Quote of the day—Douglas Anthony Cooper

Only a couple of aspects of the Australian Model would legitimately outrage a predictable group. The ban would be retroactive. Citizens would then have to specify why they wish to keep or purchase an unbanned gun. Sufficient reasons would include hunting, pest control, and target shooting. Insufficient reasons would include, notably, “self defense.” Anyone with a demented understanding of the Constitution would be outraged by this, and you ought to welcome their outrage. They are a menace.

Douglas Anthony Cooper
December 12, 2012
A Proven Way to End the Gun Slaughter: Will We Fight For it?
[It is critical for the anti-gun people to eliminate the concept of self-defense. It is our strongest point in this battle. Look what we did with the concealed handgun laws in the last 30 years. That was the “tip of the spear” and getting some of our gun rights back.

What is surprising to me is that self-defense, of almost any type, does not resonate with many people from other cultures. Our culture of individualism regards self-defense as self-evident. My communist brother-in-law has flat out told me “the needs of the society outweigh the needs of the individual” and denigrates self-defense and individual rights. Individual rights, to him, hinder “progress” because they inhibit the “advancement” of society as a whole.

My brother-in-law and Douglas Anthony Cooper regard anyone who has a respect for individual rights as a menace to society. Stalin, Pol Pot, Lenin, and Mao Zedong were in full agreement and demonstrated the “proper” way to deal with such people. It should be no surprise so many of these people want you disarmed. And it should be obvious what they would do if they could acquire the power to deal with you as they wished.—Joe]

52 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Douglas Anthony Cooper

  1. I find the argument about “the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few,” because what are “the needs of the many” beyond the sum of what’s good for the individuals? How can something that is observably bad for large numbers of good people be an improvement for the entire group? And simply stipulating the group is “bad” does not plot a logical path around the question. How did killing off the Jews help the Germany? How did killing millions of highly productive Kulaks help the Soviet Union? How did Turkey as a whole become better off for slaughtering Armenians? How am I better off if you are disallowed the right to effective self-defense?

  2. It’s those people “gumming up the works” that need to be silenced for the good of society. They are creating doubt about the wisdom of their leaders. It’s all perfectly obvious to all good thinking people. Are you saying you are one of those people?

    People who possess arms for self-defense end up using them to murder or have accidents that kill innocent people. Society is better off if people just can’t have guns. It’s obvious. If you disagree then you are part of the problem and are a menace to society.

    See? That wasn’t hard to understand, was it?

    • Exactly, and Rolf; don’t forget that there are far too many people on the planet anyway. What are a few Jews, Kulaks, Cambodian intellectuals or arrogant, greedy American Redneck breeder/consumers when the future of the entire planet is at stake? You’re just not seeing the big picture (typical blind capitalist/materialist). If someone wants to level the score a little bit and rob you, well, you asked for it anyway by sucking up all that wealth while others are starving, and then flaunting it in their faces and acting, in your arrogance, like you’re setting some kind of example that the whole world should follow. And NOW you a GUN too? Well that just figures, doesn’t it?

  3. A few years ago there were some “race riots” in Australia — Aussies vs. various Muslims — and one side of the conflict waved around supposedly banned firearms.

  4. This guy is a real charmer. Without studying this article, I’ve been described as demented, paranoid, a survivalist, a menace and probably a few other juicy terms.

    All by someone who it seems is quite taken by the collective and demands that his view be imposed upon those of us with different views on the Second Amendment. I hate to disappoint Cooper, but I have no desire to overthrow or otherwise menace the Federal Government. I do however believe that peoples and states have the ability to withdraw their consent toe be governed by said Federal Government and can set their own course.

    Jeff B.

  5. The Aussie Plan did’t end gun slaughter, it made it worse. Before the ban, little black market in handguns existed. After the ban, smuggling handguns into Australia has become a big underworld industry.

    The Aussie Plan has failed at all of it’s stated purposes.

  6. It is axiomatic that self-defense is an inherent right of the individual. What is wrong with the people who suppress the natural and proper instinct of self-preservation?

    All I can say about those who like communism and authoritarian governments is that they are brain-washed or stupid. As Joe showed above in his insightful riposte to Rolf, we can see it is really only about consolidating power and absolute rule. It really has nothing to do with the expressed intention to better the whole of society. This is why we must never give up our firearms. As Carl Stevenson noted above, this mentatlity is exactly what gives us genocides.

