Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
The Jackboot Only Fits if You Don't Work for the Government
Remember when National
Rifle Association President Wayne LaPierre's Godwin's Law comment
about "jackbooted government thugs" was the
worst thing ever? Well, the mainstream commentariat continues
to use the same incendiary, totalitarianism-invoking
language to describe...individual citizens. The latest comes from
Washington Post columnist and serial public broadcasting
commentator
E.J. Dionne:
This is not about the politics of populism. It's about the politics of the jackboot. It's not about an opposition that has every right to free expression. It's about an angry minority engaging in intimidation backed by the threat of violence.
Who, precisely, is being
intimidated with violence here? The dudes showing up to town hall
meetings with licensed firearms are not brandishing them (contrary
to the fantasia
of Scripps-Howard columnists), not (as far as I'm aware) making
verbal threats to anyone, and not getting anywhere near elected
officials, thanks in part to law enforcement who are hyper-aware of
their presence. The closest thing we have to town hall
"intimidation" by an armed man is Ron Paul supporter (and
onetime Hit & Run commenter?) William Kostric (pictured)
displaying a Thomas Jefferson quote that I was first made conscious
of by lefty opponents of George W. Bush.
But even less accurate than the intimidation charge is the
notion that scattered individuals in a free country are the
equivalent of uniformed murderers acting on behalf of a
totalitarian government. I mean, this is not hard to grasp, right?
And yet here we see our fellow not-in-power Americans described as
"fascists,"
"political
terrorists," and "brownshirts,"
often by the very same people who complain (and rightly so!) about
spurious Nazi analogies.
Read more of E.J.'s Dinonsense if you want to see how these Americans, some of whom are black, are just like lynch mobbers. Another one for the Hate Beat!
|8.20.09 @ 10:34AM|#
I keep saying that this is not about left and right it is about culture. E.J. Dione is not Rachel Maddow. He is pretty right of center. Yet, he joins Maddow in shouting "fascist" over this. That is because both Dione and Maddow are part of the beltway elite culture. That culture hates and mistrusts the rest of the country. That is why they went so bizerk over Palin. How dare some hockey mom from Alaska dare to play in their sandbox. Now it is how dare people without advanced degress who live in unfashionable places and believe crazy things like the Constitution actually means what it says dare to stand up to our errudite Harvard President.
Citizen Nothing|8.20.09 @ 10:40AM|#
John, John, John.
I loves me some hockey and beer and sitting around farting on the
front porch. I've killed me some deer and 'et me some beans
straight outta da can. But I still think Palin is a complete
moron.
You got to get over your crush, man.
|8.20.09 @ 10:40AM|#
Where is that bottom photo from? It's giving me chills.
Also, I'm as flabbergasted as anyone by the hysterical MSM coverage
of Obamacare's opponents. Keep up the good work.
|8.20.09 @ 10:46AM|#
This is starting to really piss me off. Yeah, some people strongly disagree with you. I don't see explosions going off in the street, though, so can the hyperbole.
Sean Healy|8.20.09 @ 10:46AM|#
I don't disagree with what you're saying, but your pushback does underplay the fact that before seizing power, the brownshirts were a not-in-power minority. It is not completely impossible for the exercise of free speech to ALSO be part of a campaign of intimidation. I'm not saying that's what's going on, just that it can happen. While the burden of proof is on the idiots shouting 'Nazi', it is not a good counterargument to shout back 'but these guys are outnumbered and not in charge'.
|8.20.09 @ 10:49AM|#
Good for you CN. But of course I would like to know a politician that is not a moron. The point is that the entire pants wetting episode the beltway media is having over the town halls is about culture. They think anyone who is not them is a moron. And anyone who is not one of them who stands up and says somethiing a dangerous moron. In their eyes, they rule by devine right. That is why you can see people from both sides of the political spectrum writing stupid shit like Dione is writing.
<strike>strike through</strike|8.20.09 @ 10:50AM|#
How about this for legal thuggery (from Drudge):
In a move some fear is a reprisal for opposing President
Obama's health care plan, Democrats sent 52 letters to health
insurers requesting financial records for a House committee's
investigation.
Reps. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., and Bart Stupak, D-Mich., sent a
letter warning health insurers that the House Energy and Commerce
Committee is "examining executive compensation and other business
practices of the health industry."
Waxman, chairman of the committee, and Stupak, chairman of the
Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee did not inform their
Republican counterparts of their plans.
Health insurers have until Sept. 4 to provide Congress a detailed
list of every employee who made over a $1 million dollars a year
between 2003 and 2008. Democrats also want documents about
conferences and any events held off company property as well as the
types of transportation, lodging, food, entertainment and even
gifts exchanged.
Raising the intimidation stakes: the Waxman letter offers insurers
no explanation of what is being investigated or why.
Yikes. As subtle as a firing squad.
|8.20.09 @ 10:50AM|#
"While the burden of proof is on the idiots shouting 'Nazi', it
is not a good counterargument to shout back 'but these guys are
outnumbered and not in charge'."
How about outnumbered, not in charge, and not engaging in violence.
