I do so enjoy watching Fox News commentator Charles Krauthammer hammer the Obama Administration for its perfidy, cowardice, duplicity, corruption, etc. Not to mention taking Bill O’Reilly to task for his demagoguery (with just enough kiss-*ss to placate the equally Second Amendment-squidgy bloviator.) But as Eugene Volokh at the Washington Post reminds us, the otherwise staunch conservative is not a friend of ours. Volokh dredged up a 1996 Krauhammer column – Disarm the Citizenry. But Not Yet – that laid out the good doctor’s views on gun control, an excerpt of which I’ll share with you . . .
The claim of the advocates that banning these 19 types of “assault weapons” will reduce the crime rate is laughable…. 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….
[T]he assault weapons ban will have no significant effect either on the crime rate or on personal security. Nonetheless, it is a good idea ….
Passing a law like the assault weapons ban is a symbolic — purely symbolic — move in [the direction of disarming the citizenry]. 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.
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.
Freedom’s just another word for supporting Americans’ natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms. Its opposite is its opposite.
Krauthhammer is the very definition of Cuckservative. He is no friend to the Constitution.
The colonists would have tared and feathered him and run his crippled ass out on a rail.
This is old news. Dr. Krauthammer has (publicly) changed his views on gun control. So have Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders and many others.
yeah. we should welcome converts with open arms, not punish and drive them away as being antis because they were once antis… we need all the converts we can get.. we are gaining on the populas.. dont blow a victory
Pull the other one….
It’s got bells on it.
You know, its really hard to take anything seriously from a guy whose avatar/image is the flag of the Arrow Cross Party of Hungary, the Hungarian wing of the Nazi party, who were a group of genocidal war criminal assholes who used force of arms to murder at least 15,000 innocent civilian jews in the name of racial purity, over the course of less than 5 months. So whatever your opinion, on any topic, go shove it up your ass, twist it around a few times, then take it out and choke on it. Shitbag.
That and they favor mass immigration as we have proved undermines the 2nd Amendment.
I always say to myself, I would never trust a conservative with my rights any more than I would trust a liberal with my rights. Either would take them all away just to make someone else feel happy knowing that I am no longer happy.
This.
This X2
Well, Krauthammer isn’t a conservative. Never was. People in the Acela corridor think Krauthammer is conservative because David Brooks called him “the most important conservative commentator.”
This is the same David Brooks who thinks that having a sharp crease in one’s suit pants is a criterion for being President.
Krauthammer is an excellent example of the insular thinking of the Ivy League milieu, who believe that because they have the credentials and make their pronouncements in sonorous tones for easy editing by NPR/PBS, they’re terribly smart.
IMO, Krauthammer is most definitely a conservative, but because he would not outlaw all abortion (just late-term), believes in evolution, and in the past supported gun control, some people consider him as not a “true” conservative.
Krauthammer also isn’t a conservative in foreign policy, or taxation.
But aside from all those variances on what constitutes a ‘conservative’, well then I guess he is.
He very much is a conservative on foreign policy, but the neoconservative type, which is a different kind of conservatism then the more isolationist conservatism. He also is a conservative on tax policy. I remember one time when he commented on how the Democrats, with regards to taxation, use the term, “Allowed to keep” with regards to people being taxed. He pointed out that that is a left-wing notion that the government owns you and everything you produce. Basically, that the question should instead be how much of what a person produces should the government be allowed to take.
Democrats will straight up take your guns away. Republicans will negotiate them away.
The Grinch who stole gun rights.
Learn something new every day…
At least he accurately and honestly expressed the (dishonest) incrementalist approach that gun-control people now take while parroting “reasonable gun safety”.
He is a political commentator. He is accurately describing the ploy of the Progressive political movement. When he says it is a good idea to ban certain weapons even though it will have no effect on the stated goal of the left, he means it in context of good for them. Like when you are playing chess and your opponent captures your queen. You say “good move”. Doesn’t mean you like losing but you recognize good strategy. Where did Krauthammer say “I believe in civilian disarmament”? If he said that then why not post that as proof of his “gun zero” label?
Went to the article and read this:
“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.”