    Never Again!
    Molon Labe!

  7. In the attempt to discredit self-defense, most gun control advocates will cite the Kellerman study. Most gunowner advocates will rebut that, but an important point is often overlooked. The most important facet of the Kellerman study does not depend upon its veracity. Many gun control advocates often say: “We do not want to take guns away from law-abiding citizens; we just want laws that keep guns away from criminals and children and the mentally ill”. But those same people just as often quote the Kellerman study, which focuses on the supposed conesquences of gun ownership by the “ordinary” citizen. It is important to remember that gun control advocates are ACTIVISTS. They do not merely “reccommend” that which they believe promotes the public good; they want LAWS. It is naive to think that those activists who continually remind us of the dangers of gun ownership by citizens would stop at taking guns from only criminals and children and the mentally ill, and allow continued gun ownership by others who incur death by gunshot at a rate “43 times” that of defensive use. Thus, the frequent promotion of the Kellerman study by gun control advocates, regardless of truth or falsehood, serves to remind us of their true goal of drastic reduction or elimination of gun ownership, and the deception of their claim: “We do not want to take guns away from law-abiding citizens; we just want laws that keep guns away from criminals and children and the mentally ill.”

    • The Kellerman study presents what Gary Kleck referred to as the “nonsense ratio” — the proportion of people killed in self defense vs. people killed with guns otherwise.
      Nonsense for many reasons. For example, self defense resulting in the perp’s death is about 2% of the total number of self defense cases. And besides, the implication of using that ratio is an assumption that the GOAL of self-defense is the death of the attacker, which normal people know is of course utter nonsense.
      So the real issue with the Kellerman study is that Kellerman is a moron, and his “study” shows it.
      For more, see http://www.pulpless.com/gunclock/kleck2.html which reprints the Kleck essay I just quoted from.

  8. RE: Cooper, et al. “Do not try to teach the pig to dance; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.”

    Bacon, however, is pretty tasty.

  9. >>It is critical for the anti-gun people to eliminate the concept of self-defense. It is our strongest point in this battle.<<

    And thus, therefor, it becomes clear that it is and will remain necessary that those who attack the liberty position on this point should be (metaphorically speaking) bloodied up good until they retreat from it, unwilling to re-make the attempt in their generation. Hit them with the fact that they are despicable for their attempts to render their fellow citizens defenseless before predatory humans — even, especially, and particularly humans in government — and invite them to a wilding.

    Bastards, pricks, assholes. Show no mercy. KIck 'em in the rhetorical nads and push 'em back. They do not deserve consideration. No quarter.

    M

  10. Pingback: Monday News Links | Shall Not Be Questioned

  11. A gun is a tool. A gun is not self-defense. Why must you muddy the waters by conflating the two?

    • A gun is the best tool for self-defense.

      If you are opposed to gun ownership then you must, logically, be opposed to self-defense. Smart anti-gun people realize this and are opposed to self-defense. Talk to them sometime. I’ve talked to many of them. I have not found any exceptions. They will advocate self-defense by proxy (call the police who will bring guns) but not direct self-defense because they realize they will be trapped by the logical necessity of denying the use of the best self-defense tool.

      In the past, at least, you recognize the issue and accept that people with slow access (“remote areas” is how I think you usually phrase it) to police support need firearms for self-defense. And you end up being in a difficult position trying to draw a line between those in “remote areas” where they have a right to firearms and those not in a “remote area”. Most others avoid the dilemma you face and disallow self-defense in their supposed utopian world.

      • “If you are opposed to gun ownership then you must, logically, be opposed to self-defense.”

        This is simply not true OR logical. Is your “communist brother-in-law” against women who smack men who get in their personal space? Is he against men who punch other men who punch them first? Would he have been against Curtis Reeves throwing popcorn at Chad Oulsen who threw popcorn at him? Is he against people learning karate? Is he against golf clubs, hammers and cars (because you know all of those can be used for self- defense)?

        Isn’t the best self-defense tool your brain? A gun in the hands of a fool is a type of self-defense I doubt many would agree with.

        • If he uses it in a manner of which you or I would not approve, then he isn’t using it in self-defense.

          How is that a hard concept to understand?

          Self-defense: I don’t think that word means what you think it means…

        • Clarify:

          My previous comment was in response to this sentence:

          “A gun in the hands of a fool is a type of self-defense I doubt many would agree with.”