That should about cover it.
|8.20.09 @ 10:51AM|#
If there were any sort of actual violence (and I mean just a
scuffle with some shoving, nothing worse than a baseball fight),
the media would just cream themselves right on the spot.
Mackey just offered a differing view from his customers. The MSM
calls them retards on a regular basis.
|8.20.09 @ 10:51AM|#
We really need to come up with the name for the condition that
is at the heart of all of the garment rending on the left.
I'll throw out the first suggesiton:
Partisanoid-hysteriaform-democraphobia
|8.20.09 @ 10:53AM|#
"We really need to come up with the name for the condition that
is at the heart of all of the garment rending on the left."
That is the thing. Dione isn't a leftist. He is just an
asshole.
|8.20.09 @ 10:53AM|#
Health insurers have until Sept. 4 to provide Congress a
detailed list of every employee who made over a $1 million dollars
a year between 2003 and 2008. Democrats also want documents about
conferences and any events held off company property as well as the
types of transportation, lodging, food, entertainment and even
gifts exchanged.
Release the lawyers and let slip the hounds of regulatory
challenge!
|8.20.09 @ 10:54AM|#
That is the thing. Dione isn't a leftist. He is just an
asshole.
Please, John, that's very insensitive to assholes everywhere. You
owe them an apology.
|8.20.09 @ 10:54AM|#
E.J Dione was and I think still is the editor of the WSJ editorial page. He used to hold the coveted center collumn Friday spot on the WSJ editorial page. He is a total rightty. He used to be a very smart guy. What the fuck is the matter with him?
Conservative Spokesman|8.20.09 @ 10:56AM|#
Try a thought experiment: What would conservatives have said if a group of loud, scruffy leftists had brought guns to the public events of Ronald Reagan or George W. Bush?
We would have been mortified. Not by the guns, but because they
were...well...scruffy.
Fist of Etiquette|8.20.09 @ 10:56AM|#
Is Godwin's Law the one that suggests that we should purge all
references to the defining world event of the 20th Century from any
debate?
It's that kind of lazy thinking that leads to ignorance of the
history behind words like brownshirt or jackboot.
<strike>strike through</strike|8.20.09 @ 11:01AM|#
'Cause he's the Wax-Man.
Yeaahhh, he's the Wax-Maaaaaaan!
Fluffy|8.20.09 @ 11:01AM|#
Sean, I've read your comment here and in the previous thread,
and I have to say this:
There are many jurisdictions in the United States where it is legal
to carry a firearm as long as you don't conceal it. These are the
so-called "open-carry" areas.
I realize that to many leftists and urbanites, total disarmament of
all citizens in public is the norm. But people who live in
open-carry areas are under no obligation to defer to your womanish
sensibilities where the law provides them with a clear right.
Clutch that handkerchief a little tighter, toots. The entire
point of engaging in open carrying for many activists is
to make people aware that open carry is legal. It's precisely the
fact that Rachel Maddow would gasp and say, "Is this legal?" that
makes what these guys did laudable. They educated a huge number of
people by this action.
|8.20.09 @ 11:01AM|#
I love it how people like Waxman who are using the no shit power of government to indtimidate opponents and stifle dissent are public servents while anyone who goes a townhall and asks their Congress Creature and uncomfortable question is a brownshirt.
I, Kahn O\'Clast|8.20.09 @ 11:01AM|#
Open carry of a firearm where allowed: fine.
Carrying a sign quoting Jefferson about killing tyrants:
great.
Doing so at an event attended by the President: priceless (in a bad
way)
And a gold star to the Secret Service for not overreacting. Under
Bush that fellow would have been in a free speech cage quite some
distance away....assuming he had not been arrested or worse.
|8.20.09 @ 11:01AM|#
But even less accurate than the intimidation charge is the
notion that scattered individuals in a free country are the
equivalent of uniformed murderers acting on behalf of a
totalitarian government. I mean, this is not hard to grasp,
right?
How do you think the Nazis came to power in the first place? The
original Nazis - especially the SA - were not very different from
our militia movements. The National Socialist movement in the late
20s-early 30s had its strength in armed groups of private citizens
convinced they needed to take violent measures to protect their
country from being run into the ground by socialists and
cosmopolitans. And of course the elite right-wing in Germany, who
despised the Nazis as illiterate thugs, eventually made the mistake
of putting Hitler into power, thinking they could control his brand
of populism. Hindenburg was not unlike the Bushes and McCains of
our country who are willing to use a demagogue like Palin or ignore
the demagogic inflammatory rantings of a Glenn Beck. There's a long
established history of both right and left wing elites losing
control of the populist passions they enflame. In this case the
Nazi analogy is certainly an overreaction but it's not
spurious.
robc|8.20.09 @ 11:02AM|#
E.J. Dione is not Rachel Maddow. He is pretty right of
center.
WTF? In what universe is Dionne right of center? Personally, Ive
always described him as "extreme idiot".
I came in to comment that Welch's first mistake was in reading
anything Dionne wrote.
robc|8.20.09 @ 11:04AM|#
Sometimes I think it would be fun to spoof John, but I dont think I could realistically spoof the spelling.
|8.20.09 @ 11:04AM|#
Joan Walsh is hysterical; and not in the good (har-de-har-har)
way.
-----
It's not about an opposition that has every right to free
expression.
You can't "open carry" because Chris Matthews might piss his pants;
it's exactly the same as shouting "fire!" in a crowded movie
house.
Matt Welch|8.20.09 @ 11:05AM|#
The original Nazis - especially the SA - were not very
different from our militia movements.
I think the comparative absence of violence is difference-making to
the point of rendering the comparison laughable.
|8.20.09 @ 11:06AM|#
Vanya you ignorant slut. German politics in teh 1920s was
violent in a way American politics is just not. The brownshirts
were not populusts who showed up at meetings. They were an armed
gang that roamed the streets and showed up at oppositions rallies
and beat the shit out of people. If this country had brownshirts a
few hundred thousand of them would have showed up in Denver at the
DNC and beaten hundreds of people sensless. Or they would have
showed up at the nutroots convention and killed a few people and
sent a few hundred more to the hospital. Or they would go into
liberal neighborhoods in places like San Fran or Madison and burn
down houses and kill people. That is what brownshirts did.
To compare any politician today to "brownshirt populism" is stupid
and disgusting. And it is an insult to memory of the people who
were victimized by the brownshirts. So let me be the first to say,
shut the fuck up.
robc|8.20.09 @ 11:06AM|#
John,
You have confused Dionne with someone else. Who, I have no fucking
clue.
|8.20.09 @ 11:08AM|#
"WTF? In what universe is Dionne right of center? Personally,
Ive always described him as "extreme idiot"."
You are right. I am confusing him with Paul Gigot. He is not right
of center. But he is not a crazy either until now. I can't keep
these clowns straight anymore.
|8.20.09 @ 11:08AM|#
I really don't have time today to compose a thoughtful, nuanced
comment to this post.
Anyone who cannot discern that the current "mainstream" media is
quickly turning into Pravda, has their head up their ass.
Insert standard disclaimers here...yada yada yada.
robc|8.20.09 @ 11:09AM|#
But he is not a crazy either until now
He has been nucking futs for as long as Ive been reading him, and I
stopped sometime in the mid 90s.
<strike>strike through</strike|8.20.09 @ 11:11AM|#
Regarding health care "reform," here's something that even the great booboisie can comprehend: When the government wants it, when car salesmen want it, when lawyers and journalists want it, when gray-matter-impaired celebrities want it, it just has to be a bad thing.
Dave C|8.20.09 @ 11:16AM|#
John,
Dionne works the Washington Post. He's a lefty, and I don't think
he ever worked for the WSJ.
You're thinking about Paul Gigot, who is still a righty last time I
checked.
|8.20.09 @ 11:16AM|#
I read the comments section to that Joan Walsh Salon piece on the guy in the picture. It is like reading the comments of children on PCP.
|8.20.09 @ 11:30AM|#
vanya,
It is spurious. The protesters don't appear to be particularly
unified. The S.A. was.
|8.20.09 @ 11:32AM|#
Even if they were unified Pro, they still wouldn't be brownshirts unless they were violent as hell. Also there is the small fact that the SA was a paramilitary organization with a very structured leadership. But Palin is just like Ernst Brum.
|8.20.09 @ 11:39AM|#
The Nazis were masters of propeganda. They were brilliant at portraying themselves as victims and their enemies as violent authoritarian thugs. In many ways, the pants wetting left, by trying to portray their enemies as thugs, are playing right out of the Nazi playbook.
|8.20.09 @ 11:40AM|#
I was trying to figure that out as well Pro. There is no mention of Reason in the link.
Abdul|8.20.09 @ 11:42AM|#
Pro-lib,
Read the Salon link. The guy in the picture apparently did comment
on a post last year here suggesting that cops who make drug arrests
would back off if they faced armed resistance.
Hit&Run: I come for Matt's mouse-over tags, but I stay for the
veiled threats against law enforcement.
|8.20.09 @ 11:44AM|#
From link
There's no overt reason to conclude from his Web presence that Kostric is violent, although on the Web site of Reason, the libertarian magazine, someone posting under his name defends drug dealers who kill police officers who enter their homes to arrest them:
"If people can't wake up and see why it's immoral to trespass and destroy someones property, kidnap and lock them in a cage for growing a plant in their backyard then perhaps a body count is what's required for change.
"I personally feel zero sympathy for those cops. I reserve my sympathy for the victims of the nonsense they initiate."
If Kostric really believes "perhaps a body count is what's required for change" in the case of cops moving against drug dealers, it would be interesting to know what other causes he thinks a "body count" might hasten along.
This is why I post under nickname. When I go nuts it won't be
easily tied back to you guys.
robc|8.20.09 @ 11:45AM|#
This is why I post under nickname. When I go nuts it won't
be easily tied back to you guys.
Ditto.
Although, uhhh, mine not be too tricky a code to crack.
Warty|8.20.09 @ 11:46AM|#
"Police are looking for a man who is not made of sugar in connection with the shootings."
robc|8.20.09 @ 11:46AM|#
Me caveman. Leave out key word. Grammar hard.
Stick a "might" between "mine" and "not".
|8.20.09 @ 11:47AM|#
Don't worry sugerfree, when the headline reads "diabetic kills five cops in no knock raid and later blows up city hall" we will know it was you.
|8.20.09 @ 11:53AM|#
Don't worry. If anything happens to me, my best friend (who only
lurks) has instructions to tell you guys my real name so you can
follow me on the news.
Although, I doubt it would be a shooting spree. Probably
molestation of a national monument or my wife will leave me and and
make it look like I killed her. And everyone will believe the
worst.
Sean Healy|8.20.09 @ 11:54AM|#
I accept what you're saying above re: gun rights. I'm fine with them. That doesn't exclude the possibility that people can open-carry for the purposes of intimidating others. Acknowledging that doesn't make me a bedwetter or whatever you're calling me.
hmm|8.20.09 @ 11:55AM|#
There are plenty of things a body count would change. The sad
thing is Walsh thinks that is the method desired for change or at
least alludes to such action hastening change. When, dare I risk
putting words into someone's mouth, the use of force to protect
ones rights is generally a last resort. But it's not a resort some
people are afraid to use. It's sad such a comment will be taken out
of context of the article and even the comment itself.
Retarded people making serious comparisons to Nazis are fucking
retarded.
hmm|8.20.09 @ 11:56AM|#
That doesn't exclude the possibility that people can
open-carry for the purposes of intimidating others.
So, you're scare of guns. This sounds like your problem not anyone
else's.
Citizen Nothing|8.20.09 @ 11:58AM|#
Fuck it. When I go nuts I'm taking Reason and all you bastards with me.
hmm|8.20.09 @ 11:59AM|#
Don't worry. If anything happens to me, my best friend (who only lurks) has instructions to tell you guys my real name so you can follow me on the news.
I'll be the guy in the wiener
costume wielding a spatula and probably brandishing some sort
of firearm.
|8.20.09 @ 11:59AM|#
Good you tube of the gun toting maniac
Wonder why the brown shirt didn't spit on William Kostric
I wish he would have shot the guy...
Citizen Nothing|8.20.09 @ 12:00PM|#
Probably molestation of a national monument
I actually have a personal goal of tasting every national monument.
(Kind of like the High Point Club, I guess.)
True story.
|8.20.09 @ 12:01PM|#
reading E.J.'s column came across this part
"The simple fact is that an armed citizenry is not the basis for
our freedoms. Our freedoms rest on a moral consensus, enshrined in
law, that in a democratic republic we work out our differences
through reasoned, and sometimes raucous, argument."
Pretty much where I stopped reading. seems he forgot that the basis
for our freedom IS the armed citizenry. If the minutemen would have
tried to use moral consensus against the redcoats we all would be
talking funny with bad teeth right now.
Citizen Nothing|8.20.09 @ 12:04PM|#
Somewhere on my blog is a picture of me licking Ft. Moultrie. Mmmmm, rebelliously chalky...
Warty|8.20.09 @ 12:04PM|#
I actually have a personal goal of tasting every national
monument.
I worked very hard to pee on every building on campus when I was in
college. I'm still waiting for my medal.
Citizen Nothing|8.20.09 @ 12:05PM|#
I'm sure there are several homeless guys in line before you, Warty.
|8.20.09 @ 12:08PM|#
I saw something similar on Hardball last night. Chris
Mathews had some guy from Gun Owners of America (who I thought did
a poor job; no doubt why he was chosen) and some other weenie
discussing the issue. Mathews pretty much wet himself; he went so
far as to say that he was fine with police officers searching
people on the street for guns. He either never heard of the 4th
Amendment or doesn't think it applies to gun owners (the latter I
suspect--for all of these guys, right and left, the Constitution
they claim to respect is little more than an irritating speed
bump).
Sure, they "respect" our rights. But if we exercise them, we're
"crazy".
|8.20.09 @ 12:08PM|#
Our freedoms rest on a moral consensus, enshrined in law,
that in a democratic republic we work out our differences through
reasoned, and sometimes raucous, argument.
Nice selective memory. Or did you study history at an Ivy League
school?
|8.20.09 @ 12:13PM|#
Thew other really nice thing about that Walsh link is her utter
disregard for the actual reason(!) people like us are pissed off
about the Drug War.
What a dunce.
JB|8.20.09 @ 12:26PM|#
veiled threats against law enforcement
What threat? He was stating a fact. The more cops that die
enforcing no-knock warrants and other such non-sense, the fewer of
them will want to participate.
Most cops are total cowards.
JB|8.20.09 @ 12:27PM|#
This is why I post under nickname. When I go nuts it won't
be easily tied back to you guys.
Just make sure to leave a few NutraSweet packets at the crime scene
as a calling card.
William Kostric|8.20.09 @ 12:44PM|#
I love Slate! Obama, too! He's like a messiah or something to
me!
I have seen the light, Lord! Lead me down the path to universal
health care. Lead me from the temptation of open carry.
I have seen the light!
