» News

David Mamet Eloquently Ties Marxism To Gun Control

Home - by - January 25, 2013 - 18:00 America/New_York - 16 Comments

From the Bullpen –

David Mamet chimes in on the Gun Debate

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.”

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?

Continued reading at (gulp) The Daily Beast  will bring you to the money shots -

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.

 

» 16 Comments

  1. Stranded in Sonoma

    January 25th, 2013

    When David Mamet was a liberal writing scripts and such he was the greatest living writer/author of his age. Then he had his epiphany. Now the liberals consider him some average hack writer who was never very good in the first place.

    Same thing with Michael Crichton. In the 80s and early 90s, Crichton was considered a fine science fiction writer. About 5 years ago I remember having a “conversation” with someone on YouTube about Crichton and he called Crichton an average sci-fi writer with bad facts supporting his fiction, which was worse.

    See the light and see the true vitriol of the left.

    Thumb up +8

     
  2. thirdtwin

    January 25th, 2013

    Stranded, the leftist art fags would not dare to say to Mamet’s face what they whisper behind his back. They know that they would get their asses handed to them.

    Mamet stands as a rebuke to their cowardice and the intellectual poverty which keeps them in the prog hive.

    Although I must say that in the picture above, he looks lime he’s about to climb into a Vickers Vimy and set a speed record for Paris to London. But the look does seem to work for him.

    Thumb up +2

     
  3. Lowell

    January 25th, 2013

    Fuck Mamet. He has his own agenda and little people don’t signify.

    Thumb up +1

     
  4. thirdtwin

    January 25th, 2013

    Lowell, everybody has their own agenda. I like what he says and his clear language. Speaking of clear language, help me out with the little people and their signifying.

    Thumb up +2

     
  5. Dagney

    January 25th, 2013

    Ever since I’ve watched The House of Games, I have a pavlovian reaction to the mere ring of ‘David Mamet’.

    As per the text:

    there are more than 2 million instances a year of the armed citizen deterring or stopping armed criminals; a number four times that of all crimes involving firearms.

    The typical lefty here will say: BS, this ain’t a true statistics.

    Of course it is not, since those ‘crimes’ that were DETERRED OR PREVENTED by the Gun DID NOT HAPPEN.

    The gun ACTED ON THE FUTURE.

    So no statistics.

    But can be true nonetheless — and it’s logical too.

    So David Mamet used a FICTIVE NUMBER like one does with a fictive personnage in a Documentary. There’s a reality behind that number; the importance lies not in the number itself, but in the PROCESS of deterrence, of prevention (an action on the future).

    How many lifes were saved by MAD? We don’t know; for nuclear war did not happen during the Cold War.

    Thumb up +3

     
  6. Dagney

    January 25th, 2013

    The rightwing argument relies heavily on prevention: — to deter a genocide, to prevent a crime, etc.

    We need to compute that deterrence (prevention of genonice, prevention of crime) with PROBABILITIES.

    Thumb up +2

     
  7. Corky

    January 25th, 2013

    I put a map in the Bullpen done by the Cato Institute on how many gun incidents are used in defense. It is an interactive map and of course not entirely accurate since deterrence is not reported. Still a great map.

    Thumb up 0

     
  8. Dagney

    January 25th, 2013

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJYuZ5WytbQ

    Mamet’s genius. On poker.

    Thumb up 0

     
  9. Dagney

    January 25th, 2013

    The left only wants to consider corpses, not the young woman who walked free from a wannabe rapist nor the old man who deterred a wannabe murderer by flashing his submachine gun.

    Thumb up 0

     
  10. Billy Fuster

    January 25th, 2013

    Mamet makes good points. However, like many pundits, he avoids discussing the real purpose of the second amendment, that is, to defend ourselves from the biggest criminals and murderers of the past century–tyrannical government.

    Thumb up 0

     
  11. Dagney

    January 25th, 2013

    he does refer to it indirectly via the concept of deterrence, prevention.

    Thumb up 0

     
  12. Stevo

    January 25th, 2013

    I read the article over at the DailyBeast (I know, gasp) and I encourage you to read the comments there. Notice there is no ‘Fisking” of any of his points.

    What you do see is pretty much in these three categories:

    1- Communism is so 80′s, it died with the Soviet Union.

    2 – Besides, we know how to get Communism right this time.

    3- You just want an Assault Rifle so you can kill a lot of people.

    Lord help us, we’re supposed to carry on an intelligent conversation with these Liberal loonies?

    Thumb up 0

     
  13. [...] David Mamet Eloquently Ties Marxism To Gun Control [...]

    Thumb up 0

     
  14. thirdtwin

    January 25th, 2013

    Dagney, here is one from today:

    http://www.bizpacreview.com/2013/01/25/wheelchair-bound-vet-scares-off-burglar-16804

    And like you said, it is in the probabilities; If one incident of gun-based deterrence makes the news or the local police blotter, it can logically be assumed that at least one incident did not. Tools like Piers Morgan are counting on nobody counting.

    Thumb up 0

     
  15. thirdtwin

    January 25th, 2013

    Billy Fuster that is all well and good, but the gun controllers answer with the argument that since we cannot own tanks fighter jets, artillery and such, we cannot resist govt tyranny, so What Difference Does It Make (TM) if we lose the puny little guns?

    To which I would answer that our government’s propensity to be soft on crime is a form of de facto government tyranny on law-abiding citizens which the government has proven unable or unwilling to mitigate. Hence the necessity for an armed citizenry, able to counter criminal tyranny with equal or better weaponry.

    Thumb up +1

     
  16. [...] David Mamet Eloquently Ties Marxism To Gun Control (iowntheworld.com) [...]

    Thumb up 0