Look Who’s Mocking Fascist Fear-Mongering Now

Is it really so outrageous to believe the government of the United States is capable of tyranny?

One of the arguments we’re hearing in the current debate about gun control is what might be called the anti-anti-tyranny argument. Coming from liberals, it’s a little rich.

Some gun-rights supporters say the Second Amendment’s purpose is not merely to protect the right to hunt or defend yourself, but to guard against oppression. “The purpose of having citizens armed with paramilitary weapons,” writes Kevin Williamson in National Review, “is to allow them to engage in paramilitary actions.” Fox News analyst Andrew Napolitano likewise argues that the Second Amendment protects “your right to shoot tyrants if they take over the government.”

The history of the founding and the language of the rest of the Bill of Rights suggests they have a point. (Though not the whole point. One reason the founders wanted people to be armed is so they could put down insurrections, not just start them.)

But many progressives say this is just plain nuts. To Charles Blow of The New York Times, the rise of “so-called patriot groups” who think such things is evidence of “paranoia by people who have lost their grip on the reins of power, and reality.” To Josh Horwitz of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, it’s part of a dangerously radical “insurrectionist” movement. To Eric Boehlert of Media Matters, the idea that Americans might need weapons to fight a “war with the government” is one of conservatives’ “paranoid fantasies.”

Paul Waldman of the American Prospect agrees. In a piece for CNN on how “The NRA’s Paranoid Fantasy Flouts Democracy,” he says the conservative media encourage listeners to view the Obama administration as “the very definition of dictatorship. ... [M]any would say that their ‘right’ to own any and every kind of firearm they please is the only thing that guarantees that tyranny won’t come to the United States. Well, guess what: They’re wrong.”

No doubt the gun-rights group has a fringe element, exemplified by those who think the Sandy Hook massacre was orchestrated as part of a plot to disarm America. But it’s worth pausing to ask: Is it really so outrageous to believe the government of the United States is capable of tyranny?

Not to Naomi Wolf, it isn’t. Back in 2007, the author and political activist wrote an essay on “Fascist America, in 10 Easy Steps.” She noted that the leaders of a recent military coup in Thailand had followed certain clear procedures—and she insisted the Bush administration was following those very same procedures. “Beneath our very noses, George Bush and his administration are using time-tested tactics to close down an open society,” Wolf warned. “It is time for us to be willing to think the unthinkable.”

The essay was widely circulated, and its popularity led Wolf to expand it into a book, titled The End of America: Letter of Warning to a Young Patriot. (That young patriot presumably is the good kind of patriot—not the kind who joins “so-called patriot groups.”)

Wolf had lots of company. MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann dedicated a “special comment” to calling Bush a fascist: “You’re a fascist!” he bellowed in his usual understated style. “Get them to print you a T-shirt with ‘fascist’ on it!”

Not everyone was so emphatic. Robert Paxton, a history professor at Columbia and the author of The Anatomy of Fascism, conceded during Bush’s first term that “Obviously, the ... administration is not a fully fascist regime with a single party, an end to elections and the setting aside of rule of law.” But, he continued, “you can make up a list of similarities and differences.” How very nuanced.

This sort of talk continued even after Bush left office. In a 2009 piece for the Los Angeles Times, columnist Tim Rutten called for a citizen commission to investigate the administration. “Just how close to the brink of executive tyranny did the United States come in the panic that swept George W. Bush’s administration after 9/11?” he asked. “The answer, it now seems clear, is that we came far closer than even staunch critics of the White House believed.”

These are not basement conspiracy theorists scribbling in the dark corners of the Internet. They are famous and highly regarded thinkers speaking from respected institutional platforms. And their views were echoed by countless thousands of lesser-known liberals sporting “Bushitler” protest signs and bumper stickers.

All of which permits only two possible conclusions. The first is that progressives knew even then, deep down, they were peddling wildly implausible paranoid fantasies—just as they accuse right-wing “insurrectionists” of doing now. If so, then they should admit as much.

The second possibility? Many progressives genuinely believed, only a few years ago, that the United States really did stand in the dusky shadow of a totalitarian nightmare. Yet now they insist that Americans who want to arm against that eventuality are paranoid nut jobs. That might be politically convenient—but it doesn’t make much sense.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Hugh Akston||

    Barton, you just don't get it. This guy is from TEAM BLUE. It's totes different when he does it because he does it out of love.

  • LemonMender||

    Just like he feels really, really bad before he orders the drones to vaporize children. But Bush, even if he did it less, was teh evil because he liked it…

  • John||

    He is only doing it because if he didn't, the evil rethuglicans might be mean to him. They leave him no choice.

  • DarrenM||

    vaporize children

    It's for their own good doncha know.

  • Muzzle of Bees||

    I mean, they were living next to TERRORISTZZ!!!1!

    Really, we were doing them a favor.

  • Peabo||

    Good stuff. I wish it wasn't so close to what I actually hear his supporters say.

  • Jordan||

    Ten years ago, if you had predicted that the government would assert the ability to kill or indefinitely detain Americans without trial, you would have been called a paranoid nutjob.