You getting all this, Joan Walsh?
Citizen Nothing|8.20.09 @ 12:49PM|#
Honest to God,
How can Jack Shafer refrain from going up to Joan Walsh and kicking
her right in the nuts?
Tomcat1066|8.20.09 @ 12:49PM|#
If the minutemen would have tried to use moral consensus
against the redcoats we all would be talking funny with bad teeth
right now.
You mean, outside of the the South, right?
Tomcat1066|8.20.09 @ 12:50PM|#
"I accept what you're saying above re: gun rights. I'm fine with
them. That doesn't exclude the possibility that people can
open-carry for the purposes of intimidating others. Acknowledging
that doesn't make me a bedwetter or whatever you're calling
me."
No, but being intimidated by people exercising their rights
does make someone a bedwetter.
|8.20.09 @ 12:55PM|#
Where is that picture of the soldier aiming his rifle at the
man/girl from?
It is a WWII photo taken at the massacre of Lidice, a Czech village
destroyed by the Nazis as retaliation for the assassination of
Reinhard Heydrich.
The entire population of Lidice was shot and the whole village was
torched.
This is what REAL "jackbooted brownshirts" do.
|8.20.09 @ 12:59PM|#
On the contrary, violence and the threat of violence have
always been used by those who wanted to bypass democratic
procedures and the rule of law. Lynching was the act of those who
refused to let the legal system do its work. Guns were used on
election days in the Deep South during and after Reconstruction to
intimidate black voters and take control of state
governments.
Yes, I have raised the racial issue, and it is profoundly troubling
that firearms should begin to appear with some frequency at a
president's public events only now, when the president is black.
Race is not the only thing at stake here, and I have no knowledge
of the personal motivations of those carrying the weapons. But our
country has a tortured history on these questions, and we need to
be honest about it. Those with the guns should know what memories
they are stirring.
I guess Dionne doesn't remember when the Black Panther Party for
Self Defense sent some rifle-toting members to Sacramento to attend
a legislative session that was considering some lameass gun control
measure back in 1967. It was reading what the Panthers had to say
about gun rights around 1970 that brought me around to taking the
Second Amendment seriously. (The fact that the Panthers turned out
to be violent thugs doesn't discredit their arguments. Nor does it
justify the slaughter of Fred Clark and Mark Hampton by Chicago
police in 1969.)
Dave C|8.20.09 @ 1:01PM|#
Where is that picture of the soldier aiming his rifle at the man/girl from?
Lidice, Czechoslovalia 1942. Reprisal for Heydrich's
assassination.
|8.20.09 @ 1:01PM|#
Mathews pretty much wet himself; he went so far as to say
that he was fine with police officers searching people on the
street for guns.
I believe Jamaica tried something like this a couple of decades
ago. As we all know, there hasn't been any gun violence in Jamaica
since then.
|8.20.09 @ 1:05PM|#
Try a thought experiment: What would conservatives have said
if a group of loud, scruffy leftists had brought guns to the public
events of Ronald Reagan or George W. Bush?
People were arrested/detained for wearing anti-war/anti-Bush
T-shirts at Bush Rallies despite having tickets to the even.
Someone showing up with a gun and the Jefferson quote would
probably wind up in Guantanamo and the conservatives would be
cheering them on.
Note: I personally, have no problem with people showing up with
guns at political rallies, assuming they are in compliance with the
law. But let's also not forget that we've had plenty of
assassination attempts on President's and elected officials. If the
local laws allow open or concealed carry, security probably should
be beefed up and don't bitch about extra scrutiny when you are
carrying a gun to a town hall.
|8.20.09 @ 1:10PM|#
And a gold star to the Secret Service for not overreacting.
Under Bush that fellow would have been in a free speech cage quite
some distance away
I assumed he *was* in a "free speech zone."
|8.20.09 @ 1:11PM|#
Haven't read all the comments, but that Salon.com article is
retarded. Oh noes! He quotes Jefferson and *gasp* Jack London! But,
like, not in a literary way, because he's teh evil
libertarian.
These people scream "Free State Project" with the same abject
terror that Lonewacko reserves for the NAFTA Superhighway.
|8.20.09 @ 1:12PM|#
This kind of demonization of citizens objecting to government action is a trend. A bad one. It's perfectly sane to freak out at the way our government is behaving these days. The war on terror. Socializing whatever. The assault on civil liberties. The expansion of government. Yada, yada, and, furthermore, yada.
|8.20.09 @ 1:15PM|#
The State fears the man who carries a gun. They do not understand that the man who carries a gun often does so because he fears the State.
|8.20.09 @ 1:21PM|#
the same abject terror that Lonewacko reserves for the NAFTA
Superhighway
I've never really understood the problem with the NAFTA
Superhighway. Wouldn't it just make it easier for the Mexicans to
get to Canada?
