Yes, This! – David Mamet Talks “Gun Control”….

Gun Laws and the Fools of Chelm – By David Mamet

Karl Marx summed up Communism as “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.” This is a good, pithy saying, which, in practice, has succeeded in bringing, upon those under its sway, misery, poverty, rape, torture, slavery, and death.

For the saying implies but does not name the effective agency of its supposed utopia. The agency is called “The State,” and the motto, fleshed out, for the benefit of the easily confused must read “The State will take from each according to his ability: the State will give to each according to his needs.” “Needs and abilities” are, of course, subjective. So the operative statement may be reduced to “the State shall take, the State shall give.”


All of us have had dealings with the State, and have found, to our chagrin, or, indeed, terror, that we were not dealing with well-meaning public servants or even with ideologues but with overworked, harried bureaucrats. These, as all bureaucrats, obtain and hold their jobs by complying with directions and suppressing the desire to employ initiative, compassion, or indeed, common sense. They are paid to follow orders.

Rule by bureaucrats and functionaries is an example of the first part of the Marxist equation: that the Government shall determine the individual’s abilities.

As rules by the Government are one-size-fits-all, any governmental determination of an individual’s abilities must be based on a bureaucratic assessment of the lowest possible denominator. The government, for example, has determined that black people (somehow) have fewer abilities than white people, and, so, must be given certain preferences. Anyone acquainted with both black and white people knows this assessment is not only absurd but monstrous. And yet it is the law.

President Obama, in his reelection campaign, referred frequently to the “needs” of himself and his opponent, alleging that each has more money than he “needs.”

But where in the Constitution is it written that the Government is in charge of determining “needs”? And note that the president did not say “I have more money than I need,” but “You and I have more than we need.” Who elected him to speak for another citizen?

It is not the constitutional prerogative of the Government to determine needs. One person may need (or want) more leisure, another more work; one more adventure, another more security, and so on. It is this diversity that makes a country, indeed a state, a city, a church, or a family, healthy. “One-size-fits-all,” and that size determined by the State has a name, and that name is “slavery.”

The Founding Fathers, far from being ideologues, were not even politicians. They were an assortment of businessmen, writers, teachers, planters; men, in short, who knew something of the world, which is to say, of Human Nature. Their struggle to draft a set of rules acceptable to each other was based on the assumption that we human beings, in the mass, are no damned good—that we are biddable, easily confused, and that we may easily be motivated by a Politician, which is to say, a huckster, mounting a soapbox and inflaming our passions.

Obama Jesus Pose

The Constitution’s drafters did not require a wag to teach them that power corrupts: they had experienced it in the person of King George. The American secession was announced by reference to his abuses of power: “He has obstructed the administration of Justice … he has made Judges dependant on his will alone … He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our Constitution, and unacknowledged by our Laws … He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass out people and to eat out their substance … imposed taxes upon us without our consent… [He has] fundamentally altered the forms of our government.”

This is a chillingly familiar set of grievances; and its recrudescence was foreseen by the Founders. They realized that King George was not an individual case, but the inevitable outcome of unfettered power; that any person or group with the power to tax, to form laws, and to enforce them by arms will default to dictatorship, absent the constant unflagging scrutiny of the governed, and their severe untempered insistence upon compliance with law.  (continue reading)


This entry was posted in 2nd Amendment, A New America, Communist, Dem Hypocrisy, Political correctness/cultural marxism, Potus Gun Ban, Quotes, Socialist, Tea Party, Typical Prog Behavior, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to Yes, This! – David Mamet Talks “Gun Control”….

  1. blained13 says:

    The liberals going after our second amendment rights is nothing new, Obama will most likely try anything to get this done. Hopefully the republicans in the house show a spine preventing any infringement of our rights. On all the issues its going to be a long four years.


    • waltherppk says:

      When government is using and showing “extreme prejudice” as both strategy and a modus operandi it is a dangerous precedent and it is no moral high ground occupied under some false pretense of law or justice or “democracy”. There will come a time when the gloves must come off dealing with criminals. Personally I don’t think that time is far away.


    • michellc says:

      Sadly there are a lot of enemies of the constitution in the republican house as well. I’m afraid if there is any spine that gets shown it’s going to come from the people. I know I’d certainly trust my neighbor at my side in this fight as sniveling Boehner and others like him.


      • waltherppk says:

        It can be seen and proven and experienced that stupid laws are a death sentence for some persons adversely affected by the same stupid laws, and there is not always any “remedy at law” to provide relief, particularly for bringing back the dead and making them and their loved ones whole again. You can’t fix stupid, but you sure can bury it. So I am thinking that there is a reckoning coming with stupid progs that is not going to end peacefully. Even having to have “debate” about some things is a situation where things have already journeyed into the surreal. Where is the middle ground for agreement or compromise to be found with stupid idiots and evil people ? And why should such compromise even be contemplated about matters where there can be no tolerably comfortable reasonable compromise ? With stupid progs it is their way or the highway and they take their half of the road out of the middle. Where can you go with that kind of mentality to keep the peace ? It’s like they want a war and mean to have one. That doesn’t leave a lot of room for talk or alternatives. Turning the other cheek doesn’t require letting mayhem and evil proceed unopposed. I never got the “love your enemies” part right anyway. I honestly tried that, but it has just never worked for me.


  2. myopiafree says:

    Remarks on the stupidity of so-called, “Gun Control”

    Let us hope are Bill-of-Rights prevents this crazy tatic.

    Here’s a thought to warm some of your hearts….

    From: Ed Chenel, A police officer in Australia

    Hi Yanks, I thought you all would like to see the real figures from Down Under.

    It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by a new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by our own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars.

    The first year results are now in:
    Australia-wide, homicides are up 6.2 percent,
    Australia-wide, assaults are up 9.6 percent;
    Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)!

    In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent. (Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not and criminals still possess their guns!)

    While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since the criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed.

    There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the elderly, while the resident is at home.

    Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was expended in ‘successfully ridding Australian society of guns….’ You won’t see this on the American evening news or hear your governor or members of the State Assembly disseminating this information.

    The Australian experience speaks for itself. Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws affect only the law-abiding citizens.

    Take note Americans, before it’s too late! Will you be one of the sheep to turn yours in?

    WHY? You will need it.



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s