In an op-ed piece entitled “Disarm The Citizenry”, The Washington Post, Friday, April 5, 1996, page A19, columnist Charles Krauthammer wrote:
“Ultimately, a civilized society must disarm its citizenry if it is to have a modicum of domestic tranquility of the kind enjoyed by sister democracies such as Canada and Britain. Given the frontier history and individualist ideology of the United States, however, this will not come easily. It certainly cannot be done radically. It will probably take one, maybe two generations. It might be 50 years before the United States gets to where Britain is today. Passing a law like the assault weapons ban is a symbolic - purely symbolic - move in that direction. Its only real justification is not to reduce crime but to desensitize the public to the regulation of weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation.”
Has he disavowed those words? If not, I’m gonna write down his name in my book and draw a line through it.
Now that quote is scary!
That’s darned disturbing from chuck. Sounds like he’s got some major blind spots where freedom and liberty are concerned.
Why would anyone in their right mind want to model a society after the two failed liberocracies canauckistan and (Once) great britain?
If that is the path to being civilized, I will gladly throw my lot in with the barbarians. chucky can have his fantasy of a civilized society, I’ll keep my firearms.
Stopped reading as soon as I saw you had changed the title.
George Mason of Virginia, 1788
No wonder he supported Castle, who had an ‘F’ by the NRA.
Oh, really?
Hadn't been aware of that instrumental, Straussian, let-them-eat-cake little opinion of his, concerning our Second Amendment rights.
Think we can wheel Charlie's chair into the back row for a while.
In your quote it is hard to tell if it is a future he “envisages” or endorses. Certainly if civilian disarmament is a future he wishes to see then he is no friend of ours. OTOH, if folks 50 years from know “allow themselves to become desensitized to disarmament” it is their own fault. I imagine none of us will still be here then. Certainly I will not be turning over a damn thing.
Do you have a link to the rest of that article?
Is there a link to the entire article that this quote came from??
Wow! That’s a shocker.. at least to me! Has he changed his position since that article? It definitely sheds new light on Dr. K!
... and to comment on this piece by him... he just HAD to trash O’Donnell here as well!!
Thanks for the post.
OMG. Krauthammer wrote that? Has he ever repudiated this or does he stand by it today? Disturbing.
Disarm the Citizenry. But not yet.
[FINAL Edition]
The Washington Post (pre-1997 Fulltext) - Washington, D.C.
Author: Charles Krauthammer
Date: Apr 5, 1996
Start Page: A.19
Section: OP/ED
Text Word Count: 799
In an election year you expect Washington to be full of phony arguments. But even a cynic must marvel at the all-round phoniness of the debate over repeal of the assault weapons ban. Both sides are blowing smoke.
The claim of the advocates that banning these 19 types of "assault weapons" will reduce the crime rate is laughable. (The term itself is priceless: What are all the other guns in America's home arsenal? Encounter weapons? Crime-en\abling devices?) Dozens of other weapons, the functional equivalent of these "assault weapons," were left off the list and are perfect substitutes for anyone bent on mayhem.
In fact, the assault weapons ban will have no significant effect either on the crime rate or on personal security. Nonetheless, it is a good idea, though for reasons its proponents dare not enunciate. I am not up for reelection. So let me elaborate the real logic of the ban: