Krauthammer on guns
Even Republican shills can favor total disarmament. Never understood the infatuation with that guy.
16 Responses to “Krauthammer on guns”
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
April 18th, 2011 at 9:52 am
The more I hear from that clown the more I wish he would just call himself a Democrat and get it over with
Charles Krauthammer (D)
April 18th, 2011 at 9:53 am
tell me about it. I like reading his stuff, but on THIS? A metrocon’s metrocon.
April 18th, 2011 at 9:53 am
Maybe he’s refined his views on individual rights in the intervening 15 years.
April 18th, 2011 at 10:29 am
Krauthammer is generally right on in an awful lot of areas and usually expresses his position far better than I ever could.
I don’t agree with him on this one thing, but I don’t agree with anyone about everything.
April 18th, 2011 at 10:33 am
Maybe you should send him the article about how the disabled are more likely to be victims of violent crime.
And I agree with Les – I like Krauthammer on a lot of things, but not this.
April 18th, 2011 at 11:07 am
I haven’t heard Krauthammer speak on the gun subject personally, and he’s had opportunities, so clearly it’s a subject he generally avoids. 1996 was a much different time, and there were plenty of anti-gun conservatives around.
On most other matters, which are also important, he’s articulate and intelligent and states my position very well.
I mostly just dismiss anti-gun people out of hand no matter what their other views, but I guess as long as he keeps his anti-gun views to himself I’ll continue to appreciate the dialogue he brings to other issues. Any anti-gun statements like this in the last 5 or 6 years?
April 18th, 2011 at 11:07 am
He and George Will are the two antis that practically define the term “metrocon”.
April 18th, 2011 at 11:17 am
We can call him whatever moniker we choose, but, regrettably, he is the public image of a good bit of the GOP.
Along with our 2 Senators from Tn.
April 18th, 2011 at 11:29 am
He says, “Nonetheless, it is a good idea, though for reasons its proponents dare not enunciate.” So please enunciate them Chuck, just what the hell kind of reasons are those, that they “dare not” say??
April 18th, 2011 at 11:46 am
Krauthammer:
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.
Ultimately, a civilized society must disarm its citizenry…
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.”
I enjoyed reading that back in 1996, because it represents the hidden sentiments of many gun control advocates — which they have desperately been trying to deny all along. Krauthammer did them no favors by admitting this truth.
BTW (as others have asked) — Has Krauthammer said or written anything else on the subject in the 15 years since he wrote that?
April 18th, 2011 at 11:53 am
Guys, this article was posted in 1996, fifteen years ago!
Any more recent articles by Krauthammer on guns?
April 18th, 2011 at 3:36 pm
I agree with Les.
I’ve read Krauthammer for many years and he is quite wise.
But I guess being paralized he does not understand protection guns afford OTHERS than himself.
April 18th, 2011 at 4:40 pm
You know, I had heard that he had a son who was killed with a gun, but I can find nothing online regarding it, so maybe it isn’t true. If it is true, I say give him a pass.
If not, it is a strange incosistency IMO.
April 18th, 2011 at 4:52 pm
GAWD…must proofread BEFORE I post. *Inconsistency
April 19th, 2011 at 1:38 am
He’s from D.C. ‘Nuff Said.
April 19th, 2011 at 11:19 pm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/19/AR2007041902543.html
Check out his article in response to the Va Tech shootings. Read it all for yourself but here is a quote
“It is true that with far stricter gun laws, Cho Seung Hui might have had a harder time getting the weapons and ammunition needed to kill so relentlessly. Nonetheless, we should have no illusions about what laws can do. There are other ways to kill in large numbers, as Timothy McVeigh demonstrated. Determined killers will obtain guns no matter how strict the laws. And stricter controls could also keep guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens using them in self-defense. The psychotic mass murder is rare; the armed household burglary is not. ”
Seems that his position has “evolved”