        • No, the best tool for self defense is the combination of two things: (a) a properly functioning brain, (b) a device for applying force against the attacker sufficient to stop the attack promptly.
          A gun is a particularly good solution for requirement (b). For some people, there are other options. If the attacker has only contact weapons (or no weapons) AND you’re a strong person skilled in karate, then karate may be good enough. If you’re small, weak, old, or handicapped, that won’t do.
          Similarly, if the scene is open enough, and you’re in good enough shape, running away may be a good solution for (b). If you’re not able to run effectively, that won’t do.
          http://www.olegvolk.net/gallery/technology/arms/handicapped8619.jpg.html (among a number of others)

          • Did you ever read the news story about the old lady that used a can of hairspray to defend herself from a mugger? I thought it was a pretty good story because it showed how clever some people are when they need to be. She emptied the can right into his eyes.

          • “Did you ever read the news story about the old lady that used a can of hairspray to defend herself from a mugger? I thought it was a pretty good story because it showed how clever some people are when they need to be. She emptied the can right into his eyes.”

            Ubu, there are many wonderful stories about people doing what they can to defend their own lives with all sorts of everyday objects. I will not detract from their success stories, because it is a reminder that we need to be prepared to do what it takes to defend ourselves from murderers and robbers who give no thought to innocent lives.

            Having said that, these stories *do not* change the fact that guns are the best tool for self defense. Indeed, most other tools require far more strength, skill, and frankly luck, than a gun does–and you still need a good dose of luck, even with a gun! Guns merely even the odds.

            You also ignore the fact that a yahoo fool with hairspray, or karate skills, or a knife, or a hammer or car or whatever, can cause just as much damage (or maybe even more) than a yahoo fool with a gun!

        • Yes. My communist brother-in-law is against people hitting each other. That is a job for the government. You can learn karate, as he did, just don’t hit anyone. Cars? Yes, he is opposed to them. But not because of self-defense. Hammers, etc.? No. But don’t use them for self-defense.

          You are stretching things with the brain as a tool. The brain uses tools without really being a tool itself in the conventional meaning.

          • Indeed. The brain as a tool is like a computer as a tool. Each depends on some kind of an interface in order to be effective and actually DO something.

  12. When people say “the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the individual,” semantically, reasonably, and otherwise, all they are saying is that “the needs of some are more important than the needs of others.”

    It gets even more worrisome when you realize that for most of these folks, you could substitute the word “some” with any of the following terms:

    -“politically connected”
    -“wealthy”
    -“Right-thinking”
    -“People that I agree with”
    -“powerful”
    -“psychopathic, but well-spoken”

    Can you think of any others? Any more horrifying than this list?

    • “children”
      “the elderly”
      “the unborn”
      “the [pick a religion]”
      “parents”
      “property owners”
      “the [pick a race or ethnic group]”
      “men”
      “women”
      “disabled”
      “gun owners”
      “non-gun owners”

      And any of a million different terms people use to differentiate themselves from others.

  13. I wonder, but I don’t think it would be terribly difficult given the current state of AI technology, if a computer program could be written to emulate ubu in comments. Then again, given the relatively simple nature of truth, it might be even less difficult to write a program that could consistently defend liberty in these conversations.

    Then we could simply have our computers do our arguing for us, much like the programs that can play each other at chess, thus freeing our time so we could get on and live our lives as we wish.

    But no, sooner or later someone needs a gun to either force the other actual person into compliance or to defend against such force. Or maybe just some popcorn, what, ubu? You think we’ll submit to some form of slavery by another name just to avoid having popcorn thrown at us? Or it take a bit more than popcorn?

  14. I can see that from now on the various slasher movies will have to end after the first scene. Chainsaw murderer, maybe with three or four friends, attacks a lone, young woman in a dark alley. She throws her assault popcorn at them. They back off;
    “Geeze, Lady! Ow! OK, you win this time.”
    And they leave. Same with all crime dramas. Same in real life. Ubu has just solved all crime problems. Popcorn and the power of the brain. At worst the occasional can of pepper spray. Who’d a thunk it? We could just make sure all military combat personnel are really smart and have some popcorn and pepper spray, ’cause no one is serious enough about harming or controlling anyone else that they couldn’t be totally and immediately dissuaded and even converted with a little cleverness and some spice. Where was ubu when the Japanese were rampaging through Nanking? That little misunderstanding, and all others of course, could have been totally avoided.

