Friday, March 11, 2011

For those of you who thought the Krauthammer quote was tongue-in-cheek. It wasn't. Never trust a neo-con.


Many thanks to the several Irregulars who forwarded this at my request.

Charles Krauthammer "Disarm the Citizenry. But not yet. " Washington Post, Apr. 5, 1996


In an election year you expect Washington to be full of phony arguments. But even a cynic must marvel at the all-round phoniness of the debate over repeal of the assault weapons ban. Both sides are blowing smoke.

The claim of the advocates that banning these 19 types of "assault weapons" will reduce the crime rate is laughable. (The term itself is priceless: What are all the other guns in America's home arsenal? Encounter weapons? Crime-en\abling devices?) Dozens of other weapons, the functional equivalent of these "assault weapons," were left off the list and are perfect substitutes for anyone bent on mayhem.

On the other side you have Rep. Gerald Solomon (R-N.Y.) demanding in trembling fury that the ban be repealed because his wife, alone in upstate New York, needs protection. Well, okay. But must it be an AK-47? Does, say, a .44 magnum -- easier to carry, by the way -- not suffice for issuing a credible, "Go ahead, make my day"?
In fact, the assault weapons ban will have no significant effect either on the crime rate or on personal security. Nonetheless, it is a good idea, though for reasons its proponents dare not enunciate. I am not up for reelection. So let me elaborate the real logic of the ban:

It is simply crazy for a country as modern, industrial, advanced and now crowded as the United States to carry on its frontier infatuation with guns. Yes, we are a young country, but the frontier has been closed for 100 years. In 1992, there were 13,220 handgun murders in the United States. Canada (an equally young country, one might note) had 128; Britain, 33.

Ultimately, a civilized society must disarm its citizenry if it is to have a modicum of domestic tranquillity of the kind enjoyed in sister democracies like Canada and Britain. Given the frontier history and individualist ideology of the United States, however, this will not come easily. It certainly cannot be done radically. It will probably take one, maybe two generations. It might be 50 years before the United States gets to where Britain is today.

Passing a law like the assault weapons ban is a symbolic -- purely symbolic -- move in that direction. Its only real justification is not to reduce crime but to desensitize the public to the regulation of weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation. Its purpose is to spark debate, highlight the issue, make the case that the arms race between criminals and citizens is as dangerous as it is pointless.

De-escalation begins with a change in mentality. And that change in mentality starts with the symbolic yielding of certain types of weapons. The real steps, like the banning of handguns, will never occur unless this one is taken first, and even then not for decades.

What needs to happen before this change in mentality can occur? What must occur first -- and this is where liberals are fighting the gun control issue from the wrong end -- is a decrease in crime. So long as crime is ubiquitous, so long as Americans cannot entrust their personal safety to the authorities, they will never agree to disarm. There will be no gun control before there is real crime control.

True, part of the reason for the high crime rate is the ubiquity of guns -- which makes the argument circular and a solution seem impossible. But gun control advocates ignore other, egregious encouragements to crime at their peril. The lack of swift and certain retribution, for example. Judges like Harold Baer in New York, for whom four men loading $4 million worth of drugs into the trunk of a car at 5 in the morning, then running away from police, is insufficient cause for a search. Judg\es who need the president himself to yell and scream and threaten before reversing a decision to let serious criminality go unprosecuted.

In the United States, 4 (!) percent of all robberies result in time served. Tell your stickup man, "You can go to jail for this," and he can correctly respond, "25 to 1 says I don't." So long as both the law-abiding population and the criminal classes doubt that serious crime leads to serious punishment, attempts at serious gun control will prove futile.

Yes, Sarah Brady is doing God's work. Yes, in the end America must follow the way of other democracies and disarm. But there is not the slightest chance that it will occur until liberals join in the other fights to reduce the incidence of and increase the penalties for crime. Only then will there be a public receptive to the idea of real gun control. The passionate resistance to even the phony gun control of the assault weapons ban shows how far we have to go.

31 comments:

Mickey Collins said...

Howard Fezell (http://www.secondamendment.net/2amd6.htm) says:

"Back issues of The Washington Post are available on microfiche in many public libraries or from the paper's Back Issues Department at (202) 334-7239."

Mickey Collins said...

Ignore my earlier comment. Go here:

http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19960408&slug=2323082

Anonymous said...

This one?

http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19960408&slug=2323082

WarriorClass said...

I'd also like the complete text of a (different) piece that was written by a Major Ralph Peters, a white paper in the McAlvany Intelligence Advisor, May/June 1994 titled "Warrior Class" (where I took my pen name from, but have only seen reprinted in part in Boston's Gun Bible) that reads as follows,

"The desire for patriotism is considered an enemy doctrine. The U.S. armed forces must be prepared to fight against all those who oppose the New World Order and who are holding out for nationalism... This new warrior class is most dangerous because they consist of those who fight out of strong religious beliefs..., There is a world wide class of patriots (i.e. terrorists) who number in the millions, and if the current trend continues, there may be more of these who...love freedom and are now the target of the New World Order... You cannot bargain and compromise with these warriors... We, as the military, need to commit more training to counter these warrior threats. We must have an active campaign to win over the populace. This must be coupled with irresistible violence."

As Boston T. Party said, "There you have it. Patriotic American gunowners are the #1 Enemy of the New World Order. Since we can’t be bargained or compromised with, prepare for “irresistible violence.”

Yes, I am religious, a Messianic Jew, a Texican, a patriotic American and freedom lover who cannot be bargained or compromised with, and yes, I am prepared for their "irresistible violence."

Well that's the name Major Ralph Peters gave me and I accept it and wear it proudly.

WarriorClass
III

Anonymous said...

Here's a way to get it:

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-783662.html

Spitnyri said...

All I could find but dont use CC's anymore.. its to purchase the full doc for $3.95
***************************
http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/washingtonpost/offers.html?url=%2Fwashingtonpost%2Faccess%2F22087117.html%3FFMT%3DFT%26FMTS%3DABS%3AFT%26date%3DApr%2B5%252C%2B1996%26author%3DCharles%2BKrauthammer%26desc%3DDisarm%2Bthe%2BCitizenry.%2BBut%2Bnot%2Byet.

****************************

Disarm the Citizenry. But not yet.
[FINAL Edition]
Publication : The Washington Post (pre-1997 Fulltext)- Washington, D.C.
Author : Charles Krauthammer
Date : Apr 5, 1996
Abstract (Document Summary)
In an election year you expect Washington to be full of phony arguments. But even a cynic must marvel at the all-round phoniness of the debate over repeal of the assault weapons ban. Both sides are blowing smoke.

The claim of the advocates that banning these 19 types of "assault weapons" will reduce the crime rate is laughable. (The term itself is priceless: What are all the other guns in America's home arsenal? Encounter weapons? Crime-en\abling devices?) Dozens of other weapons, the functional equivalent of these "assault weapons," were left off the list and are perfect substitutes for anyone bent on mayhem.

In fact, the assault weapons ban will have no significant effect either on the crime rate or on personal security. Nonetheless, it is a good idea, though for reasons its proponents dare not enunciate. I am not up for reelection. So let me elaborate the real logic of the ban:

Doc Enigma said...

You can get the whole thing here, with a 'free trial'. Hope it helps.

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-783662.html

Anonymous said...

http://www.grouchyconservativepundits.com/index.php?topic=3573.0;wap2

Anonymous said...

You'll need to sign up for a free trial, but it can be read here.

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-783662.html

Gaviota said...

All I could find was this:

http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19960408&slug=2323082

It's from approximately the same time frame.

Anonymous said...

http://www.secondamendment.net/2amd6.htm

Streetsweeper Chronicles said...

Try this: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/23/AR2010092304746_pf.html

street

Anonymous said...

Try..
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19960408&slug=2323082

Same article, different headline.

Doc Enigma said...

Krauthammer can go to hell...he's ovviously a Marxist, albeit an incremental one....

ΛΕΟΝΙΔΑΣ said...

Forget Krauthammer. He is a Neocon and as such is no friend of liberty. We can agree with him/them on a large range of issues opposing the obamunists but when push comes to shove they will seize our means of opposing their collectivist world view.

Anonymous said...

Krauthammer is a first class clown.

Anonymous said...

"In the United States, 4 (!) percent of all robberies result in time served. Tell your stickup man, 'You can go to jail for this,' and he can correctly respond, '25 to 1 says I don't.'"

The police seem to be incapable of dealing with lawlesness. Isn't this itself the primary rational for concealed-carry firearms?

As nanny state policies reduce the reward/risk ratio won't this lawlessness escalate? Doesn't this provide a rationale for high-capacity pistols and long arms so as to better protect and defend the ever-diminishing sphere of the private property order?

There are many Judas goats in the conservative movement--George Will and Dick Morris immediately come to mind--who will sacrifice your essential liberties to buy themselves a small measure of social acceptance by the OpFor. In a more candid, less politically correct era, these men would have been called Quislings.

Take careful note of such men and distance yourself from them.

MALTHUS

Alvie D. Zane said...

I'd have given him the cone of shame at The Cliffs in 1996, but I wasn't blogging then. He sure got one last September though.

Krauthammer: Self-Indulgence

Arctic Patriot said...

My words to this idiot require him to do something that is anatomically impossible.

AP

Dedicated_Dad said...

"Krauthammer"?

My Grandpa had a "Kraut Hammer" - actually he had a few of them.

The first - which he wielded at age 12 in the trenches of France - was officially-designated "US Rifle, Cal. .30, M1917 Enfield" - which he later swapped out for a new one labeled "US Rifle, Cal. .30, M1903 Springfield".

A couple of decades later, he learned of a new batch of Krauts that needed Hammerin', and soon found himself headed back to frog-land -- this time carrying his NEW Kraut-Hammer, this one labeled "United States Rifle, Caliber .30, M-1."

