Self-professed former “brain-dead liberal” filmmaker and Pulitzer Award-winning author David Mamet’s recent Newsweek article leaves little doubt as to the completeness of his conversion to conservatism.
Mamet not only describes the Democrats’ full-court press to take guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens as “an appeal to the ignorant,” but offers up a damn good smack-down of centralized (socialist) government as well:
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.”
I’ll go out on a limb and wager that current brain-dead liberals vehemently disagree with Mamet’s analysis. What a bitch when reality runs headlong into emotionally-driven ideology – huh, loons?
Mamet proceeds to tackle gun control head-on, writing:
The Left loves a phantom statistic that a firearm in the hands of a citizen is X times more likely to cause accidental damage than to be used in the prevention of crime, but what is there about criminals that ensures that their gun use is accident-free? If, indeed, a firearm were more dangerous to its possessors than to potential aggressors, would it not make sense for the government to arm all criminals, and let them accidentally shoot themselves? Is this absurd? Yes, and yet the government, of course, is arming criminals.
Violence by firearms is most prevalent in big cities with the strictest gun laws. In Chicago and Washington, D.C., for example, it is only the criminals who have guns, the law-abiding populace having been disarmed, and so crime runs riot.
Cities of similar size in Texas, Florida, Arizona, and elsewhere, which leave the citizen the right to keep and bear arms, guaranteed in the Constitution, typically are much safer. More legal guns equal less crime. What criminal would be foolish enough to rob a gun store? But the government alleges that the citizen does not need this or that gun, number of guns, or amount of ammunition.
Of course – in the mind of the emotionally-driven, low-information liberal – Mamet committed two cardinal sins in the previous excerpt; the first being the use of logic; the second being even worse: the use of statistics. Logic, facts and statistics are to liberals what sunlight, crosses and holy water are to vampires. (Come to think of it, liberals aren’t too fond of two of three of those, either.)
After discussing the benefits of having armed guards in schools, Mamet hits the nail on the head regarding the role of police and the whole “assault weapons” argument:
The police do not exist to protect the individual. They exist to cordon off the crime scene and attempt to apprehend the criminal. We individuals are guaranteed by the Constitution the right to self-defense. This right is not the Government’s to “award” us. They have never been granted it.
The so-called assault weapons ban is a hoax. It is a political appeal to the ignorant.
Will increased cosmetic measures make anyone safer? They, like all efforts at disarmament, will put the citizenry more at risk. Disarmament rests on the assumption that all people are good, and, basically, want the same things.
But if all people were basically good, why would we, increasingly, pass more and more elaborate laws?
The individual is not only best qualified to provide his own personal defense, he is the only one qualified to do so: and his right to do so is guaranteed by the Constitution.
Game, set, match, loons: Any questions?
Mamet also makes it clear that he understands O’s hypocrisy and disdain for the Constitution to a tee:
President Obama seems to understand the Constitution as a “set of suggestions.” I cannot endorse his performance in office, but he wins my respect for taking those steps he deems necessary to ensure the safety of his family. Why would he want to prohibit me from doing the same?
The only thing a current brain-dead liberal hates more than a life-long conservative is a former brain-dead liberal who becomes a conservative. Especially a former brain-dead liberal who no longer fears crosses and holy water.