the military might has well have a flashing sign over his head that reads: “Provocateur.” Functionally, that’s what you are.

    • Stu

      I guess I am a “provocateur.”
      History certainly says it would happen. The Confederate Officer corps is proof.

      There are certainly situations where you could expect such things to happen even in this modern era. To deny such is a bit unrealistic. In fact, I’m confident such scenarios are discussed at the War Colleges by senior officers.

    • Sus

      I think some are frothing at the mouth to do something with all these useless weapons unless you want to kill human beings. It gets boring shooting at a paper target or a beer can. Guns and ammunition are expensive. A civil war would justify the expenses.

    • antigon

      Mr. Chichikov:

      While not suggesting you should wear a flashing sign over your head that reads ‘Toadie,’ your nonsensical statement above functionally suggests an unhealthy appetite.

      With a government that just passed a law authorizing the president, sans oversight or accountability of any legal kind, to kill any American citizen he decides should be dead, it would hardly be mutiny on the part of a patriotic military to resist this & similar executive enthusiasms should they inevitably get out of hand.

      In fact, it is precisely fear of this – augmented by all those guns out there I suspect – that likely provides a chafing pall on what St. Augustine called the desire to dominate.

      Mr. Shea is quite right that even with 200+ million guns, Americans would be outclassed by a trained military. So would an executive that orders the fight, however, & it is hardly provocative to observe that its fear of where the trained guns ultimately get pointed cannot but serve to restrain the tyrannical impulse – a fear surely to be endorsed & approved of, not least in order to prevent anticipations & predictions of the result should that restraint dissolve.

      • Mark Shea

        FWIW, Pavel’s direct experience of living in an actual totalitarian state responsible for the death of millions does tend to give his remarks about the lunatic hyperventilations of the Thing that Used to be Conservatism–emitted every time Obama clears his throat–a certain weight lacking in the fulminations of Drudge, Beck, FOX and Talk Radio.

        • Stu

          Absolutely. He does have insight. But his former homeland isn’t here. Different cultures, different backgrounds, different behaviors. For hundreds of years, this country has been attracted the independent minded peoples from every other country in the World, leaving behind those of a different outlook.

        • antigon

          A pennyworth does too, m m much as we all love Mr. Drudge & Sebastian Flyte.

          Of still more weight however, & unprovocative, is both the hope & possibility a patriotic military will turn all that power Mr. Chichikov mentions below against an executive eschewing law in favor of tyranny, rather than against its country & her citizens.

  • http://pavelspoetry.com Pavel Chichikov

    This reminds me that an acquaintance – now deceased – referred in a general way to the kind of power that authority could apply if it felt it necessary to do so. He said he couldn’t say any more, but that some of it scared the droppings out of him. He was a person of some experience and a self-taught authority on German police and military counter-insurgency operations in Eastern Europe during WWII.

    I once alluded to Soviet partisan ops on the Smolensk Road, and he knew exactly what I was talking about. I was impressed.

  • http://abbey-roads.blogspot.com/ Terry

    This is very fun! Thanks Mark.

  • Janet O’Connor

    I asked a co-worker friend of mine where he thought the best source of news came from and he said without hesitation the Drudge Report. As far as Alex Jones goes I follow his blog on a regular basis and while he has it wrong on the Church and the Pope often, he says things that others are now saying including Mark, Tom Woods and even Ben Swann of my local TV station here in Cincinnati, WXIX called “Reality Check” As a matter of fact Mr Swann as well as Tom Woods were guests being interviewed on the Alex Jones Show all saying the same thing. I have even heard Johnette Benkavic talk about these things. Are they are Extremist Conspiracy Nuts Too?

  • Stu

    Drudge engages in hyperbole with his links that of course have a kernel of truth and are aimed at driving the hit count.

    Most other websites I frequent engage in similar practices.

    • Rosemarie

      +J.M.J+

      True, he does. Many times I’ve clicked a link on his site, based on his description of the alleged contents, only to find that he’s latched on to some passing statement found in one paragraph toward the end of the article. It’s not the whole thrust of the article, and his cherry-picking gives the wrong impression.