  15. Just wanted to respond to this: “Cooper is a really demented individual. He’s the sort that would have happily herded people into the ‘showers’ in the 1940s.”

    Actually, that’s probably inaccurate. I’m Jewish, you see. The members of my family who were not savvy enough to make it to the New World were in fact murdered in the camps.

    By the way, you’d better decide whether I’m a Nazi or a Communist. Difficult to be both — especially when you’re demonstrably neither. It’s easy enough to verify this: I’m very much on record. Try Google. When I’m not writing about armed American big-swinging hobbyists, I tend to devote a lot of my critical words to Stalinists, Nazis, and their grotesque contemporary spawn.

    Note that I’m not making your argument: I’m not suggesting, noxious as you are, that any of you are remotely comparable to Maoists or the Waffen-SS. You’re not. You’re a disgrace, but you’re not anything like genocidal ideologues. At most, your hobbies result in the tangential death or injury of some 10,000 innocent American children per year. No, that’s not quite the same thing as the deliberate slaughter of millions.

    I’m in fact convinced that your intentions are not murderous, for the most part. You’re clueless, not evil.

    Carry on.

    – Cooper

      • The total number of actual “children” killed by guns has been running around 300 a year for decades. It’s only when you consider gangbangers as old as 24 that you get anywhere close to the 10k number.
        That’s just more leftist bullshit.

    • I am Jewish, too, and it stand by my comment that you, along with Schumer, Feinstein, Bloomberg, Boxer, and the others of your victim disarmament, government toadie ilk, are as complicit as the Judenraten of Hitler’s Germany.
      Whenever people bad mouth Jews as leftists and gun grabbers, here’s what I tell them:
      Don’t judge all Jews by the Judenraten and JINOs. They are quislings and/or tyrant wannabes. (Or simply professional victims who lack the courage to stand up against evil.)
      Obama’s patron George Soros was born a Jew. His parents gave him to a non-Jew to protect him from the Holocaust, just before they were hauled off to the camps.
      George was about 12 at the time, as I recall.
      George willingly went around showing the Nazis where the Jews lived so their property could be stolen and they could be shipped off to the camps.
      There are evil people, and people of weak character and little courage, in all heritages, ethnicities, and religions.
      For example, Feinstein, Schumer, Bloomberg, Boxer, Cooper, and the others are evil, not because of their names or because they claim to be Jews, but because of their behavior, and there are are plenty of Jews who have no use for such Judenraten Quislings and their colleagues in crime. (And have the courage and integrity to call them what they are … see jpfo.org and, specifically http://jpfo.org/images02/handbillpoliticians-large.jpg to see for yourself how many Jews feel about Feinstein and the others who seek to disarm us so they can control us.)

      I’ve added you to the list for future comment.

      As far as Nazi or communist, there’s very little difference (like Democrat or Republican), the only REAL bone of contention is “who should operate the levers of power of the totalitarian state.” Hitler and Stalin would have most likely gotten along fine if the could have just agreed to share in world domination, but their egos wouldn’t allow that. They did, however both rely on useful idiots like you to accomplish their evil.

      • Hitler and Stalin in fact DID get along just fine doing exactly what you describe. The only trouble was that Stalin had momentarily forgotten that evil people don’t stop their evil just because there is a treaty, so he was surprised when his “friend” turned on him.

    • Amazing how DAC seems to think that sneering insults, tarring a large fraction of the US population with the brush of idiocy, are a good way to convince anyone.
      Forget it, mister. I’m an immigrant from the Netherlands; I am now a US citizen because the USA is the shining beacon of freedom in the world. And I know, from studying the subject at length, that this is so because of the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights. And in particular, that the 2nd Amendment is the one that defends all the rest. I’ve also studied the Dutch “constitution” — so I can tell who got it right and who did not. (See article 120 of the Dutch constitution for an example of why I used quotation marks.)
      The fact that you hate the 2nd Amendment merely demonstrates that you intend to commit evil against the rest of the Constitution.
      “The Second Amendment was written expressly to intimidate government officials and keep them in their place. The fact that politicians and bureaucrats, regardless of their party, detest it and want it obliterated proves that it works.” — L. Neil Smith

      • Two other relevant quotes:
        “Never forget, even for an instant, that the one and only reason anyone has for taking your gun away is to make you weaker than he is, so he can do something to you that you wouldn’t let him do if you were equipped to prevent it. This goes for burglars, muggers, and rapists, and even more so for policemen, bureaucrats, and politicians.” (L. Neil Smith)
        “Victim disarmament types are sick, sick people, who’d rather see a woman raped in an alley and strangled with her own pantyhose than see her with a gun in her hand.” (T. D. Melrose, quoted by Neil Smith)

  16. Okay, this is interesting. I was going to walk away from this, but I’ve now realized who I’m talking to, and I’m fascinated.

