Posted on 04/06/2013 11:47:52 AM PDT by EXCH54FE
Syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer brought momentarily silence, and not the kind that is out of respect, to a Fox News panel on “Special Report” after National Review columnist Jonah Goldberg said that Obama will not get a vote on the majority of new gun control legislation that he wants. “All he wants now is the money,” Krauthammer responded.
Several seconds of silence followed Krauthammer’s, “all he wants now is the money” comment. It was as if everyone at the table had been caught off guard, including host Chris Wallace.
Wallace finally recovered stating, “You don’t really mean that.”
“He’s lost on gun control,” Krauthammer responded.
When opposed by stating that he would get expanded background checks, Krauthammer indicated that it is “not going to make any difference.” He also went on to state that background checks were the “last item standing, the smallest item standing.” He said it’s the only one that Obama could possibly get, which I point out would be a huge blow to gun owners and the Second Amendment. Remember, Gun Owners of America and the National Rifle Association openly oppose expansion of background checks. However, as I wrote about here, West Virginia Democrat Joe Manchin and the NRA have been engaged in private talks on a proposal to broaden background checks on purchasers of firearms.
(Excerpt) Read more at freedomoutpost.com ...
Please provide a link to an article where Krauthammer has "written in favor of confiscation and disarmament". I don't believe such a thing exisst -- you've made it up.
But you could prove me wrong.
You are right. Nothing screams careless, sloppy thinking more than a poorly proofread post (or more so, one that looks as if it wasn’t looked at even once prior to being posted). If you want to be taken seriously, check your work! (And blaming it on iPad/Android/Fire wording/grammer “suggestions” doesn’t cut it...)
That’s what I was wondering as well, but you beat me to it.
don’t know if he said it or not, but he’s also declared
‘Nuclear Energy Is Dead’ After Japanese Crisis
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2692322/posts
and he’s been wrong before:
Krauthammer: Dead Wrong on the 14th
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2566125/posts
sure
http://www.grouchyconservativepundits.com/index.php?topic=3573.0;wap2
from his op-ed:
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 re-election. So let me elaborate the real logic of the ban:
It is simply crazy for a country as modern, industrial, advanced and now crowded as the United States to carry on its frontier infatuation with guns. Yes, we are a young country but the frontier has been closed for 100 years.
In 1992, there were 13,220 handgun murders in the United States. Canada (an equally young country, one might note) had 128; Britain, 33.
Ultimately, a civilized society must disarm its citizenry if it is to have a modicum of domestic tranquility of the kind enjoyed in sister democracies like 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.
and
Yes, Sarah Brady is doing God’s work. Yes, in the end America must follow the way of other democracies and disarm. But there is not the slightest chance that it will occur until liberals join in the other fights to reduce the incidence of and increase the penalties for crime. Only then will there be a public receptive to the idea of real gun control.
now, he wrote this back in 1996, perhaps he’s changed his mind. But I haven’t seen any evidence yet.
btw, Krauthammer is also pro-abortion. And not just one of those “I’m personally opposed, but...” types. He actually voted in favor of legal abortion in Maryland.
I often wonder how many conservatives actually know that much about his positions. He’s on the right when it comes to foreign policy, the military, economics generally...but when it comes to cultural/social issues, he’s of the left.
Krauthammer has never disavowed his position from the article quoted.
What interests me is his dogmatic desire for citizen disarmament. He does not give any serious reason for it, other than the silly “everyone is doing it”, which I do not take seriously.
So, the real question is: Why is he for it? If he is not for it any longer, because of the mountains of evidence that have piled up over the last 20 year, why doesn’t he say so?
Thank you. Thank you very much. - apologies to EP
“Thank you. Thank you very much. - apologies to EP”
That’s ok, I am here all week. Don’t forget to tip your waitresses.
Thanks for the article.
I suspect [but I certainly don't know] that his thinking on the issue may have changed. Nonetheless, though I don't agree with him on several other issues, either [I think he's misinformed on economics, for example], I still love to listen to his thought process.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.