In the intervening years, he had to deal with some home-grown monsters -- which he accomplished with an old '97 Winchester and a then-antique top-break revolver he'd hacksawed down until it fit in a pocket or boot.

These monsters were the hired thugs of mine-owners, who took rather serious umbrage at his role as a UMW Organizer -- so much so that they burned his house while his wife and infant daughter (my mother) were in it. There was no question that they'd knowingly attempted to burn his wife and baby-girl, and everyone - including him and said monsters - thought they'd succeeded.

All concerned then learned a very valuable lesson about what happens when you take away everything that matters to A Man -- as the baker's-dozen notches in that old Winchester still attest.

That lesson stands just as true today: When you take away everything that matters to A Man, he may just act as though he's got nothing left to lose!

Obviously, his wife and baby-girl had escaped - though it was several months, nearly a thousand miles overland, and a number of fresh notches in ol' Win before he found this out.

Until his dying day, the slightest negative comment about any labor-union would instantly result in that old man doing his absolute best to knock your teeth down your throat -- a feat he remained quite capable of accomplishing well into his 9th decade.

Anyone who doesn't understand that mentality should probably look into the history of miners prior to the 1940s.

Now, I'm as sure as I can possibly be that if he could see what the his once-beloved unions have since become -- the very evil he so-often fought AGAINST -- he'd have long-ago picked up that old Winchester and set about making things RIGHT, one newly-carved notch at a time.

See, he understood that A Man had to stand up for RIGHT. In his world, that meant UNIONS - he fought for basic human Liberty against every tyrant he came across.

One thing is for damn sure: He'd never have handed over that Winchester -- nor any of his other tools of self-defense and evil-resistance.

Frankly, Krauthammer -- I don't give a damn what your excuse is. I don't care if it WAS possible that handing in my guns could end all violence in our Republic.

I don't care how many people it would save -- hell, I don't care how many of **MY OWN CHILDREN** it would save.

See, I am A Man, and my Grandpa taught me that A Man must always stand up and fight - if necessary - for RIGHT.

RIGHT, in this case, is the upholding and defense of our Constitution against all enemies -- and thus it's also the keeping of the tools necessary to do so.

We really didn't need you to spell it out for us -- we KNOW that there's no end to "hand-em-in" rules once you obey the first one, we've seen it before, and thus we just aren't going to play.

Further, I can guaran-damn-tee that you won't like what we *DO* play if you try to make us...

DD

PS: WV-"haing". That's EXACTLY what ol' Pop would have recommended we do with Krauthammer and his ilk -- "HAING them sum-8!+(#3$!!"

Anonymous said...

For all that he's completely wrong in his conclusion about the ultimate need for confiscation, he gets the steps right. As long as most Americans feel unsafe when they leave the house at night, the majority of Americans will support RKBA. So many gun owners are Fudds ("Ah juss wanna hunt--ah don need no army gun") who will be the first in line to sell us out.

No, Krauthammer has done us a favor by spelling out so clearly the tactics that the enemy will have to take.

Antibubba

Dennis308 said...

I only have two of my guns that are for common street criminals. They are not a worry to me. And my Dogs usually keep them from being a bother anyway.

Now My Other Weapons, are of a Different Nature,and for the Criminals thatgo to work dressed in suits and are found in places such as DC and Austin, and of course for the Minions that are at their beck and call.

Dennis
III
Texas

Anonymous said...

The scary thing about this article is that Krauthammer pretty much gets it: if crime was nearly non-existent, most people would submit to harsh gun regulations.

He uses England as an example, but currently, English citizens have no guns, are heavily victimized by crime, and the police are harder on the law-abiding than the criminals.

No wonder movies like "Harry Brown" are popular there.

Be glad Krauthammer, being a "neo-con" is ignored by the gun control elite!

Anonymous said...

Krauthammer: Proud member of Council On Foreign Relations (CFR). Why the surprise now, he has been part of the NWO for sometime. No big surprise. Just another anti-.
Romeo Juliet Mike III

1894C said...

To Krauthammer:
regarding your demand we disarm...

NUTS!

1894C
III

Sean said...

To Charles Krauthammers' demand that we disarm. Come and get them, you ugly dick-nosed jerk! III.

Happy D said...

“so long as Americans cannot entrust their personal safety to the authorities, they will never agree to disarm.”

Well he got one thing right. Since no government can ever be trusted.
No one should ever disarm.

I would add we should also beat the members of any group who wishes to disarm anyone (under normal circumstances of course) to death.

But I am a bit of an extremist.

markofafreeman said...

Regarding the Ralph Peters quote...

"irresistible violence"

As King Leonidas would say, we'll put that name to the test.

Anonymous said...

He can have my guns, Bullets first.

Just smile and wait fir the muzzel flash.

Anonymous said...

I will gladly disarm when all police, political armed guards and other sin society disarm. When the day comes that celebrities and politicians disarm their guards because there is no threat that justifies being armed then I will listen to the arguments to disarm.

Anonymous said...

"Death before disarmament "
"Give me liberty; or give me death"