      As for the gun control issue, this is exactly what I feared would result from the Sandy Hook atrocity. Practically no talk about reforming the mental health system or violence as a side effect of certain drugs. No steps whatsoever toward lessening the violence in movies or video games. But talk of gun control – Yeppers. You betcha. In spades.

      So let’s all do absolutely nothing about the underlying factors that brought about the tragedy and go right for the weapons used instead. That way, numerous mentally ill young men across America can continue playing gory video games in their parents’ basements all day, in between watching torture prôn movies, that is – but it’s all good because they won’t be able to get a hold of guns, right? They wouldn’t possibly try to satisfy their fascination with death and killing by using explosives, arson, kitchen knives, machetes, driving a car into a schoolyard, flying a plane into a building….

      Meanwhile, Hollywood can keep making tons of dough on films that glorify gun violence. How effective could any firearms ban be in the long run when movie after movie keeps making guns just seem so kewl? Do Hollywood liberals even see the basic disconnect here? Maybe gun control laws should be written with riders that ban guns in motion pictures.

      • Sus

        Shooting a gun is much easier than getting a plane and crashing it. Even using a machete is harder because you have to be much closer to the victim. I don’t think these are rational arguments against gun control.

        I agree with you that part of the discussion should be about reforming the mental health system. I don’t know about the video games as they are played everywhere that has computers.

        I wish the discussion centered around laws that make gun owners responsible if their gun is used in crime. All guns are legal until it’s used for something illegal. Many instances of violence would be prevented if only the owner kept them in a safe.

        • Rosemarie

          +J.M.J+

          I’m not arguing against gun control. I’ve said before that the Second Amendment is not absolute, though the particulars are for others to hash out since I’m no expert on either the Constitution or firearms.

          My point is that, when tragedies like this happen, it seems everyone goes for the quick “solution” rather than ones that, while more complicated and not as politically “sexy,” would have a better effect in the long run. Going after guns would be a cosmetic “quick fix” that leaves the underlying explosive societal problems in place. Efficiently dealing with mental illness and honestly confronting our society’s obsession with violence and gore (as manifested in movies and video games) would strike the problem at the root. Yet politicians go for the guns first and ignore the deeper issues.

  • http://chicagoboyz.net TMLutas

    First of all Mark, Drudge is a self-described muckraker. Muckrakers are never paragons of sobriety. That’s not what they do. You expect muckraking from a muckraker and sobriety from places like Heritage, CATO, the office of the Speaker, the Senate minority leader, etc. And generally all of these organs today, act as you should expect them to. Conservative muckrakers 50 years ago were not sober and they are not sober today. In this aspect, conservatism has not changed one bit.

    Moving on to the point on gun confiscation. The US Supreme Court has, in recent holdings, finally cleared up that the 2nd amendment protects an individual right. President Obama is considering executive action instead of waiting for the Congress to act, as is the normal process. He is, in this respect, anti-civil rights. He is considering acting in a way that absolutely is within the tyrannical tradition including the hitlerian and stalinist tradition. He is putting up a trial balloon to see whether he will survive the blowback of executive orders to restrict guns beyond what can currently get through the Congress. Drudge is attempting to provide blowback sufficient that the administration is warned off and confiscation orders such as what Gov. Cuomo has advocated do not become national policy via executive order. This is admirable.

    • Elmwood

      TMLutas, you are confusing the issue. Obama and the democrats are not calling for banning on all guns. They are advocating for more sensible gun restrictions. The case can easily be made that guns that have 10 round clips and are semi-automatic should be better controlled. This is a very reasonable position. This doesn’t make Obama in any way similar to Hitler. There is gun control already on the books,–I can’t buy a fully automatic gun without a very expensive license and waiting period. This is a debate about expanding gun control and not overturning the 2nd amendment. Mark is just pointing out the hypocrisy and stupidity of the GOP platform.

      I can’t for the life of me understand why so many intelligent catholics have become cheerleaders for the flip side of the democrat party–the republicans.

      • Stu

        I can’t understand why being against progressive incrementalism in terms of gun control necessarily makes one a Republican.