    So, this is off-the-grid North Central Idaho. And our self-proclaimed Jew — the one who dismisses his people as quislings — has decided to set himself up in the most virulently anti-Semitic quadrant of North America. You have to wonder why.

    I’ll say this: I had you guys wrong. You may be many things, but you’re not suburban hobbyists. My guess is that our friend — none of whose best friends are Jews — is a talented marksman, and occasionally has reason to actually use his gun.

    Again: what’s he doing off the grid? If these are his talents, and he actually cared about his people, then he’d be out preventing the next Holocaust. Which is to say he’d join the IDF, and protect his nation from the enemies on every side determined to extinguish them: people like Ahmadinejad, not Schumer and Feinstein. Instead he’s decided to make his home in a place where a favorite novel is The Turner Diaries: a book that celebrates the extermination of the Jews in the US.

    In short, while this guy is attempting to define me as a victim/collaborator, he has set up his personal bunker in the area of America most favorable to the idea of concentration camps. I don’t mean to tar you guys in particular with this brush — I stand by what I said before: I don’t imagine that anyone here is a genocidal ideologue. You may in fact be the most decent, law-abiding citizens. Still, North Central Idaho has entire communities that look like this:

    http://www.nytimes.com/1995/01/08/magazine/off-the-grid.html

    As for my attitude towards guns, you might be surprised to find that I’m not actually a cartoon stereotype either. As I say: I’m a Zionist. I very much favor the arming of Israeli citizens. They have vicious enemies, and they require the most lethal weaponry. I wouldn’t have it any other way. The guns are highly regulated, of course — note that Israelis aren’t busy shooting Israeli children in elementary schools. These guns aren’t clogging the streets; they’re issued to citizens who take great care that they don’t fall into the wrong hands.

    If you try Google, you’ll find that I in fact spend a lot of time fighting the bigots who slander Israel. I’ve made some pretty ugly enemies myself for taking this stance. And here I’m being accused of pandering, by this House Jew in the middle of nowhere. He’s busy telling everyone that the Jews they’d really like — really! — aren’t that different from the SS.

    As I say, I don’t mean to suggest that the people in this conversation are wild-eyed skinheads. It’s probable that not one of you has a copy of The Turner Diaries on his bedside table. Even though we disagree virulently regarding guns, I suspect I’m talking with a much more sane and moderate bunch than you encounter in that article I linked to. In fact, unless you provide me with evidence to the contrary, I’m willing to believe that the only one in this thread who is truly revolting is our friend Carl.

    • I’m having a hard time finding any semantic content here. There are lots of words, but no meaning. I suppose that was to be expected.
      As for “most virulently anti-semitic quadrant” — I guess you aren’t aware that left wing urban areas are most anti-semitic, and bible-hugging conservative areas are the most pro-Israel.

    • As Bruce Willis would say … “BZZZZZZT Wrong Answer!” (On multiple topics)

      As for “self-proclaimed Jew”, I CHOSE to convert to Judaism, I wasn’t born into it like so many secular, left-wing “Jews” (like Feinstein, Schumer, and the others who would, like the Judenraten of Hitler’s Germany, disarm us in favor of a monopoly of violent held by the state. (Here’s an excellent essay: http://www.jack-donovan.com/axis/2011/03/violence-is-golden/)

      Second, I don’t live in rural Idaho, I live not far from Philly, so your attempt to “tar” me with your perceived, but false, notion of people who live out in the boonies in Idaho as backward anti-Semites falls on its face along with your other assertions.