|8.20.09 @ 1:21PM|#
John,
Yes, Nazis are bad - you're a morally superior person for realizing
that, good for you, John. It used to be only leftists got their
panties twisted whenever historical comparisons to Germany came up,
now we have to deal with crybabies on the right as well. I agree
that Glenn Beck is not Ernst Rohm, that should be such a
staggeringly obvious point it doesn't even need to be made. My
point is that Matt Welch is confusing the issue by saying things
like "uniformed murderers acting on behalf of a totalitarian
government". The Brownshirts were demonstrably NOT acting on behalf
of a totalitarian government, they were in fact private citizens
(and then the totalitarian government killed their leaders when it
took power, ha ha). The original KKK used violence to intimidate
citizens, and it was not acting on behalf of a totalitarian
government. There are plenty of historical examples of populist
movements turning violent - both left and rithg. It's very true
that the townhall protestors have done nothing that deserves
comparison to Brownshirts or the KKK, but to criticize Dionne you
have to at least try to understand what he's saying, and Welch
apparently does not.
|8.20.09 @ 1:21PM|#
So Kostric the libertarian birther talks about killing cops being a good thing and shows up armed at a town hall meeting. Then the libertarian radio show plant shows up at a town hall with a machine gun. Image is everything. Libertarianism as a viable political party is now over. Thanks for playing along.
Pierre Trudeau|8.20.09 @ 1:23PM|#
seems he forgot that the basis for our freedom IS the armed
citizenry. If the minutemen would have tried to use moral consensus
against the redcoats we all would be talking funny with bad teeth
right now.
Actually the basis for our freedom is the French navy. Don't they
teach history in your schools anymore?
|8.20.09 @ 1:25PM|#
"Libertarianism as a viable political party is now over."
Uh... this is a bit like announcing that Ptolemaic theory is no
longer a viable theory of the cosmos.
|8.20.09 @ 1:27PM|#
If the minutemen would have tried to use moral consensus
against the redcoats we all would be talking funny with bad teeth
right now.
But we'd have shitty socialized medicine, so it would totally be
worth it.
Citizen Nothing|8.20.09 @ 1:27PM|#
I don't think so, brotherb.
I envision a great Freak Power/redneck/investor class
convergence.
My dream is captured by the second picture in
this story.
|8.20.09 @ 1:30PM|#
Vanya,
You said
" Hindenburg was not unlike the Bushes and McCains of our country
who are willing to use a demagogue like Palin or ignore the
demagogic inflammatory rantings of a Glenn Beck."
I am sorry but that is crap. McCain and Bush are nothing like
Hindenberg. And Palin and Beck are nothing like Hitler and Rohm. To
make such a comparison is gross and insulting. At some point the
difference in degree becomes a difference in kind. Yes, a lot of
average people support and agree with the things that Palin and
Beck say. And a lot of average German's agreed with the Nazis. But
nothing Palin and Beck say is in anyway analogous to what that
Nazis were saying. There is no comparison. Not everything is a
repeat of history. Some history, especially that which relates to
the Nazis really is unique. And some people in the present are just
who they are. Your coparison is moronic.
|8.20.09 @ 1:34PM|#
I liked Canada. It was cute... sort of a tow-headed, self-righteous, kid brother of a country. I wanted to tousle the whole nation's hair and call it a "scamp."
|8.20.09 @ 1:35PM|#
The left and the right are both in a tizzy and being spurred on by the pundits and pustules on both sides. Suddenly the have a scapegoat they can tie to gun lovers, dopers, militias, racists, porno-lovers and anti government radicals. All right here. Look through the comments archived here. take them out of context and put them in the MSM blender for some serious spin and there ya go. Blame it all on the libertarians. The prayers of an imploding two party system have been answered.
|8.20.09 @ 1:35PM|#
"I liked Canada. It was cute... sort of a tow-headed,
self-righteous, kid brother of a country. I wanted to tousle the
whole nation's hair and call it a "scamp."
Canada is a great country. It is a little cold but beautiful. The
problem is that it is full of Canadians.
creech|8.20.09 @ 1:36PM|#
Our freedoms rest on four things: the ballot box, the soap box, the jury box...and when those are taken from us, the cartridge box.
|8.20.09 @ 1:37PM|#
Sug, nobody wants to go to Canada. Duh.
I do. Canada is awesome. Better strip clubs, 19 year old girls can
drink. Good beer. And Canadiens tend to be super friendly.
|8.20.09 @ 1:41PM|#
The only good thing about universal health care is that it will
be one less thing self-righteous Canadians can screech about evil
America. It may mean that they will just have even more time to
devote to fainting over ZOMG concealed weapons, however.
(You can tell I love talkin' politics with the fam, eh?)
|8.20.09 @ 1:44PM|#
Hey, now, I like Canadians. Their government sometimes pisses me
off, but, hey, so does mine!
About Hindenburg. Prior to the Nazis taking power, Hindenburg (and
the various chancellors) were operating under emergency powers,
which allowed them to rule basically by decree, without prior
approval by the Reichstag. It wasn't actually dictatorial power
because the Reichstag could reject presidential actions ex post
facto, but it was a great deal more power than presidents in the
U.S. enjoy, even today.
|8.20.09 @ 1:45PM|#
Better strip clubs, 19 year old girls can drink. Good beer.
And Canadiens tend to be super friendly.