    In light of the FISA Amendmments Act, the PATRIOT Act, and the NDAA, you'd have to be insane to trust the government. Not only that, but the NDAA passed with almost no controversy. Meanwhile, Rand Paul's attempt to reinstate the Fourth Amendment was soundly defeated.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Better make that 12 years ago, since PATRIOT was already law ten years ago.

  • Jordan||

    I think the NDAA would still have been controversial back then. The PATRIOT Act was very controversial, was it not?

  • Rich||

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    It passed 98-1 in the Senate. So, no.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Though of course, much of the PATRIOT Act was written by the Clinton DOJ back in the late 90s, but stonewalled by the GOP Congress. Ironically, one of the strongest opponents in Congress was Sen. John Ashcroft.

  • robc||

    Ironically

    Going Alanis on us?

    Ashcroft, despite his faults, was a friend of strong crypto and didnt last long in the Bush admin, mainly, IMO, because he was neither a yes-man nor a neocon.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Not a single court in America has validated any of the charges of violations of Constitutional rights in connection with the Patriot Act.

    And so the charges of the hysterics are revealed for what they are: castles in the air. Built on misrepresentation. Supported by unfounded fear. Held aloft by hysteria.

    On this and every other tool provided in the Patriot Act, charges of abuse of power are ghosts, unsupported by fact or example.

    [...]

    If tools like these have worked against gangsters, drug king pins and murderers, then why shouldn't we use them against terrorists?

    We should. And that's why Congress passed the Patriot Act by a wide margin... to give law enforcement the same tools and the same capabilities to prevent terrorism that we have used to combat other forms of crime.

    With the tough tools provided by Congress in the Patriot Act, we have dismantled terrorist cells in New York, Michigan, Washington State, Oregon and North Carolina. We have brought criminal charges against 262 individuals. 143 have been convicted or pled guilty, including shoe-bomber Richard Reid and American Taliban John Walker Lindh. All told, two-thirds of al Qaeda's leadership is either in custody or dead. And most importantly, there has been no major terrorist attack on American soil for over two years.
  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    Yeah, what could be unconstitutional about indefinitely holding US citizens without charges.

  • DarrenM||

    give law enforcement the same tools and the same capabilities to prevent terrorism that we have used to combat other forms of crime

    Just charge all terrorists with tax evasion and sick the IRS on them. Problem solved.

  • Jeremy H.||

    Really? "Not a single court"?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H.....challenges

    American Civil Liberties Union v. Ashcroft

    Humanitarian Law Project v. Ashcroft

    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09.....ef=us&_r=0

  • Jordan||

    I meant public opinion. Still pretty acquiescent though.

  • sarcasmic||

    That might be politically convenient—but it doesn’t make much sense.

    Emotion doesn't have to make sense or be consistent. They have an emotional reaction to Bush, so he must be a fascist. They have an emotional reaction to people who believe in armed self-defense, so they must be crazy.

    What happened to the war protesters?

    It's all about emotional reactions.

  • Finrod||

    The worst laws are usually passed because of emotional reactions.

  • Pro Libertate||

    When Bush was in power, they thought they might be in permanent minority status. Now they have the delusion that the left is permanently preeminent. They were wrong then, and they're wrong now. But their open lust for unlimited power is instructive.

  • John||

    All they need as a couple of real ass beatings at the ballot box and they will get real interested in civil liberties and the falling of the dark night of fascism again. God they are pathetic.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Well, the parties are entrenched. That might change, but far more likely is that we'll spring in the opposite direction when one party has clearly shown its ineptitude, corruption, what have you. That's how it's worked for a very long time now.

  • John||

    I have no doubt this is going to end in disaster for the Dems. Things are going to continue to get worse. Obama is going to go full retard leftist in the next two years ensuring another epic mid term beat down in 2014. Then as a lame duck facing a hostile Congress and more scandals and problems that you can count, Obama will continue to fuck up and do stupid things until finally some of the remaining Dems from Red States are forced to turn on him. Then the civil war will be on. He is going to leave the Party it tatters by 2016. Sadly, I think he might leave the country in the same condition.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    I'm not so sure. In 2016 another four years worth of blue dog Dems will have died off and been replaced with Generation Occupy.

  • John||

    But generation Occupy can't win outside of a few states. If their idea is to have a whole party of generation occupy, they had best be prepared to never hold Congress again.

  • Rich||

    No need for Congress anymore, thanks to modern legislation, czars, executive orders, etc.

  • Hyperion||

    they had best be prepared to never hold Congress again

    They don't care about congress. Their goal is total central authority by the federal government, by way of a dear leader. They want to eliminate congress.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Well, eliminate one kind of Congress and subsidize another kind of congress.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    But generation Occupy can't win outside of a few states.

    I agree. But Generation Occupy will reliably vote for the center-left authoritarians they're told to vote for in places like VA, NC, CO, PA, NH, where the older Dems who could have been driven away from their party by gun control and high taxes are dying off.

  • robc||

    Using my state as an example, over the last 20 years, the Blue Dogs have lost KY-1,2,4, and 6.

    KY-2 in 1994 (special election)
    KY-1 in 1994 (landslide)
    KY-4 in 2004
    KY-6 in 2012

    KY-5 has been GOP since well before I was born and KY-3 is the last D holdout, and Yarmuth! isnt a Blue Dog anyway.

    Both Tulpa and John are right, Blue Dogs are dead and the non-blue dog Ds cant win in their former areas.