        What you call “reasonable” isn’t necessarily such. Evidence the disagreement here.

      • dabhidh

        Actually we don’t know exactly what they are calling for yet, but if they are merely “advocating for sensible gun restrictions”, why the suggestion of executive orders?

        As for “hypocrisy and stupidity”, I think your buddies at the Journal News exemplified both traits much better than anyone on the GOP side of this debate.

        • Elmwood

          I’ve almost always voted GOP my entire life with the exception of the last election when the scales fell from my eyes. I’d hardly call myself “democrat”. Has it occurred to the GOP that our society through the break down of the family has become more violent and less sensitive to the dignity of life? If so, which I imagine every catholic would agree, then advocating more gun control is a necessary response to our culture of death. It’s not like there is a short supply of depressed, homicidal narcissists in our country who are potential mass murderers.

      • http://chicagoboyz.net TMLutas

        Elmwood, it is not sensible to muck about with a security system without the least effort in understanding how the proposed changes will alter its effectiveness. The unorganized militia provides a number of defensive gun uses every day for almost no public cost. As chief executive Obama has responsibilities both as the final authority for defense and justice matters to weigh how to make this system more effective. He very obviously is not doing so. Mario Cuomo has openly called for weapons confiscations, though what weapons would be confiscated is something yet to be made public. How you know the number of guns to be seized and the number to remain in civilian hands is a mystery to me.

  • http://pavelspoetry.com Pavel Chichikov

    After due consideration I’ve come to the conclusion that this topic has drawn fantasists, day-dreamers, liars and the mentally unbalanced.

    We’ve had enough of that, haven’t we?

    • dabhidh

      Well, don’t hold back, please tell us who fits in what category. I’m dreadfully curious.

    • Stu

      Which one are you?

  • Andy

    Why do we need background checks and the like – this is the problem with the gun crowd. By the way I own two guns – one for deer – rarely use more than two slugs to bring the venison home and one for skeet – they tast good when grilled correctly. My point is that people like this scare teh hell out of me. I realize a “ritually impure source”
    http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/01/10/unhinged-tactical-response-ceo-threatens-to-start-killing-people-over-obamas-gun-control/
    WAtch this and weep.

  • North West

    Now here we have a case of a veteran getting rolled over by a law while a news reporter gets away with breaking the same law.
    http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/01/injured-special-forces-soldier-arrested-in-upstate-ny-for-possession-of-high-capacity-ammunition-magazines/

    Now who wants to take bets on how “sober” Mark would be posting on this?

    Of course he’d be furious, and every decent person would be rightly so. Yet who’s to say whether drudge (or any other conservative’s) reaction is sober or righteous fury? Heck, with the publishing of personal information in the news and on Gawker recently, it’s pretty understandable why gun owners are feeling prickly and sensitive.

  • http://pavelspoetry.com Pavel Chichikov
    • http://chicagoboyz.net TMLutas

      It’s a tragedy and I hope all recover from their wounds. Early reports are usually wrong so it’s not wise to comment prior to the facts coming out.

  • The Deuce

    Drudge isn’t the only one reporting on this: http://hotair.com/archives/2013/01/09/biden-executive-action-can-be-taken-on-gun-control/

    I’m sorry, but I’m with Drudge on this. The President has shown an unprecedented willingness to simply do what he wants by executive order fiat, or by simply ignoring the law. This is the same man who is, right here and now in the real world, having his underlings argue before a court that the 1st Amendment does not protect the free exercise of religion. If he’s willing to simply throw away 200 years of 1st Amendment protection simply because it’s inconvenient to his plans to have an unelected bureaucrat dictate to us when we shall violate our faith, why should we think it crazy that he’d throw away that inconvenient 2nd Amendment too, particularly when he’s telegraphed his desire to do so?

    We should learn to expect it by now, and be out in front of it, rather than acting shocked after he makes his latest “unforeseen” move. I don’t care if leftists say it’s crazy. That’s what they say about everything outside their dogma, and they’re not interested in discussion or persuasion anyhow. This is no time for complacency. We have to draw a line.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X