All of those things are true. Sadly for Canadians, SugarFree has
embarked on a single-handed mission to poach all of Canada's hot
girls, talented doctors and horticulturalists for his own nefarious
purposes.
|8.20.09 @ 1:48PM|#
I go to Canada all the time. If it wasn't for the fucked up health system I would live in Montreal, Vancover, Winnepeg, or Toronto in a minute. The problem is that just once I would like to have a conversation with a Canadian who doesn't spend 10 minutes telling me how much better Canada is the US and how horrible the US is. They like Canada. Good for them. Now shut up. They have a serious case of over compensation.
Tomcat1066|8.20.09 @ 1:51PM|#
"They like Canada. Good for them. Now shut up. They have a
serious case of over compensation."
They're Canadians. Duh.
|8.20.09 @ 1:53PM|#
SugarFree has embarked on a single-handed mission to poach
all of Canada's hot girls
I didn't hear you complaining when I smuggled you across the
border.
I, Kahn O\'Clast|8.20.09 @ 1:54PM|#
Sorry Seamus,
I should have put free speech zone in caps a la "free speech zone"
since, of course, the entire country is a "free speech zones"
(excluding airports and movie theaters natch)... I mean, you do
remember the Bush era "free speech zones" no?
|8.20.09 @ 1:59PM|#
I should have put free speech zone in caps a la "free speech
zone" since, of course, the entire country is a "free speech zones"
(excluding airports and movie theaters natch)... I mean, you do
remember the Bush era "free speech zones" no?
Of course I do. Do you have any reason to believe that they aren't
still being set up near places that the new boss shows up, and that
critics are being channeled there so that His Obamaness doesn't
have to face unruly citizens?
highnumber|8.20.09 @ 2:04PM|#
No, but being intimidated by people exercising their rights
does make someone a bedwetter.
Lawful or not, the presence of someone carrying a killing machine
can be a form of intimidation. (Yeah, yeah, yeah, I'm not a gun
nut, so I don't understand. He must have been planning to take some
target practice during the town hall, of course.)
A lot of libertarians have serious trouble distinguishing between
what you should the right to do and what you should do. It's a
symptom of Sobchak Syndrome.
|8.20.09 @ 2:05PM|#
The problem is that just once I would like to have a
conversation with a Canadian who doesn't spend 10 minutes telling
me how much better Canada is the US and how horrible the US is.
They like Canada. Good for them. Now shut up. They have a serious
case of over compensation.
Yeah, they're kinda like Apple zealots in that way. It must be the
minuscule market share that drives them off the deep end.
Tomcat1066|8.20.09 @ 2:11PM|#
"Lawful or not, the presence of someone carrying a killing
machine can be a form of intimidation. (Yeah, yeah, yeah, I'm not a
gun nut, so I don't understand. He must have been planning to take
some target practice during the town hall, of course.)"
It's only intimidation if you allow it. There were police present
who would have interceded if any threatening actions were taken.
Besides which, who gives a shit why he had it. He wasn't breaking
the law and frankly, considering the way SEIU and Acorn thugs have
acted at some town halls, I wouldn't have blamed him if the felt he
needed the weapon for personal protection.
If you don't, tough. You don't have to like someone exercising
their right, but you need to quit bitching when they do.
"A lot of libertarians have serious trouble distinguishing between
what you should the right to do and what you should do. "
And a lot of people have serious trouble distinguishing that
they're not the arbiter of what is right and wrong. That's a
symptom of being a dipshit.
highnumber|8.20.09 @ 2:15PM|#
You don't have to like someone exercising their right, but
you need to quit bitching when they do.
Can you spot the irony in what you wrote?
And a lot of people have serious trouble distinguishing that
they're not the arbiter of what is right and wrong. That's a
symptom of being a dipshit.
Sobchak Syndrome: You're not wrong, you're just an a**hole.
Tomcat1066|8.20.09 @ 2:28PM|#
"You don't have to like someone exercising their right, but you
need to quit bitching when they do.
Can you spot the irony in what you wrote?"
Yep. I'll own it.
But I still maintain that it's your own problem that you are
intimidated by someone exercising their own right.
"Sobchak Syndrome: You're not wrong, you're just an a**hole."
What the fuck are you babbling about anyways?
|8.20.09 @ 2:30PM|#
One thing about this debate--the government is, in many people's minds (not just professed libertarians') usurping power it doesn't have. In that sense, the guns might be appropriate. I'm not sure they're helping, because the weapons may make the protesters look like something they're not and help the media and the left spin this as militia crap, but I don't completely object, either. Maybe a small, nonviolent show of force by citizenry isn't a bad idea from time to time.
|8.20.09 @ 2:37PM|#
Maybe a small, nonviolent show of force by citizenry isn't a
bad idea from time to time.
FTFY
creech|8.20.09 @ 2:37PM|#
Ironic, isn't it, that in the whole freaking world, Canadians are the only ones who are mistaken for Americans when they travel outside their country.
Wry Mouth|8.20.09 @ 2:40PM|#
Not a good idea to carry openly (I am assuming unloaded) at a
presidential rally, due to current social mores.
However. I am guessing if the man(men) doing this were in any
violation of the law, then the local authorities would have had
words with them. Several, probably.
I'm not a gun-nut, per se (only own a .22LR rifle), but am --
amused, I gues is the word -- by many people's alarm at seeing a
fellow, law-abiding citizen carrying a firearm in accordance with
the laws of the land.
I think it has something to do with the individual's fear of guns.
That's one reason why I bought one -- to rid myself of the
fear.
Citizen Nothing|8.20.09 @ 2:42PM|#
Joey Dionne:
The KKK took my health care awa-ay
They took it awa-ay
Away from me-ee!
Tomcat1066|8.20.09 @ 2:43PM|#
"However. I am guessing if the man(men) doing this were in any
violation of the law, then the local authorities would have had
words with them. Several, probably."
Yes, he was acting in accordance with local law, which has been the
point of many of us. However, I'd wager that the weapon was loaded.
Most who exercise their right to carry a firearm tend to have it
ready to fire. It doesn't do a lot of good otherwise ;)
Fluffy|8.20.09 @ 2:53PM|#
Highnumber's definition of Sobchak Syndome: Someone exercising their rights without reference to whether it hurts his meaningless and worthless fucking feelings.
Tomcat1066|8.20.09 @ 2:56PM|#
"Highnumber's definition of Sobchak Syndome: Someone exercising
their rights without reference to whether it hurts his meaningless
and worthless fucking feelings."
Thanks. In which case, I respond to this comment:
"Sobchak Syndrome: You're not wrong, you're just an a**hole."
With a: Actually, you've firgured me all wrong. I think you're
wrong...and you're an asshole.
Things clearer for you? ;)
highnumber|8.20.09 @ 3:13PM|#
You're just proving my point.
My feelings haven't been hurt. Showing at rallies or meetings with
guns may be within your rights, but it won't win anyone to your
side.
Citizen Nothing|8.20.09 @ 3:23PM|#
We're libertarians, baby. We don't care about winning anyone to our side.
Tomcat1066|8.20.09 @ 3:27PM|#
"Showing at rallies or meetings with guns may be within your
rights, but it won't win anyone to your side."
So? What do you care if we win people to our side or not?
I also don't think it'll cost us people coming over either. Those
who are wetting their pants about guns at these things aren't
likely to ever come over anyways.
hmm|8.20.09 @ 3:38PM|#
Not a good idea to carry openly (I am assuming unloaded) at
a presidential rally, due to current social mores.
I assure anyone who is carrying is carrying loaded. Why carry an
unloaded gun?
Matt Welch|8.20.09 @ 4:59PM|#
to criticize Dionne you have to at least try to understand
what he's saying, and Welch apparently does not.
vanya, Dionne didn't say "brownshirts," he said "jackboot." You're
right that the former has a connotation of vigilante mobs, and I'm
right that the latter has the connotation of official armed goons
of a totalitarian state.
|8.20.09 @ 5:29PM|#
Looking in the WP at a few of the comments on Dionne's article,
the thing that makes me laugh is how all those liberals suddenly
declare that they're life-long gun owners. Welcome out of the
closet!
Kinda reminds me of a (genuine) racist piously declaring, "Some of
my best friends are black!"
|8.20.09 @ 6:09PM|#
Our Liberty is defended by three boxes:
The Ballot box,
The Jury box, and
The Cartridge box.
Paul|8.20.09 @ 7:29PM|#
"Showing at rallies or meetings with guns
exercising your first amendment rights may be within your rights,
but it won't win anyone to your side."
I love the innertubes.
Paul|8.20.09 @ 7:32PM|#
I'm not a gun-nut, per se (only own a .22LR rifle), but am
-- amused, I gues is the word -- by many people's alarm at seeing a
fellow, law-abiding citizen carrying a firearm in accordance with
the laws of the land.
Next thing you know, people will be speaking or assembling
in public. Saying things they want... whatever they want.
No limits, no regulations. They might even mention a candidate's
name within 60 days of an election. The horror...the horror.
Paul|8.20.09 @ 7:34PM|#
However, I'd wager that the weapon was loaded. Most who
exercise their right to carry a firearm tend to have it ready to
fire. It doesn't do a lot of good otherwise ;)
Wrong-o Mary Lou. While I agree it is most likely loaded, as the
local brigand and criminal, I'm not going to test that theory. I'll
wait for someone not carrying a pistol on his or her side
to victimize. Much less of a gamble that way.
Paul|8.20.09 @ 7:36PM|#
Our Liberty is defended by three boxes:
The Ballot box,
The Jury box, and
The Cartridge box.
Actually four boxes. Insert 'soap box' right in before Ballot
box.
Paul|8.20.09 @ 7:39PM|#
A lot of libertarians have serious trouble distinguishing
between what you should the right to do and what you should
do.
Liberals have serious trouble distinguishing between what you have
a constitutional right to do and what they're going to allow you to
do if they're in office.
|8.21.09 @ 2:06PM|#
The liberals are big on pushing hate speech legislation and yet they are the biggest offenders of practicing hate speech. Total Hypocrisy
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245