  • Hyperion||

    Using my state as an example, over the last 20 years, the Blue Dogs have lost KY-1,2,4, and 6.

    If we go by the results for congress, then KY would be the most libertarian state in the union. Maybe 3 libertarian congress critters total, and 2 of them are from KY.

  • robc||

    If we go by the results for congress, then KY would be the most libertarian state in the union. Maybe 3 libertarian congress critters total, and 2 of them are from KY.

    The funny thing is, blue dogs tend to be the least libertarian members, and those were formerly blue dog areas.

    The Blue Dogs tend to vote with the Dems on economic issues and cross over the aisle on social issues. Worst of both worlds (except the hardcore leftists suck on both too).

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Are you going to vote against the Minority Leader in 2014, robc?

  • robc||

    Are you going to vote against the Minority Leader in 2014, robc?

    Depends who is on the ballot. Ive voted for McConnell exactly once in my life, IIRC (maybe twice, maybe).

    It was shortly after he switched his position on flag burning to a pro-A1 position, and there was no LP candidate on the ballot that cycle so I decided to reward his flip flop with a vote.

    6 years later I went back to voting for the .5% LP candidate.

  • Finrod||

    I've seen a lot of talk by conservatives of primarying McConnell.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Using my state as an example

    Cute. Now let's look at formerly Republican areas of CA, IL, and NY.

  • robc||

    Now let's look at formerly Republican areas

    Not sure what that has to do with Blue-Dogs.

  • ||

    I kept thinking what's the connection between KY the jelly and American politics and then I realized you meant Kentucky.

    As you were.

  • Hyperion||

    I wish I could share your enthusiasm, John. But I can't.

    The problem is, is that even if the GOP wins big in 2014, that will embolden their own fascists, aka McCain and Graham. Those two will be jumping up and down on the floor screaming 'scary terrorists are coming to get us, we need to take away more civil rights! Do you want the terrorists to win?!, The children!'.

    Both teams are comprised of fascist pigs, outside of Rand Paul and a few others. The pendulum keeps swinging back and forth, but each time it swings a little closer to tyranny.

  • John||

    I am not saying the GOP would make it all better. They wouldn't be worse. I am just saying that the Obama bender is going to end badly for Team Blue.

  • Hyperion||

    Well, I think we need to hope that it ends really badly for them at state level. I don't think we will ever have another GOP president, unless they outdo the Dems in getting the freeper vote, since that is what decides national level elections now.

  • John||

    That is a myth. It wasn't the freeper vote. It was basically people who don't pay a lot of attention to politics who voted for Obama because they didn't like Romney and thought Obama was a nice guy. It is really not complex. Enough people don't care that much about politics and generally vote by what the media tells them to flip the election.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Those reasons and they thought the shit wasn't bad enough to hit the ejection seat button. Bush won for similar reasons.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Enough people don't care that much about politics and generally vote by what the media tells them to flip the election.

    So you see the media becoming Republican in 2014 and 2016?

  • Loki||

    Enough people don't care that much about politics and generally vote by what the media tells them to flip the election.

    And the media will continue to flip elections for whichever prog-tard out prog-tards the rest of the democrap party every four years. So Hyperion is probably right in that we may never have another GOP president.

  • HellsBells||

    I'm going with Hyperion on this one. The progressives have managed to convince younger demographics that corporations are evil and the GOP wants to make you have babies against your will. The upper middle class seem to have enough money to start feeling guilty and worry about saving everyone else, the soccer moms all seem obsessed with "caring" politicians and then there is the entire portion who is addicted to the free handouts. All that plus the special interest groups, the seniors and the media bias tells me the GOP is a dead party.

  • ||

    Oh, yeah. The narrative has been lost. No doubt about it. The view on private life and interest is largely a negative one. Worse, it comes wiht a "of course we need private enterprise but..."

    We're screwed.

  • sarcasmic||

    The pendulum keeps swinging back and forth, but each time it swings a little closer to tyranny.

    With no incentive to repeal bad legislation, the logical conclusion of reacting to the consequences of bad legislation with more bad legislation is totalitarianism.

  • Finrod||

    Lindsay Graham is high on the list of Senators that conservatives would like to primary. They tried doing it to McCain last time but the leading candidate was sub-par plus McCain has a huge campaign warchest since he rarely has to seriously compete to win the general election.

  • Brendan||

    I can't of anything sweeter than the golden boy & lame duck president and some 'old guard' entrenched senators and representatives being the ones to destroy their party and/or seriously diminish its influence by ONCE AGAIN poking the bear that is gun control.

    When the dust settles, all those vulnerable, nonentrenched Democrats will lose their seats while Feinstein, Schumer, McCarty, Lautenberg, etc. will continue on without remorse or apology.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    I'm not sure they're wrong about being in majority status for the remainder of this political system's lifetime. If they didn't lose in 2012 I don't see how they can ever lose.

  • John||

    They didn't lose in 2012 because things are not nearly as bad as they are going to be and people love to vote for a black man. I doubt they will be able to run another black man in 2016 and even if they did I doubt it would have the affect it did.