      Third, people like Feinstein, Schumer, and their ilk are FAR more of a real threat to our lives and liberty than Ahmadinejad. Your delusion that the next Holocaust could only happen in Israel is just that – delusional. The overwhelming cause of unnatural deaths in the 20th century was democide (murder by government of its own citizens) … Invariably after they were disarmed by those governments.
      See: http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/20TH.HTM
      They ALL thought “It can’t happen here” – until they were disarmed and it started, then it was too late. Don’t make the same mistake. Don’t EVER let your government disarm you. Don’t tell me, “It can’t happen here in America.” To borrow a quote from Mike Vanderboegh, “Anyone who tells you that ‘It Can’t Happen Here’ is whistling past the graveyard of history. There is no ‘house rule’ that bars tyranny coming to America. History is replete with republics whose people grew complacent and descended into imperial butchery and chaos.”

      I don’t claim to have originated these, and can’t remember where I got these two quotes, but I believe them and stand by them as if they were my own:

      Remember: Evil exists because good men don’t kill the government officials committing it.

      and

      Thought For The Day: Timing Is Everything
      If you start shooting the bad guys early enough to make a difference, you’ll be labeled a radical crazy person.
      If you wait until it’s acceptable, you’ll be 80 pounds underweight, unarmed, and being loaded into a boxcar.

      If you want us disarmed, have the integrity and courage of your convictions to come and try to do it yourself. What? You say that’s not your job and you’d rather hire some armed thugs to do it for you? That’s what I thought.
      Crawl back in your hole and leave people of integrity and honorable convictions alone with their liberty. If you’ll just do that and stop trying to take away our natural rights, things will be peaceful. If not, probably not so much.
      I’d suggest you visit Mike Vanderboegh’s site and read some his essays on “The Law of Unintended Consequences.

    • We have vicious enemies, too. They include people I mentioned like Feinstein, Schumer, etc. not all Jews admire these leftists. See http://jpfo.org/images02/handbillpoliticians-large.jpg
      to see for yourself how many Jews feel about Feinstein and the others who seek to disarm us so they can control us.
      Your implication that I’m not a “real” Jew is a lot like leftists or race baiters like Sharpton/Jackson saying that people like Alan West, Keys, Sowell, etc. “aren’t really black (are ‘uncle Toms’ or ‘race traitors’) because they don’t tow the leftist/statist part line, but instead are freedom loving conservatives or libertarians.

    • @Douglas Anthony Cooper,

      The link you gave us is to an article nearly 20 years old. Gritz was gone by 1999. Kamiah, where Gritz planned to create “Almost Heaven” is less than 30 miles from where I grew up, have most of my family, and still own land. The attitude toward the type of people that you apparently believe dominant the area was best summed up by local newspaper editor Bill Hall in 1998. The neo Nazis/skin-heads/whatever near Hayden Lake were driven out years ago as well.

      So where are these “entire communities” you are talking about? Because I don’t know where they would be.

      While I have read the Turner Diaries my Amazon review (probably scrolled off years ago) of it was not the least bit kind. I don’t know any “off-the grid” people although my brother knows a few. They claim to be some sort of Jewish sect that appears to be generally good people. My brother hires some of them to do seasonal work on the farm and to help my Dad, aged 90, do his housework.

      Please set aside your prejudices and deal with reality directly instead of straw men you have constructed or imagine to exist.

  17. I just realized: our delightful Carl may not in fact be local — it could be that he’s shirking his responsibilities somewhere other than North Central Idaho. (This blog gives the initial impression of being devoted to local issues.)

    Nevertheless — even if he’s in ultra-communist San Francisco — my opinion of him stands.

      • Right. Carl. Now let’s talk about your status as a heroic Jew. Sorry, Carl, but my people died in the Holocaust. Yours didn’t. Retroactively, it’s easy to say: “I would have resisted.” Except that you wouldn’t have. Mr. Cold Dead Finger. Given the actual choice of siding with the disarmed and despised — Jews didn’t have a choice — you would have chosen the shiny buttons, the Hugo Boss uniform, and the standard-issue Luger. You’re not fooling anyone.

        Yes, of all the people here, you’re the only one I consider an actual fascist. I studied with American fascists: Alan Bloom, who studied under Leo Strauss, who admired Jabotinsky, who was sympathetic to fascism. Real fascism, of the Italian variety. I know something about this. Your words are very very clear.

        I showed your first rant to a couple of friends, by the way — because I was actually shocked. And it takes a fair bit to shock me. I’ve never had to deal with anything quite that obscene, and I’ve fought PETA cultists, Israel haters, you name it: some of the most despicable people in America. Yours is an entirely new genre of loathsome.

        This has nothing to do with gun control. You can be in favor of the most radical reading of the Second Amendment, and still not be Carl Stevenson. You can still be, you know, a mensch.