Now that is self incriminating right there. My apologies for my previous statement.
Old Ironsides has been infected by the inside the beltway elitism that disconnects more from reality every election cycle.
It’s more about book signings, speeches, cocktail parties, and spending the month in the Hamptons.
The whole lot of the MSM, and career politicians are infected.
What is the result? The ultimate FU
Candidate,
Donald Trump.
Last chance to shake the tree of liberty before fertilizing.
From 1996?
It is possible the Doctor’s views have changed. And, your quoted passage IS akin to our gun rights fear that confiscation starts with small steps. I take his words as a warning, not a threat.
Completely off topic here: I hope that your screen name is a “I Think We’re All Bozos on this Bus” reference.
(My mother was a Bozo-ette in school.)
The problem with Charles is he doesn’t know what a finely manufactured gun feels like in his hands.
The shiny stainless steel of a J-frame Smith & Wesson .357 magnum revolver with Made In U.S.A. engraved below the cylinder. With the smooth spin of the 5 hole cylinder of a freshly cleaned gun after an afternoon at the gun club. Or the feel of your favorite semi-automatic with the thick grip of a double stack .40 caliber feeding round after round flawlessly and accurately for hours on end.
To fall in love with fine guns and all the benefits that go with owning, shooting and caring for them you have to be able to pick one up and fondly caress it in your own hands, sadly for Charles he will never be able to be one of us.
Nice theory, but no. I fell in love with guns before I ever touched one that would be considered anything other than crappy. A rusty old .22 or shot-out milsurp can create a “gun guy” just as easily as a “fine” gun.
In any case, one could respect the founding principles of this country without ever picking up a gun.
Or, from a different direction, he will never be able to defend himself or his family in any way, with or without a gun, rendering them completely useless in his mind so long as he only thinks of himself. I love the guy, but I have noticed before that he is not squishy, he is downright anti. He has many more problems than I need, I forgive him. Hillary or Osama, not so much. But given his status, I wonder how amused he would be if the right to free expression were being systematically snuffed out. I mean, that is all he has.
Instead of coming to a conclusion based on a snippet taken out of context, I took the time to read a bit more. It is abundantly clear that Krauthammer’s analysis is a warning of the steps that were then and are now being taken to numb the masses to the ulimate goal of civilian disarmament.
Wake up and smell the nitrocellulose.
You should have taken the time to read all of it. In his last paragraph:
Krauthammer sounds like a freedom hating statist.
Sure – let’s get used to the government taking our rights and let’s desensitize ourselves to the idea! Textbook freedom hating statist looking to force his opinion on everyone else.
Go after the criminals performing crime (with guns or whatever else they are using)- please leave my stuff alone.
Never liked or really trusted Krauthammer, in spite of his generally eloquent manner of speaking. He always came across to me as someone who fought against Liberal Statists essentially because they were likely to take power away from Republican Statists.
That is the incrementalist approach for sure.
Another quote from the 1996 article:
“Yes, Sarah Brady is doing God’s work.”
Hahahahahah! I think she’s doing the Devil’s work now, Krautslammer.
Most people think of the Devil as a fallen angel, but if he is not also a god, why can’t God simply do away with him? A basic conundrum.
God and the devil play poker every Friday night, best of buds. The stakes are the souls of the suckers dumb enough to believe in either.
You know who were the biggest atheists of all? Communists, that’s who. They didn’t like people having religious beliefs or even spiritual beliefs because that interferes with the “worship” of the political state. Also, along that same vein, any power higher than the state is something that can be used to hold leaders (and dictators) accountable. Once you remove any idea of a higher power, then the state automatically becomes the highest power and can do whatever it likes without recrimination.
You know who were the biggest atheists of all? Communists, that’s who. They didn’t like people having religious beliefs or even spiritual beliefs because that interferes with the “worship” of the political state.
Well, see, the Communists were not atheists. They were fundamentalist ultra religious believers of the Supreme Leninist Marxist State. Just have to redefine religion to include Communism.
.wasn’t he in that movie chitty,chitty bang,bang rounding up kids with a net ?
Farago,
This is an intelligent, reasoning man who has come a long way to the right side of politics. Perhaps you reach out to him to see if would care to restate, rescind, or amend his comments? It’s been several years since then, let’s see what he has to say now, now that we know such disarmament endeavors do not work.
What say you?
In his recent book, “Things that Matter”, published in Oct 2013, one of the essays was on Newtown, and he was still right there, saying the only thing wrong with proposed gun control at that point was that it would not do anything positive until firearms were prohibited and confiscated from everybody. He has not changed his mind in the least about confiscation, just tactics, and he does not apologize for it, bless his honorable little heart. Inviting him to debate might be more useful.
Saying that confiscation was the way to go to prevent any further Newtowns doesn’t mean he was literally calling for that, just saying that that is the only real way to stop it. Sort of like if I say that we could stop drunk driving if we outlaw alcohol (and could actually enforce the ban). Doesn’t mean I’m arguing that we should.
The *only* stance he has advocated is universal confiscation as an end result. Pretending something like “maybe he doesn’t really mean it” is not productive. This is several decades, now. Give him some slack, he can be wrong now and then! He will not be coming for our guns.
This isn’t the only time he’s spoken about 2nd amendment rights. In short, he believes that anything short of gun confiscation will be ineffectual. He’s no different now than he was: it’s why I no longer watch him on TV or read his stuff.
He is a neocon, spawned from a Bolshevik subset. Don’t be surprised…
Trolling for commentaries from 20 years ago to ‘run interference’ for democrats? Pretty sure there are more relevant things to talk about.
Dr. K has a realpolitik gene. He’s can be convinced by “and then what” arguments.
He’s also prone to using words that mean what he’s trying to mean. As such he’s a useful addition to the discussion.
– Yes, it’s about disarming the citizenry.
– And then what happens?
– How do you know that?
If he’s so keen to blame crime and violence on guns, I have to wonder if he blames the swimming pool for his paralysis.
Krauthammer has struck me as of late as much more pro-gun rights. He understands that the term “assault weapons” is nonsense and he was also critical of Obama’s nominating that doctor to be Surgeon General because said doctor believes that guns are a public health issue. Krauthammer does argue that disarming the society could work to reduce gun violence, but he hasn’t been arguing in favor of that as far as I can tell.
I would also add that not all conservatives recognize the concept of civilian possession of arms in society, unfortunately, and require some coming around on the subject given the myriad misconceptions that abound. Jack Kemp was a conservative, but called for a ban on semiautomatics. Ronald Reagan called for an assault weapons ban. And legendary conservative Margaret Thatcher of England put into place a gun ban there. So that Krauthammer called for gun confiscation originally doesn’t at all surprise me at all. The question is, did he evolve, which I believe he has.
It is really rather amazing, IMO, how much cluelessness abounds about the subject of arms, Thomas Jefferson said that the four major influences on the founding of the country were Aristotle, Cicero, Algernon Sidney, and John Locke. All four believed in the right of a people to resist tyranny, and at least three of them (Cicero, Sidney, and Locke) believed in an individual right to self-defense, from which the right to resist tyranny was derived. What is interesting is that in all the education about the fundamental ideas of society that we got from the Greeks and the Romans, the importance of the right to resist tyranny and the possession of arms by the people is never mentioned. One would think that educated conservatives in particular would at least be familiar with these concepts.
Krauthammer was a liberal before he started calling himself a Conservative. He worked for the Walter Mondale campaign for crying out loud. Another beltway elitist neo CON, because all these talking heads are just a con job. FOX isnt a Conservative outlet, just a bunch of RINOs calling themselves Conservative.
Yes, but then he changed and moved away from liberalism because he realized what a fallacy it is in so many ways. He himself has said that he was your standard New Deal liberal in his youth. He moved away from liberalism to conservatism as the results of liberalism really began to be studied in the 1970s, which was a time when almost all central liberal tenets came under academic attack. And then there was of course the success of the Reagan presidency.
And so did several other “conservatives” who realized that the DNC wasn’t going to be anything other than a fair-weather friend to Israel.
So these erstwhile liberals (and some red-diaper babies) decided that they had to break bread with conservatives in order to co-opt conservative/Republican foreign policy in pursuit of a pro-Israel foreign policy. They often became agnostic on the domestic politics of candidates they backed, so long as the candidate(s) supported the foreign policy goals with respect to Israel. When they do open their mouths about domestic US political issues (eg, gun control), we see their former leftist or flat-out socialist pedigree exposed for all to see.
These sorts of people were called out (or self-confessed) as “neo-conservatives” in the 1970’s. Irving Kristol and Norman Podhoretz. The magazine published by Podohoretz, Commentary shifted over time from being a rather left-of-center journal of lefty Jewish intellectual thought to a neo-conservative journal.
Krauthammer fits the mold of a neo-con pretty well.
A good book to see about the evolution of the neo-conservative movement is: “Prodigal Sons: The New York Intellectuals and Their World,” by Alexander Bloom.
There is a saying, that a neoconservative is a liberal who has been mugged by reality. But you are incorrect in your claim that only neoconservatives have been for gun control. Ronald Reagan supported an assault weapons ban. So did Jack Kemp. And not all neoconservatives are Jews, nor is it just neoconservatives who support Israel. Support for Israel is a major component of the GOP period, because of the influence of the Evangelicals, for whom support for Israel is very important, and the Evangelicals are not exactly what you would describe as neoconservative.
From an atheistic standpoint, I would say the support for Israel is also just a proper position, as Israel is the only liberal democracy in the Middle East and a U.S. ally. Why would we not provide support for a fellow free society? It isn’t so much that the GOP or neoconservatives want the U.S. to have a “pro-Israel” foreign policy but rather that the Democrats and much of the rest of the world, in particular the left-wing of the world, have an anti-Israel foreign policy, much of it being due to anti-Semitism on their part.
FLAME DELETED Reagan was the prototypical “neocon”. A whole lotta blather about “freedom’ and “small gov” and “cutting taxes” while doing exactly the opposite. “Call the astrologer Nancy”. That senile piece of chit had no business near anything more complex that the remote for the TV.
Reagan was one of the worst Presidents we’ve ever had. Doubling the National Debt, growing government, and cutting taxes for those who can afford to pay them is most certainly a neo (new) con (exactly).
I’m going to come at this from the side of politics, rather than guns, despite the location of this forum.
Krauthammer is a commentator whose policy bona fides and abilities are apparent to all who listen. He is a convincing figure. He dispassionately analyzes situations and points out hippocracy on both sides, and seems to be a good man.
But he’s wrong on one very important issue.
Is he worth throwing over the side when he can do so much good when he happens to be dead wrong about one thing? If we only let people be our friends when they align with us completely, we’re going to have awful thin ranks.
If he were an outspoken opponent of the PotG, it would be a different story, but this is the first I’m hearing about it.
Am I way off base?
I never understood why anybody would think he is the least bit conservative. Listen to his words. I used to watch some of those channel 9 (PBS) shows to see what the other party thought about things when he was a stalwart on those shows. Very little has changed except he is trying to look more balanced these days. Listen carefully. He looks like he is criticizing democrats and others but it is only on superficial stuff. He believes in everything they want to do. He’s just disappointed that they aren’t more effective at it.
I’ll leave it to others to chase down whether a nearly 20 year old statement still reflects his actual thoughts on the matter.
Nobody gets everything right, but I will tell you that Charles Krauthammer wrote an article a while back that is CRITICAL to understanding the basis of the ideological war we are engaged in today across the spectrum: from gun-rights, to abortion, to government entitlements, even the war on terror. EVERY aspect of our modern society can find roots in this one fundamental observation.
You would do well to commit this one short sentence to memory, and pull it out and measure every issue that you encounter by it. You will very quickly gain new understanding and new insight, and with these, new countermeasures to bring to bear against those who see things from “the other side,” and need to be corrected.
“To understand the workings of American politics, you have to understand this fundamental law:
Conservatives think liberals are stupid. Liberals think conservatives are evil.”
That’s it. It really is THAT simple! This is why liberals do not compromise, and assume it to be a matter of course when conservatives are forced to compromise. They see themselves as occupying the high road in all ideological matters. This is why they have no problem with lying and falsifying stats to support the furtherance of gun-control. This is why they have no ethical bounds on fighting for any issue, they see their “ends” as a justification to ANY “means” necessary to achieve those “ends.” Those who oppose them are the “evil” ones, so there is no need to constrain themselves to ethical behavior.
What Krauthammer misses is to go on to the next step and point out that not only is the assumption incorrect, it is the OPPOSITE that is actually more true. But that is another debate altogether.
http://townhall.com/columnists/charleskrauthammer/2002/07/26/stupid_vs_evil/page/full
Kraut’s always been more sensible when it comes to geopolitical foreign policy stuff, but that’s a different ballgame than domestic policy. There is no constitution that the world operates under, and it really does come down to supporting those favorable to you, and cutting off at the knees (or neck) those who oppose you. Understanding who is an implacable foreign foe who cannot be reasoned with and must be destroyed, vs. a neighbor you ultimately will still have to live next door to at the end of the day, regardless of your differences.
He’s very much a statist, like so many other beltway conservatives, which is fine for certain areas of policy. Domestic policy, and gun policy in particular, is not constitutionally-compatible with a statist worldview. On the other hand, in foreign policy, it is critical that our state remain supreme, or we are negotiating surrender (Kraut’s right on one of the two, Obama is more backwards on both than any politician we’ve yet seen)
“If you are 20 and not Liberal, you have no heart. If you’re not a Conservative at 30, you have no head”.
Liberals are idiots.
I’m with you RF. Take a gander at his Wiki page. Yeah people change-they get worse. Like all of you Trump guys-I want someone consistent with his statements about 2A. Especially a guy in his 60’s with a long record of public discourse. Oddly both Mr. K and the Donald(who hate each other) have that-and it ain’t good. About guns or baby murder…
Well, if I wasn’t physically able to defend myself with a firearm, or any other way, my best bet would probably be making sure no one else could, either. I’m sure he also secretly wishes everyone else was paralyzed, since will never not be.
I really try not to pay too much attention to Charles Krauthammer and other idiotic political pundits. Quite frankly, I can think for myself.
Google is your friend.
Here is Krauthammer on gun control- only a few weeks ago-
its pretty clear he is NOT advocating for confiscation:
http://www.contracostatimes.com/opinion/ci_28946268/charles-krauthammer-confiscation-only-real-gun-control-and
Krauthammer argues from a base of reason, using logic, on the facts- for that approach he is invaluable,
as that is what converts the un-decided, or the intelligent but as yet un-informed voters in the middle, to civil rights advocates of freedom of speech, and freedom from tyrranical governmtents, through individual gun ownership for self-defence.
http://dailycaller.com/2013/01/09/krauthammer-unconstitutional-gun-confiscation-would-cause-insurrection-in-the-country/
foo dog, I read the articles to which you provided links. In them, Krauthammer said two things:
(1) Anything short of complete confiscation will be ineffective. I can’t tell whether he means a legal ban, which would affect some number of law abiding citizens but not criminals, or actual collection of nearly all firearms, which would be an unfeasible task.
(2) The 2nd Amendment and popular opinion make either of the above impossible.
Neither one is a ringing endorsement of private ownership of firearms.
This ugly Jewluminati slime is hiding his true intent.
Hey, thanks for the slam against Jews. I feel better now that your view has been made public.
Charles, say it ain’t so!
Krauthammer has never changed his position from that 1996 article, he’s only gotten more clever about how states his position. He understands that his fan base is mostly conservative, and writes his articles with that in mind. If you Krauthammer apologists pay attention in every single article he writes… he plants the seeds, and makes the point, that in order for gun violence to stop, ALL guns must be banned. “Australian style gun control”. He says things to throw people off like “It will never happen”, or “we have the 2nd Amendment”. If you do a Google search, he is on record of saying that there “Needs to be an honest debate about repealing the 2nd Amendment”. Do your research people, and read between the lines. Krauthammer is the enemy, planting seeds of gun control in every article he writes.
Comments are closed.