    And even with Obmaa, they are not in majority status. They have a minority of governors and state houses and have one of the smallest minorities they have ever had in the House. And when you look at the numbers, there is a good chance they will lose the Senate in 14. There is more to government than the Presidency.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    There was a good chance the Dems would lose the Senate in 2012 but they gained a seat (thanks, Montana LP). Now matters are worse. The GOP needs to basically run the table on the seats in play in 2014 in order to get 51 votes in the Senate.

    And things were pretty damned bad in 2012; the voters blamed the GOP. How will that not work next time?

  • John||

    They don't need to run the table to take the Senate. There are many more Dems up for re-election. And voters didn't blame the GOP, they re-elected them to t he House. 2012 was a low information voter turnout election. That was the difference. And the low information voters almost never turn up in off year. Meanwhile, thanks to gun control, Obama has ensured a high turnout among the right. It is going to be a 2010 level disaster for the Dems.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    They need 6 seats, assuming they hold onto all their own. And if the KY and MT libertarian wing throws a temper tantrum like MT did in 2012, and Susan Collins retires, the GOP would lose two seats, fail to pick up MT, and now need to pick up 8 others.

    Vulnerable Dem seats: Pryor (AR), M. Udall (CO), Landrieu (LA), Johnson (SD), Rockefeller (WV), Merkley (OR)

    Possibly competitive Dem seats: Warner (VA), Hagan (NC), T. Udall (NM), Shaheen (NH), Franken (MN)

  • robc||

    If the KY libertarian wing throws a tantrum and somehow defeats Mitch in the primary, they will win the general too.

    Dems are scrambling to find a sacrificial lamb for that election.

    And McConnell hired Rand's campaign director as an attempt to appeal to that wing to prevent just that.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Winning a primary is harder than throwing the general. Look at Montana in 2012.

  • robc||

    Winning a primary is harder than throwing the general.

    Look at the last KY senate race or the KY-4 race in 2012. The KY strategy is to win the primaries. And Paul/Massie didnt have much trouble. It aint that hard to win a primary.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    From what I understand, Massie had weak opponents... and Paul's opponents didn't have the advantages of incumbency, indead Minority Leadership, that McConnell does.

  • robc||

    I think they will wait for McConnell to retire, McConnell is shrewd, he isnt going to get primaried (or generaled, for that matter), which is why he hired Paul's campaign manager, to make sure he didnt get a primary challenge.

    However, McConnell supported Paul's opponent and the state GOP supported one of Massie's opponents. While neither was an incumbent, both Paul and Massie were fighting against the CHOSEN ONE.

    IMO, Massie will jump up to Senate and replace either Paul or McConnell, whichever comes open first (Presidency or retirement, respectively). If Paul decides to run for Prez in 2016, I could see him not running for reelection and Massie running for it. Then, if he loses Prez, running for McConnell's seat in 2020.

  • robc||

    Also, I dont know much about Massie's opponents, but Massie was Lewis county Judge-Exec, one of his opponents was Boone county Judge-Exec and the other was a state rep.

    Boone County is much larger than Lewis County, so that is a much bigger position. Boone Co has 118k population, so much bigger than a state rep district (40-45k) and much, much larger than the 14k size of Lewis Co.

  • ||

    Forget Landrieu. Her voters are freepers. They dont give a shit about anything else.

  • newshutz||

    If it were only to easy to spot the followers of Landrieu

  • free2booze||

    Things were bad in 2012, but the election wasn't far enough from the Bush years for the blame to fall solely on the left. I think people looked at the state of the nation in 2012, and didn't see it as any worse than it was at the end of 2008. That Bushphobia allowed many to rationalize giving Obama a second chance. The only chance the left has of surviving the coming shit storm, is by creating the illusion that the GOP is running the show.

  • Jeff||

    Two more years of the Obama malaise, and Dear Leader is not on the ballot? 2014 should be more like 2010 than 2012.

    IMO, the presidential election is less about the guys' (mostly identical) policies and more about electing the National Boyfriend. Pretty easy to see why Obama won that one.

  • Loki||

    the presidential election is less about the guys' (mostly identical) policies and more about electing the National Boyfriend

    Brings kind of a new connotation to the whole VOTE WITH YOUR LADIE PARTZ!!11!!! bullshit.

  • mr simple||

    They also won in 2012 because of the opposition. I'm not sure how you change that, though as it will always be the people who vote in primaries. It could be that better candidates don't like to run against incumbents, usually, but I'm not sure who else the Reps could run that would be good, from a liberty point of view, except Rand and it still might be a pipe dream to get the rank and file to accept him.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Who is the GOP going to run in 2016 who will do better than Romney.

    And don't say "anybody". I want a specific name.

    Rand Paul is an absolute NO, unless he converts to statism. The electorate will not vote for anyone who threatens to cut off the freebies. The worse things get the more true that becomes.

  • robc||

    Rand Paul

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    The clip where he says the CRA should be repealed will be on continuous loop 24/7 on every news stateion.

  • robc||

    The clip where he says the CRA should be repealed will be on continuous loop 24/7 on every news stateion.

    good.

  • robc||

    As I said all summer, Romney was making the same mistake as Kerry in 2004.

    Run a positive campaign. Kerry ran on "Anybody but Bush", Romney ran on "Anybody but Obama".

    Neither attracts votes.

    in 2016, that dynamic wont be in play.