        One friend read your screed and said, “Doug, I am a psychiatrist and I find this degree of craziness very frightening. I vote for disengaging.” That would be a Harvard-trained psychiatrist, by the way. Jewish, for what its worth.

        I disagree with her. I have no evidence that you’re mentally ill. It’s possible to be a Soros truther and still be this side of clinical paranoia. You can believe that Obama was born in Kenya, and still be sane. Once we get into chemtrail conspiracies, things get questionable, but I’m going to assume that your silly counterfactual beliefs end with Soros. Okay? I’m talking to you, because I think you’re coherent, and rational. You understand your words.

        The Jewish religion holds that when someone is a convert, you are not even supposed to mention that fact. It’s simply a given that this is now a Jew. Well, I’m not all that observant, so I can say — and say this on the part of most and perhaps all of my Jewish friends, on the left and the right (they’re pretty much equally divided): we don’t want you. Convert back to whatever you were before you disgraced us.

        Yes, I’m Jewish. My people died in the Holocaust; yours didn’t. My people are fighting in Israel. Yours aren’t. And it’s entirely within your rights to decide that you were a muscular champion of the resistance in 1938, and the rest of “your” people were quislings and member of the Judenräte, but it’s entirely within my rights to say Fuck You. Who the hell do you think you are, faux Jew, rewriting history to put you — a weekend warrior from the suburbs of Philly — in the position of hero?

        As I say: we don’t want you. You are sane; you believe the sewage that you spout; and you’re beneath contempt.

        I apologize to the rest of you: I’m generally quite willing to have a reasonable discussion about guns, and I don’t put you (or most people) in the same category as Carl Stevenson.

        • Show me where I characterized myself as “a heroic Jew.” That’s just your attempt to slur me in an effort to dismiss me.
          You say “your people” died in the holocaust. I don’t doubt that. What confuses me is why you want to create the same conditions that led to their demise.
          I can’t trace direct blood relatives who died in the holocaust, but given that I’m 1/4 German, and given some of the family names I’ve identified on that side, I wouldn’t doubt it. I DO have family members (albeit by marriage) that have, or had parent that had, numbers tattooed on their forearms, so don’t imply that I have no personal connection to that evil.
          You label me a fascist. (Another attempt to demonize and dismiss me.)
          I doubt you even know what a fascist actually is. Your probably believe, as many, that fascism is a “right-wing” thing, when actually it’s clearly a creature of the left. It’s where government doesn’t own, but through collusion with favored cronies in business, controls the means of production and business activity.
          Anyone who knows me, or has followed my comments will readily attest that I am about as anti-fascist as one can get. I’m also anti-collectivist, anti-communist, and anti-any-dictatorial-big-government-dictatorial thing you can imagine.
          You, as judged by your screeds, obviously believe in a big-brother nanny state that will “protect” you (from yourself, as well as others), and you’re quite willing to surrender everything to the state, including your ability to say “no” when they come for (fill in the blank).
          You dismiss my factual comments about Soros with the term “truther”, which is obviously means to be derogatory and dismissive.
          You admit that you are “not all that observant,” then chastise me for mentioning that I am also Jewish (which is truthful on my part, but was done simply to counter your playing of the “I’m a Jew and my people died in the holocaust” card as attempt to deflect my disgust with your willingness to surrender any and all means of resisting tyranny (as well as common criminals). My point was that I CHOSE Judaism. It wasn’t foisted on me by an accident of birth as in your case. So don’t try to cast me as “not a ‘real’ Jew”.
          I never said that all Jews were quislings in Europe during the evil goings on … Just that some were and that you had shown all of the hallmarks of following in their footsteps.
          I also reserve the right to say “Fuck You!” to you and those like you.
          I find it interesting that others refer you to and ask your reaction to materials from JPFO … I’ve been a life member and supporter for a number of years, and you’ll find my name listed in the “Producer’s Circle” on some of their excellent documentaries. I have little doubt that you will find those excellent works to be disgusting, since they show the racist and anti-Semetic roots of “gun control” laws.
          Finally, if you want me and “my people” disarmed, have the courage of your convictions to come and try to do it yourself instead of trying to con others into supporting the sending of armed functionaries of your beloved state to do it for you. Sending others to do your dirty work for you is the mark of a true tyrant and a coward.
          I’m done with wasting my time and energy on you.

Comments are closed.