Neocon TV Personality: Disarm the Citizenry

Has Charles Krauthammer, who tells us Ron Paul and his budget are terrible and “extreme,” revised his position on this? From “Disarm the Citizenry, But Not Yet,” Washington Post, April 5, 1996 (with thanks to J.M.):

Ultimately, a civilized society must disarm its citizenry if it is to have a modicum of domestic tranquility of the kind enjoyed in sister democracies like Canada and Britain….

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….

Yes, in the end America must follow the way of other democracies and disarm.

Share this post:Digg thisShare on FacebookGoogle+Share on LinkedInPin on PinterestShare on StumbleUponTweet about this on Twitter
  • Freetexas

    All KRAUThammer needs is a white fluffy cat to stroke.

  • Chris5191973

    Ron Paul should have confronted the Kraut with this when on Brett Baier.
    Big government is nearly triumphant.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000045369027 Derek Roman

    Frankenstein went as KRAUThammer for Halloween…

  • http://www.facebook.com/gviaud George Viaud

    You’re gonna have to pry them from my cold, dead hands… and I’m not alone in this sentiment.

  • http://www.facebook.com/gviaud George Viaud

    You’re gonna have to pry them from my cold, dead hands… and I’m not alone in this sentiment.

  • Will Taylor

    Wow, What an asshole.

  • Jehtrotulligan

    That link just got websense’d for “militancy and extremism”

  • http://tomwoods.com Tom Woods

    All Jethrotulligans are very much welcome here, btw.

  • SRG

    To me, this article is VERY revealing.

    I have no idea if CK has recanted this position but I think it is an EXCELLENT example of the problem with the mainstream Republican party, at least since George Bush, the Elder. These ‘neo-cons’ or RINOs seem to have NO IDEA that America is a Constitutional Republic, at least they forget it when they disagree with the result dictated by the Constitution.  The overriding principle espoused by BOTH parties today is that they will give the public whatever it wants (check a poll before you do anything!) in order to get/retain power with NO REGARD for the Constitution.Most of the ‘ordinary people’ I meet and talk with are exactly like this (“I want what I want”) and have no idea what the Constitution says so it works well for politicians who polarize people and pander to their side.  It’s a pipe dream, I know, but people need to wake up and realize that the country will not last if we just give whatever group has the most votes whatever they want at the moment.  Does anyone reading this really LIKE the direction the country is moving?  Do you really approve of the so-called leadership you’ve seen over the last few decades?  If not, then why keep voting for people who offer more of the same?  Good God, a recent poll showed Hillary was more popular than anyone.  WTH????  Do we NEVER learn????It simply doesn’t matter what you, I or anyone else thinks about all these issues such as gun control.  The issue is resolved by the US Constitution which, in this case, clearly states:”A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.”I didn’t make that up.  It’s a direct quote.  Read it and ask yourself:  Is it Constitutional for Congress to pass a law that limits people’s ability to keep and bear guns?  I’m not trying to trick anyone and I’m not a gun nut at all.  But, I CAN read English and I’ve studied the Constitution and the law (I’m a lawyer). Just use your common sense and English skills and it’s plain that federal gun laws that restrict one’s ability to keep or bear a weapon are unconstitutional.  If you disagree with that premise, fine, go ahead and seek a Constitutional amendment.  But you can’t honestly just IGNORE it as Krauthammer does in this article (or try to honestly argue that the opening explanatory phrase somehow changes the meaning as so many liberals assert when faced with the plain meaning).Notice that Krauthammer doesn’t even mention the Constitution and the reasons for the 2nd amendment. “Fair and Balanced” my a$$…If anyone on this blog is thinking about supporting people like Romney (what a joke!) and all the other Big Government, so-called Republicans, this should wake you up.  Without the Constitution as the guide, all we have is the whim of the latest mob.  Will you be with the IN CROWD this time?  What if you’re not and The Man comes for you?  What is there to protect you if you’ve flushed the Constitution down the toilet?As far as I can tell, only Paul and Bachmann even mention the Constitution, let alone try to read and understand it.  It further appears the Democratic Party doesn’t even know it exists!

  • Daniel Brooks

    Man, and people say I’m paranoid when I tell them the real reason for criminalizing the possession of so-called “assault” weapons is to set the ball in motion for the repeal of the second amendment and the relinquishment of all our firearms. And here this guy just comes out and says it.

  • Bharat

    That guy gives me the creeps =/. Then he goes and says creepy stuff and just makes my impression of him even worse.

  • Bharat

    That guy gives me the creeps =/. Then he goes and says creepy stuff and just makes my impression of him even worse.

  • http://www.facebook.com/michael.r.pomroy Michael Ross Pomroy

    In the last year households containing firearms has increased from 41% to 47%. Go ahead. Try to disarm the citizens. Now more weapons than citizens in this country.