    As much as people say Obama ran against Bush in 2012, he did also run on "Hope and Change" which was laughable, but at least it was a positive concept.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Any positive campaign that plays with this electorate would be something you and nearly everyone on this blog would be screaming "betrayal" over.

    They don't want what you're selling. Make peace with that -- you compromise or you lose.

  • robc||

    Not compromising is always winning.

  • ||

    Ru Paul.

  • Finrod||

    The GOP doesn't need someone to do better than Romney, because the Democrat bench is thin to the point of non-existent.

    Who are the Dems going to run? Joe Biden? The GOP would *love* to run against Crazy Uncle Joe. Hillary Clinton? I get the feeling she won't even want to run, since she's starting to approach Ronald Reagan's age and she doesn't have his stamina. Cuomo? Not after his gun-banning fiasco in New York.

  • mgd||

    Running against Biden would be as easy as running against, well, Obama. And you see how badly they fucked *that* up.

  • Pro Libertate||

    What? I don't see that at all. Things just weren't perceived as bad enough for people to turn on the incumbent. That's dumb, but that's the real issue. That, and the media loving their special president.

    I don't see the economy recovering until something is done to contain federal spending and government intervention in the market in general, so the blame will come sooner or later.

    Note that if Obama and his politics were truly popular, the House and the Senate would be firmly Democratic, as would the states.

    No, nothing much has changed, and the opposite of the Democrats remains the Republicans in most people's eyes.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Things just weren't perceived as bad enough for people to turn on the incumbent. That's dumb, but that's the real issue. That, and the media loving their special president.

    How is this going to change in future elections? Especially when the Dem candidate in 2016 won't be the incumbent?

    Things were really, really, really bad in 2012. You yourself were claiming for months that there was no plausible way for BO to win. The delusion necessary to think things weren't that bad in 2012 is going to be sufficient to cover up reality regardless of how bad it gets, and of course they can always blame the GOP.

  • Pro Libertate||

    You're absolutely right to call me out for being wrong in my predictions. But where I believe I failed was in thinking the poor economy was obvious to everyone. It wasn't. Clearly, things have to get a little worse.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    I was shocked by what happened too, so don't feel bad about the predictions.

    Unfortunately, delusion and misinformation covers a multitude of economic sins.

  • Pro Libertate||

    I think the pain has to be more tangible. Lots of the unemployed were still on unemployment, the stock market was propped up, etc. None of that, of course, is sustainable.

  • Radioactive||

    if you've got nothing to hide you've got nothing to worry about will justify just about any gummint intervention deemed required by our lords and masters whatever color they "vote" under.

  • Brett L||

    I'm hot for teacher! (The shooter in the picture.) Unless she's a better shot than I am.

  • sarcasmic||

    John wouldn't fuck her. She's too thin. He probably thinks she's a tranny.

  • John||

    She looks fine to me. But she has hips and an ass making her hideous to you no doubt.

  • sarcasmic||

    Yeah right, John. She weighs less than 200lbs, which makes her a tranny in your book.

  • John||

    Stop pretending. She is at least a size six. And that is a tubby for you. You think she is fat. Admit it.

  • sarcasmic||

    No way. That ass is size four. Just right.

  • John||

    Even if it is a four, it is not a zero. She is not anorexic and looks like a woman. Just admit it, she is not your type. NTTAWWT

  • Hyperion||

    If it doesn't have T&A, then what makes it a woman? Curves are good.

  • John||

    That is what I have been telling sarcasmic for years. Preach it Hyperion.

  • sarcasmic||

    Curves are good.

    Curves don't have to be huge to be appreciated.

  • Hyperion||

    Curves don't have to be huge to be appreciated.

    Who said they have to be huge?

  • sarcasmic||

    Who said they have to be huge?

    People like John who diss on slender women.

  • Hyperion||

    I don't much care for skinny women either, but I see some that are attractive. I just find that my head is more often turned by a curvy lady in tight jeans or skirt.

  • Killazontherun||

    Skinny with decent saddle bags, kind of my thang.

  • ||

    Skinny women with guns = fucking hot!

  • R C Dean||

    The guy in the black shirt is a hell of shot. (He's to the right of the tight jeans. Focus . . . focus . . .)

  • Spoonman.||

    He made a sad face on the target. That's amazing.

  • mr simple||

    She's from Florida. You might want to hold off judgement until you see a face. Any woman can have a good body, especially down there.

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    Back in the day, I got laid almost at will by targeting the "nice body, average face" set when the "nice body, nice face" targets didn't pan out. If I knew then what I knew now, I'd have started doing that even earlier.

  • Killazontherun||

    Youngsters, this^ in spades.

  • Briggie||

    Yes, this. Also go ugly early.

    From urban dictionary:


    The philosophical viewpoint which advocates the lowering of standards earlier in the process of courtship rather than later, believing it to be more efficient and ultimately more satisfying in the long run. While some see this as a disturbingly bleak prospect, proponents remind their detractors that "at least we're getting our jimmies waxed while you poor bastards are off beating your pud to Shirley Bassey records."
  • Finrod||

    This philosophy has been around for a long time:

    "If you want to be happy for the rest of your life / Never make a pretty woman your wife / So from my personal point of view / Get an ugly girl to marry you"

  • Jgalt1975||

    Isn't the relevant question whether any of the liberals who called Bush a fascist also called for stockpiling guns and ammunition? If they didn't (I can't think any beyond a few rappers and anonymous blog posters who did), then there isn't any hypocrisy in them criticizing conservatives today. You can certainly be concerned that the government is becoming totalitarian and still favor many types of gun control. (The popular uprisings that overthrew Communist governments in Eastern Europe, for example, generally didn't repeal gun control laws in those countries.)

