A civilized society must disarm its citizenry if it is to have a modicum of domestic tranquility.
Charles Krauthammer
April 8, 1996
Both Sides Blowing Smoke In Gun Debate
[Reference needed.
I would cite Lenin, Chicago, and Washington D.C. for starters.—Joe]
Krauthammer is one of the few (kinda) former anti-gunners who apparently formed his opinion by logic and reason as opposed to emotion. That being the case, he has, at least publicly, reformed his anti-gunness to basically today being , and I paraphrase – as much as I’d like it, it will never really work, so, only for reasons of practicality, none should be enacted.
Either that, or he figured out which side his bread was buttered on and being practical, clammed up.
Take your pick.
Deep down inside he believes in the idea of the state having the “monopoly of violence”
Maybe, just maybe, he finally understood from later events what a state monopoly on violence buys you – Bosnia/Kosovo etc. even though he had prior events – Stalin’s Russia/Mao’s China/Pol Pot’s Cambodia that he should have remembered. Maybe he finally understood that societies that have forgotten that the people and the state should not be separate entities can have that state monopoly turned against the people.
Right, Krauthammer. Because Switzerland is noted for its barbarism.
I wonder how many gunnies have watched this video about Swiss gun ownership? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OBFmwTMUld8
It’s an eye-opener.
Don’t forget he was a head-shrinker. Sigmund Freud’s cult has done a lot of damage over the years. Who knows, Freud could have dreamed up Markley’s Law.