  • http://www.facebook.com/michael.r.pomroy Michael Ross Pomroy

    In the last year households containing firearms has increased from 41% to 47%. Go ahead. Try to disarm the citizens. Now more weapons than citizens in this country.

  • jabgdn

    Krauthammer has always reminded me of a talking cigar store indian (in a suit and tie instead of buckskins and headdress). 

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_FRKHHLXVH66YAA4YMWDA2ACZ6U Joseph

    Isn’t this the same guy that I see on the ‘McLaughlin group?  
    Somehow I believe that this article is in response to the current dynamic, that the people are stepping up and saying “no more”.  Sure, not everybody is on the same page with regard to what they are protesting, but they are asserting their power as the people (which is something I will always support).  

    I stated a while ago in an article published on LRC that as the people stand up and assert their authority and power over the state, the more that the state will clamp down on the people and see the people as the enemy.  We are seeing this already in many facets of life, but most recently in the OWS crackdowns (esp. Oakland and Denver).  As has been the case throughout history, as the rest of the population sees just how brutal the state can be to its subjects the more that the rest of the population will stand with the people.  

    This collectivist/statist of the neo-con persuasion thinks that the 2nd amendment has to do with hunting or some “frontier” mentality.  This is ludicrous!  The entire purpose of the 2nd amendment (other than personal protection) is so that the people can fight back when the state unleashes its tyranny.  Unfortunately, I think that more and more people are going to come to this realization.  

  • Paddy88

    Neo-Con, New Democrat, whatever…..  These fools are tools of the men behind the curtain, and these people can probably be identified by ascertaining who holds title to the most land property rights. The Queen of England is a good place to start.

  • Roy

    I’d like to pick Krauthammer up by his colostomy and give him another dive into the shallow end of the pool.

  • Anonymous

    I think you mistake Charles Krauthammer or give him too much credit.  You think he doesn’t understand the US Constitution.  I think he does not believe in it. 

  • SRG

    Yes, you are probably right…

  • http://twitter.com/Spiff John Saxton

    Has Lew Rockwell ever repudiated his position — which he got published in the L.A. Times in 1991 after the Rodney King beating — that government thugs in costumes and badges should literally beat the time preference out of street criminals? http://articles.latimes.com/1991-03-10/opinion/op-178_1_safe-streets

  • http://tomwoods.com Tom Woods

    I guess you haven’t seen the 11,744 items on police brutality on his blog over the past 20 years, since the time he adopted Walter Williams’ position on Rodney King.

    Where is Krauthammer’s similar record of publication?

  • purple_persuader

    Paragraphs buddy.

  • http://www.facebook.com/idiotproof53 Scott Ward

    Priceless….um….NOT.  600 + FEMA camps = 300,000,000 US citizens’ arrests/permanent detainment.

    They can try to take our guns away in the south…..never ever relinquish your weapon. Actually, the camps are sitting idle or empty at this juncture…. but I wouldn’t hold my breath. You don’t think the elite, neo-cons have all this planned? They have the army-style vehicles in place… The SS and the Police State, Gustapo are in place.

     Although, Our 2nd amendment rights are intact for the moment…..let the good Americans with common sense be the judge. I’m just sayin’ as a retired US Navy guy that has studied for over 20 years and concluded, we the people can fight back, if only most of us will. “All we need for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.”  Good Luck and Godspeed.

                                                                                                                                      

  • Audacityofpope

    If they try to take our guns we will reclaim them from their cold dead hands.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Ken-MacMillan/683031628 Ken MacMillan

    He’s on Freedom Watch right now denouncing the militarism of the police. 10/31/11

  • http://twitter.com/AnonymousHench Bruno Tata

    Shocking, yet in a way not so much.

    He knows that a “democracy” is not the same as a constitutional republic, so assuming he wants a democracy, he knows you have disarm the people to achieve it.  An armed populace would be able to resist attempts to plunder their wealth when it’s taken to its normal extreme conclusion (see Zimbabwe, etc).

    Charles lost my respect.

  • SRG

    Hi PP
      Sorry!  I had the paragraphs in there but they disappeared when I posted.  Guess I’ll try DOUBLE paragraphs next time…

  • http://twitter.com/AnonymousHench Bruno Tata

    I liked that approach.   Sure it was abused, but vs the abuse metted out by welfare state created monsters, I doubt it’s even close to as bad.    Life isn’t a court room.  When your kid gets mowed down by a fleeing felon in a high speed chase who cares not what happens when he drives crazily,  I doubt you’d have a problem if they’d have just shot the guy’s car to pieces first.