  • R C Dean||

    They're not just mocking them for their guns. They're also mocking them for believing the US government could be authoritarian/repressive/fascist.

  • Tommy_Grand||

    No, that isn't the relevant question. The relevant question: do their current thoughts contradict what they expressed before Obama's election? If so, why? If some liberals reversed their stance on the possibility of U.S. tyranny due to love & support for the current President, it reveals that the argument was never based on principle. That some have never publically advocated buying guns does not diminish the hypocracy inherent in crying tyranny whenever the bad guy wins and dismissing the possibility of tyranny whenever the good guy wins.

  • GILMORE||

    Jgalt1975| 1.23.13 @ 10:56AM |#

    Isn't the relevant question whether any of the liberals who called Bush a fascist also called for stockpiling guns and ammunition?

    Uh. That doesn't even make any sense. I *agreed* with the people who criticised Bush for rendition, torture, DHS excesses, NSA 'wiretapping', et al. I didn't whinge about guns because Bush left the issue alone.

    What is notable NOW, is that all the 'progressives' who moaned about BusHitler and his pogrom, seem perfectly happy with his Drone Assassinations, interventions in the middle east, NDAA indefinite detention, his claim to have the right *to kill american citizens*, his continuation of excessive Executive Authority, his crony capitalism, etc. And they think people who *complain* are somehow 'dangerous', and constantly parody presidential critics as 'gun-crazy right-wingers' just because they want to retain the right to protect themselves.

    The short of it is that Liberals cried foul constantly under Bush, but then work 5X as fast in shredding the constitution once they get ahold of any power.

  • TheZeitgeist||

    If you remember, the chimpanzee-meme was a big thing with Bush too. Cartoonists would draw him with huge ears and lean jowly overbite, a wink-in-the-ink if not outright mockery like this: http://curezone.com/ig/i.asp?i=28731

    But nobody's going to jokingly hand The Clown a banana for obvious political-correctness reasons, are they? Shit, they get Diversity Panties all twisted up if a lesser primate is in an Obama cartoon as a third-person prop. So being amazed at a double-standard is to grasp the dissonance of a lefty. So what?

  • FucktheNannyState||

    ijjuts.Progressives just find it's easier to cling to stereotypes than to have a well researched stance on political matters. Do you ever notice once something becomes "fox news, redneck, anti-obama" in their minds that they immediately add it to the list of things to hate? Shallow and predictable. I feel sorry for the progressives who do not support gun control... Don't let your p.c leftist buddies find out you like guns, you'll be denounced.

    Armed with Reason, Logic, Facts, and a Gun

  • IceTrey||

    I'm not afraid of the government, I'm afraid of the Mob. What do these people think is going to happen if the economy collapses? What if the Big One hits the west coast? An earthquake on the New Madrid fault could change the course of the Mississippi. It would be utter chaos.

  • John||

    ^^THIS^^ Liberals think they are the mob. They would like nothing better than to sue the mob to terrorize people. An armed populace makes that pretty hard.

  • fish||

    They would like nothing better than to sue the mob to terrorize people.

    Jeez John do you attorneys have to sue everything? ;-)

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    But think of the stimulus in the construction and cartography business.

  • FucktheNannyState||

    Not afraid of the government? Let me guess, you think you're free and protected? Probably live in an upscale white neighborhood?

  • Killazontherun||

    He's being sarcastic.

  • FucktheNannyState||

    Me too ;)

  • Killazontherun||

    Well, uhm, so was I.

    Waiter, can I have another glass of Chardonnay? This one has a fly in it.

  • FucktheNannyState||

    What do you need a gun for? Just use your Croquet mallets you rich bastard.

  • Killazontherun||

    Only smelly hippies accuse me of being rich, rich people just ask me to stand down wind from them and to get a hair cut.

  • newshutz||

    no, that's "Ironic"

  • SIV||

  • John||

    I guess now we know who hired Weigel.

  • TheZeitgeist||

    ...The notion that a rag-tag band of regular folks armed with semi-automatic weapons and the odd shotgun are a serious hedge ...

    Through some RPG's in the rag-tag band and its called the Taliban. Those stoops are pretty good at, uh, "insurrecting."

  • OldMexican||

    The notion that a rag-tag band of regular folks armed with semi-automatic weapons and the odd shotgun are a serious hedge against tyranny strikes me as a stretch[...]


    Indeed, just ask all those rag-tag band of regular folks that toppled a few governments just this Century...

    ... uh, no, wait...

  • Raven Nation||

    Not a whole lot of toppled governments. But those rag-taggers can certainly make life miserable: Iraq, Afghanistan, Algeria, Afghanistan again, etc.

  • ||

    Gillespie said it wouldn't work, not that people who believe it are nuts. You Hit&Runpublicans; sure are stupid.

  • Killazontherun||

    Fuck you, darius.

  • ||

    Some posters here act completely retarded if a writer fails to agree with their views completely. It's not my fault some people are panicky culture warriors who think any variation from the One True Way™ are just socialists in disguise.

  • Killazontherun||

    Who is it that is not even attempting to make a sound argument one way or another, but throwing around the culture war crap? It's you. Projection is not just a river on Tau Ceti IV (or is V?).

  • Loki||

    This is Ceti Alpha V!

  • ||

    Nick Gillespie thinks rebellion against the government wouldn't work? He must be a secret progressive! Of course, it's not "culture war crap" when it comes from the Right People™. I must be a secret progressive too!

  • SIV||

    More like a junior cosmo-fag wannabe.
    You and Nick can have a 3-way with Janet Napolitano.

  • ||

    You're right, Killaz. I'm TOTALLY the one failing to make a sound argument here. How can I think otherwise in the face of SIV's ironclad logic?

  • SIV||

    I'm TOTALLY the one failing to make a sound argument here.

    Oh look, the blind squirrel found a nut!

  • Killazontherun||

    Really, whatever side of the culture war you choose to be on, Nick is to blame here. If he is your ally, he let you down. If he is your enemy, he left an opening to pound away through.

  • ||

    Uh no. There is no culture war going on here except that perpetrated by those people who think there's a culture war. Nick didn't "let me down" by disagreeing with me. He just holds a position (armed rebellion against the government would be ineffective) that I disagree with. It's not even an ideological position, just one of practicality. That some people go absolutely nuts over this sort of disagreement is ridiculous. That you even think this is something to declare someone an "enemy or ally" over is a testament to your ability to jump at shadows, nothing more.

  • SIV||

    There is no culture war going on here except that perpetrated by those people who think there's a culture war.

    Uh, that would be YOU.

    Think if Nick gave such a lackluster "defense" of 1st Amendment rights. Conceding that free speech opponents had "some good points" and ridiculing the more loud and colorful of free speech supporters finally concluding if he had to choose between an obnoxious (or even odious) proponent of free speech and government censorship he would be ambivalent

  • Killazontherun||

    And, you know what, I wish people would stop knee jerkedly defending Nick G by throwing around 'cosmo' this, 'orange line' that. He said what he said and it was pretty Goddamned awful. What is the point of opposing the totalitarian state if you also believe it can't be defeated?

  • ||

    Because it would be the right thing to do? Personally, I think he's dead wrong about the difficulty of resisting a tyrannical American government. The technology difference doesn't matter as much as he thinks it would, I'm not sure it's as great as he imagines, and if so I don't think that would last very long. There's a big difference between having a lot of high-tech gadgets and vehicles and being able to use them to the greatest effect. A guerrilla movement would be harder to pin down than some people think.

  • Killazontherun||

    Okay, you disagree with him than why do you have a problem with other people disagreeing with him? SIV might not exactly be from either of our schools of thought, but what he is pointing out here is what it is, Nick G throwing some pretty non libertarian sentiment out there.

  • Killazontherun||

    than then

    In a rush, got to switch my router out.

  • ||

    Disagreeing with someone /=/ accusing them of being a secret socialist.

  • ||

    Thinking armed rebellion against the government won't work is a far cry from thinking people who believe it will be necessary are crazy.

    It's not really a difficult distinction to make, but the reality is that some people aren't interested in the distinction; they're just upset over the disagreement period, and seem incapable of disagreeing without asserting that people who disagree with them are of the political other.

  • SIV||

    Did you read the fucking piece at all?
    Nick identifies all the pro-gun people as hysterics, nutjobs and numbskulls while going out of his way to praise Jon Stewart's "good points" and musing about siding with the head of the Department of Homeland security.

  • ||

    ^^This. That was my reaction when I saw the piece as well.

  • ||

    And now I know to take you less seriously. When the idea that some pro-gun people say stupid things is taken as evidence that the speaker is a secret lefty who hates the 2nd Amendment (in an article saying gun control arguments are wrongheaded, no less), there's a serious bias going on.

  • ||

    Nick specifically said that pro-gun people generally were nutjobs that deserved ridicule, discussed his personal aversion to guns, and reluctantly ended up supporting 2nd Amendment rights not because pro-gun arguments are persuasive, but in spite of it. He deserves credit for not letting his irrational fear of firearms derail his libertarian instincts, but he's still basically a cunt on gun issues. Seeing you struggle to fit his entire cock into your throat isn't doing much for credibility either. There's a serious reality distortion field going on.

  • SIV||

    And he got that "the Nazis were pro-gun (except for Jews!) ahistorical crap straight from Salon.

  • OldMexican||

    Re: darius404,

    The technology difference doesn't matter as much as he thinks it would, I'm not sure it's as great as he imagines, and if so I don't think that would last very long.


    He's also not considering the notion that making war against those that pay your bills is not conducive to good outcomes. Sooner or later you run out of money to pay your troops, and I bet most troops will not want to blow up grandpa and grandma just because they're trying to protect the homestead. Making war against your own people only delivers two possibilities: A totalitarian regime with NO money, or NO regime.

  • ||

    This as well. It's not like our soldiers and cops are clone troopers: they weren't raised in vats to be biologically incapable of disobedience.