  • Anonymous

    I had a fairly pointless internet argument with a National Guardsman who claimed that both the 2nd amendment wasn’t meant for individuals and militias were illegal. Normally I would pawn him off as a complete crank, but this is an active military member after all. I mentioned the Storming of the Bastille during the French Revolution and all that, but ended with “So if what you say is true, what is the purpose and justification of the 2nd amendment?” to which he has not replied. It is scary to think that even some of our service members are taking this Himmler slant to firearm ownership.

  • neocontrotsky

    Wow.  This is great.  Thanks for posting this!  I think we should do our best to make this go viral.  Everyone should email this to their friends, post it on discussion forums, post it in response to media articles, etc.  This neo-con clown is one of the worst at attacking Ron Paul, especially with the “if Iran gets a nuke 6 million Jews will die” crap he pulled the other day.  He certainly influences people watching Foxnews, but what if they were made aware of his views on firearms?  I would like to see a guest on Foxnews or a youtube reporter type confront him on video about his views just to see his reaction.

    I think it would help destroy the credibility of Foxnews and him while helping put the views of both neo-cons and Ron Paul in perspective.  Ron Paul is the guy who wants us out of the UN so no anti-gun treaties can affect us, never voted for an anti-gun law, and has called for abolishing the ATF.  Krauthammer is the character who just about 15 years ago called for the eventual confiscation of ALL firearms held in private hands!  How much more extreme can one get?

    Oh, and others already posted this, but this is indeed proof that “assault weapon” bans have nothing to do with crime, but everything to do with psychologically conditioning the people to give up their firearms and allow the government to have a monopoly on force.  I have looked on FBI.gov at the stats, and in 2010 under the category of “rifles” less than 3% of the total murders were committed by a rifle.  Over twice as many were stabbed to death, and more people were beaten to death with fists than killed with a rifle!  What more proof could one need that the push against the misnamed “assault weapons” is nothing more than anti-gun fascist propaganda?

    Let’s make this go viral!

  • neocontrotsky

    As I am sure many on this blog already know, assault weapons are capable of firing on full auto.  None of the firearms in the AWB or what the media refer to are assault weapons because they are all semi-auto.

  • neocontrotsky

    I also forgot to mention that I just read on CBSnews.com a clearly disappointed reporter referencing that now for the first time ever, a majority polled are against banning “assault weapons.” 

    http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-500202_162-20126950/poll-most-oppose-assault-weapon-ban/?tag=contentBody;cbsCarousel

  • neocontrotsky

    I don’t think a day goes by on Lewrockwell.com without attacking the out of control police.

  • neocontrotsky

    Krauthammer wrote this back in 1996 when it looked as if the anti-gun fascists had won the debate.  I would almost guarantee he backtracks now that even in polling a majority of americans are against banning “assault weapons,” but it would be interesting to see him squirm and come up with excuses for wanting ALL firearms owned by citizens confiscated.

  • neocontrotsky

    Agreed.  Maybe he will next time, or maybe someone else will if we can get this article by Woods viral and spread all over the internet.

  • Jpys

    As well he should denounce police state actions and the terrorist government we now have.  Read the Constitution which ALL police AND military take an oath to obey and defend.  

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_XXUI2U5IPS7IABBMSM4I27BYDA chris

    Charles Krauthammer:
    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0509/22743.html
    Dorian Tyrell in The Mask:
    http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?309055-So-When-You-Look-At-Governor-Perry…

    Coincidence?

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_XXUI2U5IPS7IABBMSM4I27BYDA chris

    My semi-auto shotgun was on the assauly ban simply becasue it can accept a high capacity magizine.

    Also, I am almost 100% sure my semi-auto AK-47 was on the banned list just because it LOOKS like a full auto.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_XXUI2U5IPS7IABBMSM4I27BYDA chris

    Wasn’t Krauthammer against Reagan, as well?  Wasn’t he in the George Will camp for GHW Bush?

  • Billymartinez

    What a load of crap I am sure those people over in jolly old democratic England were so pleased they didn’t have guns when rioting looters killed them in the streets and all their neighbors could do was watch in fesr from their window. Being civilized is a state of being not depending on what weaponry you own to defend your home and family.

  • http://twitter.com/Spiff John Saxton

    So in your mind the evil effects of the welfare state justify the creation of the police state? Talk about the cure being worse than the disease…

  • Dr. Tom

    “Yes, in the end America must follow the way of other democracies and disarm.”  The problem is, Charles, that the democracies that do disarm are left defenseless against their own governments, which can very quickly abolish their constitutions and usher in a totalitarian tyranny.  In fact, I honestly believe that if the antifederalists were alive today, they would have specified that the government shall have no technological advantage in armaments over the People – whatever the government may have, through the priviledges we give it, so shall we have by pre-constitutional right of sovereignty.

  • http://twitter.com/lewfalo lewfalo

    I still get great pleasure in watching him on TV struggling to breathe in between each sentence of his worthless comments.