  • OldMexican||

    [M]any on the left genuinely believed, only a few years ago, that the United States really did stand in the dusky shadow of a totalitarian nightmare. Yet now they insist that Americans who want to arm against that eventuality are paranoid nut jobs.


    "It's not Fascism when WE do it"

    That's how it works.

  • FucktheNannyState||

    Yep, all anarchists when Bush was in office. Now the government is a good thing, and people who resist tyranny are hillbilly doomsday preppers.

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    "That might be politically convenient—but it doesn’t make much sense."

    The pronouncements of the writer-eunuchs and other court jesters of the Liberal Establishment Left never have made much sense, because they have never been about sense in the first place. The Establishment Left realized some time ago that they had few valid reasoned arguments as to why power should be ceded to their wonderful selves, and so they abandoned reason like a green recruit ridding himself of a live grenade.

  • Hyperion||

    They don't need reason. They need tax payer money to fund handing out free shit. That's their only plan, and it works.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    The human mind is wired for authoritarianism. It works comfortably in two modes: being the leader and following the leader. Obviously most people would rather be the leader, and may even fight to become the leader if they think they can win. But permanently neither leading nor following is an unnatural condition that people must be trained to accept, and that training has essentially ground to a halt in America and most of the rest of the world as well.

  • Kyfho Myoba||

    Mostly true. It turns out in rat/mice studies, that 3-5% of the population will neither dominate nor submit.

  • Number 2||

    "They are famous and highly regarded thinkers speaking from respected institutional platforms."

    Keith Oberman and a waste of ectoplasm like Naomi Wolf qualify as "highly regarded thinkers?' Please!

  • TheZeitgeist||

    "Highly regarded" is a relevant term. And say what you will about stupid Keith Crier, but the guy has figured out how to get paid $millions$ just to get fired. No wonder he looks down on banksters, compared to his compensation-for-nothing they are a bunch of amateurs.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    No need for Congress anymore, thanks to modern legislation, czars, executive orders, etc.

    That frees them up for more important stuff, like campaigning.

  • DarrenM||

    It's not a matter of whether government turns into a tyranny in the next 10 years, but in the next 100 years or 200. It's highly unlikely the 2nd Amendment will be reinstated or guns redistributed in time for the changeover. What's funny is the Left insisting the U.S. is not 'exceptional', then turning around and saying it *is* exceptional with respect to the possibility of an authoritarian government.

  • Graphite||

    Lots of liberals also thought it was totally reasonable to talk about things like civil unrest and martial law back when they were arguing in favor of bank bailouts.

  • Ronulanus||

    I have liberal friends, and I have conservative friends. Both types of friends only seem to give a damn about totalitarianism when the other side is in power. And I'm not surprised one bit.

  • Jon Lester||

    We're all for free speech, of course, but I sure wish words like "paranoid" weren't abused by those unqualified to diagnose any such condition.

  • JeremyR||

    The left didn't genuinely believe that Bush was Hitler, it was just something they liked to say.

    I mean, seriously, if they were afraid of him, would they constantly bitch so much? Or would they be afraid to? They literally made movies fantasizing about killing him

  • buybuydandavis||

    "All of which permits only two possible conclusions."

    I'll give you a third. For a progressive, "truth" is the most convenient rationalization for furthering progressive power. Any correspondence to reality, or lack thereof, is entirely irrelevant.

    When Bush is in power, we live in a fascist dictatorship. When Obama is in power, it's unthinkable that the government would abuse it's power.

  • sablegsd||

    Regressive commiecrats are unable to make sense. They are stupid, delusional and insane.

  • Sacrifice||

    If you really want to know how fascists take over a country read Richard J. Evans trilogy about the 3rd Reich. They went from polling

  • Reverendcaptain||

    I'm not one for paramilitary groups and pretty much middle of the road politically but I can't remember a time when I was so alarmed by the increasing reach of the government. And the signs only point towards more control in every facet of our lives.

    It will eventually have to collapse on itself but I wonder how far down the rabbit hole we'll venture before that happens.

  • gaoxiaen||

    The funny thing is that you all think that there IS a solution.

  • gaoxiaen||

    And you give a fuck.

  • Jose Chung||

    "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; ... The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior superior to band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force, at the Command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for the will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive."

    Noah Webster, "A Citizen of America", Philadelphia, October 17, 1787

  • Jose Chung||

    A couple typos in the above quote...

    "superior to A band of"

    "for THEY will possess"

  • CodeWarrior||

    Shhhhhhhhh! Don't let the cat out of the bag! geeeezz! We can't have people running around thinking for themselves.. (snark)(snark)(snicker)(snicker)...

  • MoreFreedom||

    My thanks and congratulations to Mr. Hinkle for missing a story the MSM either:

    Deep down knew about but just didn't care to report or
    They feared Bush, but don't fear Obama
    or (most likely)
    Their earlier articles were naked partisanship, and they don't see their hypocrisy because they believe their guys would never be facists.

    What is a civil liberty supporter supposed to do in the age of Obama? Thank Obama for killing US citizens that are terrorists (according to Obama) or lament he did it without an indictment, trial, or even conviction?

    They apparently think Obama can do it, but no future Republican can. Or more likely, don't think of the future consequences of the power they give to government.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement