Quote of the Day: Maybe We Need Less Democracy to Achieve Gun Control

maxresdefault

“In some ways American gun control has regressed rather than progressed in recent years as the federal ban on military assault weapons and high-capacity magazines that existed between 1994-2004 has not been renewed by Congress. But it’s too easy to exaggerate the threats or to ridicule gun toting Americans but the reality is far more sad: most deaths occur from guns being used to commit suicide, or are found by children and toddlers who mistake them for toys with devastating effects. When it comes to gun control and American politics then maybe – just maybe – could there be a case for a benevolent dictator who understands that the ballot and bullets, just like guns and safety, just don’t mix? ” – Matthew Flinders in Bang, bang — democracy’s dead: Obama and the politics of gun control [at oup.com]

[h/t Doug H.]

comments

  1. avatar jwm says:

    Starting to tell the truth about gun control. Dictator.

    1. avatar Don says:

      The AWB existed for 10 years and didn’t reduce crime. It has been expired for 12 years and crime has gone down by about half while guns ownership has gone way up (including evil black rifles).

      1. avatar RockOnHellChild says:

        I hate be so direct, and I mean no insult – who cares?

        If crime had declined rapidly after the AWB, and subsequently, shot (no pun) through the roof after its expiration, would you believe the AWB to be any less unconstitutional?

        1. Actually that is the way things work. The state has to have a specific articulable and defensible interest in regulating a civil right. If it can show that very specific and narrowly defined thing X which would normally be covered under a civil right being illegal would be in the best interests of the people as a whole then it can be regulated. The same way that yelling fire in a croweded movie theater is illegal unless there’s actually a fire. It’s speech, you might even have a political reason for saying it there and then but it’s still not legal and that’s still constitutional abridgement of 1A. Yelling fire doesn’t violate anyone else’s civil rights as such but it does directly throw them into immediate peril and never really helps them so it can be made unlawful because that is in the interests of the whole of the people. It’s not that the law against it stops someone bent on mayhem but it discourages those that are not psychotic but instead more prone to shortsighted and ill conceived pranks.

          The Clinton AWB on the other hand could never have qualified as being narrowly crafted nor meant to achieve a specific result because it was very much arbitrary in construction, flawed in its reasoning and didn’t actually work at all. So yes, it was unconstitutional and thankfully had a sunset or we’d be shoving that hunk of feces through the court system for the next 50 years.

          “If” is a pointless question because it denies the existence of what IS and goes off into fantasy land. One cannot make an AWB constitutional because it is on the face of it pointless because it’s based on a lie. There’s no such thing as a semi-automatic assault weapon and real assault weapons are all fully automatic and already very heavily regulated (the method of which I see as constitutional though not the tax and the Hughes amendment I do not see as legitimate/legal at all).

        2. avatar RockOnHellChild says:

          Comparing the “yelling fire in a theater” premise to the complete abolition of a certain, made up and ever changing, class of weapon (assualt weapon) is erroneous.

          You are not completely banned from speaking the word “fire” in any context based solely on the prospect that one could use it to initiate mayhem by yelling it in crowded theater. Moreover, the definition of word “fire”, what constitutions the using of it, and whom is allowed to use it, does not change from location to location and law to law.

          If you believe natural rights can be curtailed based solely on social utility and statistical data, then so be it. But, do not expect me to accept it as “just the way things are…”

        3. avatar Anner says:

          Meccastreisand:
          1. Nice name, I chuckled
          2. Well put. It’s comments like this that recage my general disgruntled attitude about the gun grabbers. At the core, they have no constitutional argument. Thanks for putting words out there that clearly show how messed up the antis’ arguments are.

        4. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          Actually that is the way things work.

          Actually: no, it isn’t.

          The constitution says, “shall not be infringed“, not, “shall not be infringed, subject to a test of social utility.”

      2. avatar Sian says:

        Also accidental shootings involving children have gone down by a similar amount to where they’re statistically insignificant, largely thanks to NRA supported programs.

      3. avatar JSJ says:

        The AWB existed for 10 years and didn’t reduce crime

        It didn’t reduce sales of “assault rifles” either. Just changed their appearance.

        1. avatar Jim Bullock says:

          The AWB existed for 10 years and didn’t reduce crime

          It didn’t reduce sales of “assault rifles” either. Just changed their appearance.

          So, are you arguing against the dumb law that didn’t do either of the things it was in principle for, or suggesting more draconian such laws, intended to get it right this time, finally? (Really, it’s just bizarre that I even have to ask that. “That didn’t work, so let’s do it harder!” is argued all the time.)

          What the two facts asserted seem to demonstrate is the difficulty of crafting “bans” that do what they are supposed to, especially when undertaken by people who don’t understand what they are trying to ban. “The problem with making things idiot-proof is that idiots are so creative.”

        2. avatar JSJ says:

          Jim;
          Sorry for any confusion. I was attempting to point out the stupidity of the AWB, in that it not only did not reduce crime, it actually increased sales of that which it attempted to ban. Not as a suggestion that they “try harder” next time, but that there not be a next time.

    2. avatar Jim Jones says:

      Those useful idiots always seem to miss the fact that after they came for our guns, they would DEFINITELY come for their precious “free speech.” You think that a benevolent dictator is going to tolerate dissenting views? You poor, foolish, idiotic children.

      1. avatar LS/HD says:

        They’re convinced they will be in charge of deciding, so they aren’t as worried as they should be. The lessons of history are lost on them.

        1. avatar -Peter says:

          You nailed it. Beware of anyone who would sacrifice our collective liberty on the gamble that they’ll end up within the good graces the new absolute power.

          If this clown wants to live under a socialist dictatorship, I’m sure they’d welcome his journalistic talents in Venezuela. Hopefully he’ll welcome the loss of his 1st Amendment Rights as much as his 2nd.

      2. avatar Rick says:

        A benevolent dictator is an oxymoron, no more likely to happen in real life than Obama is to begin building a wall along the southern border.

        1. Hej hej,Jag skriver aldrig kommentarer. Men det här var obehagligt. Jag tycker du har den finaste bloggen i hela Sverige. Det känns som en härlig mysig inredningstidining i sitt, du borde faktiskt göra den i tidningsformat! Jag tycker det låter sjukt obehagligt men jag hoppas att du finner lyckan i att blogga snart igen, för det är mååååånga här som älskar det du gör utan att känna någon avundsjuka och vilja sabotera!

        2. Aeraine, the fact that 57%+ of post-docs are foreign born (and certainly more today) is indicative of the superior education system in the US, particularly the higher up you go.=================================I don't see that this is necessarily a true stateent unless you know how many post docs in foreign universities are foreign born.Maybe a high percentage of foreign students is the norm for post doc schools.

    3. avatar Rustle Windstrom says:

      At which point in history did we mutate into a democracy? This experiment began as a republic. Nowadays it more closely resembles an oligarchy.

      Democracy and egalitarianism is a suicide pact.

    4. avatar Lost Down South says:

      “He was once, for a very short time, a member of the British Army but had to leave because he did not like guns or loud bangs.”

      So he’s not willing to serve his country, and is calling to enslave ours? Nice.

  2. avatar pwrserge says:

    Please, take dictatorial action. It’s been a while since we hung anybody on the White House lawn.

    1. avatar -Peter says:

      Have we ever?

      1. avatar pwrserge says:

        I’m sure Andrew Jackson had at one point.

  3. avatar sota says:

    The moment someone attempts to do just that, it’ll be all out war. Sadly I fear those storm clouds are building just beyond the horizon.

  4. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

    “Benevolent dictator”?
    WOW. I’m incredulous.

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      That sentiment illustrates the literal insanity of Progressives: they do NOT trust strangers (armed civilians) but they do trust strangers (armed government agents). Why would they mistrust some strangers and not others?

      Having said that, I suppose you could say the same thing about us: we do trust strangers (armed civilians) but we do NOT trust strangers (armed government agents).

      I think I need another cup of coffee.

      1. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

        Well, I trust armed individuals not to freak out and go on a shooting spree, lest they be gunned down themselves in short order. I trust other armed citizens and myself to step up and respond legally as necessary in that event.

        I do not trust a massive, armed government acting in unison not to freak out and brutalize an unarmed populace. After all, there would be no one to provide immediate and decisive resistance in that case.

        1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

          Thank you Jonathan – Houston for writing that down. I knew there had to be some explanation but I was (am) too mentally foggy to sort it out this morning.

      2. avatar Cuteandfuzzybunniess says:

        No we don’t trust strangers , armed civilians. It’s not the same for two reasons. One I that trust of strangers we include ourselves. So I like the progressives , we trust ourselves. Much more rational than you think.

        Also while the progressives trust armed strangers who happen to be part of or employed by their “rulers” exclusively , most on the pro freedom side are not calling to disarm the cops and military and just leave civilians with guns. And we are certainly not calling to disarm most citizens including the government and ourselves , while leaving just a small portion armed.

        It is worth mentioning that the progressives by and large are trusting themselves when they trust government as a lot of them do, have or hope to work in government.

      3. avatar RockOnHellChild says:

        I trust no one who operates under the umbrella of gov’t…

        The concept of gov’t can be distilled down to “a monopoly on the initiation of force.”

        I’m not saying everyone who works for the G is bad, but I am saying, I will remain cautious when dealing with anyone performing their “duties” on behalf of the G.

    2. avatar DisThunder says:

      It has always been my understanding that “benevolent” dictators is why we drafted the 2nd Amendment in the first place, and that every time a certain elected official flirts with his own “benevolent dictator”-style designs, guns sales triple and quadruple.

    3. avatar Mr. 308 says:

      Woody Allen called for this back in 2010

      http://dailycaller.com/2014/02/04/woody-allen-in-2010-obama-should-be-a-dictator/

      “[I]t would be good…if he could be a dictator for a few years because he could do a lot of good things quickly,”

      Yea, un-freaking-belieavable.

      These people – a lot of them at least and that’s all it really takes – would see us loaded into boxcars if they had their way, I have no doubt.

    4. avatar NYC2AZ says:

      My first thought when I read this proggie tripe (and it’s not uncommon to see progs advancing the idea of a dictatorship) is, “Gee, the same morons that say we don’t need guns because the government will never go usurpatious are demanding the government goes usurpatious to get rid of guns.” More proof the anti gunners love violence, as long as it’s their kind of violence perpetrated by “Top Men.”

  5. avatar Bob says:

    “benevolent dictator”, no such thing. Unless, of course, you are on of his/her henchpersons.

    Maybe, just maybe, if the lefties put their efforts into the root cause, instead of anthropomorphising inanimate objects, they might actually achieve something useful.

    1. avatar RockOnHellChild says:

      Oh, come now.

      You don’t think, usurping dictatorial power, unilaterally stripping civil rights, and forcibly taking people’s private property, whilst killing or imprisioning all who resist, is benevolence?

      Do you even Socialist, bro…

    2. avatar neiowa says:

      henchmen status seldom works out beyond short term. Certainly for Stalin, Hitler circles. Karma shes a beetch.

    3. avatar 16V says:

      I think you’re taking ‘dictatorship’ out of context. In primitive societies like the ME, a dictator is the only way to get past the insidious nature of Islam and tribal rivalries. The people have no history of representative government, so until the education and institutions are put in place, they are worse off without, say, Assad, than with him. You’re dealing with Islam, which requires a great deal of education to get past actually following it. Once you marginalize Islam into something resembling the other Abrahamic religions, then people can start to develop.

      Look how successful Egypt has been without a strongman. Look at what a mess Iran has become since the Shah.

      1. avatar Geoff PR says:

        Well, Egypt has been running on a somewhat de-centralized military dictatorship for quite some time now with a brief interruption for a Muslim Brotherhood dictator who was rapidly deposed.

        For Egypt, it seems to work. The military is widely seen as a somewhat-benevolent dictator by the population.

        My personal outlook on ME politics has changed substantially since 9-11. Back then, I actually believed if Iraq was offered democracy they would jump on it.

        Today, I believe the only way a people will get and be worthy of freedom is if a substantial portion of the population is willing to die for it. They have to dream of freedom.

        Since the dictators will keep their people at the brink of starvation and fear, that just ain’t gonna be happening…

        1. avatar 16V says:

          Geoff, I think we agree, just maybe the details are debatable.

          History shows you are right that the only way for people to change is to actually,well, want to change.

          I’m not sure how to read Egypt. Tilting on the edge of exactly where it was with a ‘different’ strongman in place. The “people” sorta elected the Muslim Brotherhood and all that that entails.

    4. avatar Jon in CO says:

      I anthropomorphize my guns. My daily carry is my best buddy. He goes everywhere with me.

  6. avatar SelousX says:

    He’s waiting for a savior to put a boot on our necks for our own good.
    I’m almost speechless.

  7. avatar Matt Richardson says:

    Holy terrifying shit, batman!

    Did this guy just pull the ‘benevolent dictator’ card? I weep for the future of my children.

    1. avatar RockOnHellChild says:

      There have always been people who prefer a king. And their always will be.

      1. avatar RockOnHellChild says:

        There, not their.

  8. avatar Joseph says:

    Mr. Flinders should check out what Ben Franklin said about essential liberty and freedom.

  9. avatar Kapeltam says:

    If such a person stepped up as dictator and tried it, this victim expansion proponent would find out just how dangerous the PotG could truly be. Then perhaps he would be thankful as to how responsible so many of us truly are.

  10. avatar Mike in Ohio says:

    And thus the curtain is slowly pulled to reveal…

  11. avatar dh34 says:

    Depending on how the primaries go, a little benevolent dictator may try to run for office.

    Some say he he doesn’t like 32oz sodas because they stand as tall as he does…

    Others say he thought “stop and frisk” was foreplay…

    All we know is, they call him Michael Bloomberg…

    1. avatar Rob C says:

      I miss the Stig.

      1. avatar LifeAbounds says:

        +1^

    2. avatar 16V says:

      What could possibly go wrong?

      1. avatar dh34 says:

        Just remember the cup holders in a Ford Fiesta are the right size for smoke grenades.

        1. avatar Geoff PR says:

          A Big Gulp cup makes a dandy improvised Molotov Cocktail…

          🙂

  12. avatar RockOnHellChild says:

    “benevolent dictator”

    No such thing. It’s a mythological concept – like, the phoenix, sirens, the griffin, the tolerant left, and the hooker with a heart of gold.

  13. avatar Mk10108 says:

    “Matthew Flinders was once, for a very short time, a member of the British Army but had to leave because he did not like guns or loud bangs.”

    Brits writing about America, they still don’t get the rebellion or revolution, nor our Constitution.

    1. avatar PewPewPew says:

      As a Brittish and Australian who has lived in the good old US of A for the past four years, I feel like I’m going to have to write an article at some point and send it in just so you don’t think we are all like that.

      I should probably get around to getting my citizenship here before i do though since I’m probablu too much of a constitutionalist to be accepted into this country these days and my words might count against me. The touble is that it costs over $700 and i keep coming up with guns I need to buy first.

      1. avatar neiowa says:

        Apparently a “I’m not a Syrian Islamist” fake passport is easy. COME ON IN the welfare is fine.

      2. avatar Geoff PR says:

        “As a Brittish and Australian who has lived in the good old US of A for the past four years, I feel like I’m going to have to write an article at some point and send it in just so you don’t think we are all like that.”

        *Please* do, I would like to hear international experiences.

        Be safe about it, though. Pick up a cheap tablet or notebook and only turn it on in a public wi-fi-location…

  14. avatar TStew says:

    “Bang, Bang – democracy’s dead…”

    Silly statist, don’t you know that we live in a Constitutional Republic?

  15. avatar Chris Morton says:

    I’m sure that similarly, the Klan feels that “too much democracy” is standing in the way of a return to Jim Crow… never mind slavery.

    Scratch an anti-gunner find a fascist.

  16. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    … could there be a case for a benevolent dictator who understands that the ballot and bullets … just don’t mix?

    Huh . . . it’s almost like our Nation’s Founders knew what they were doing when they penned the Second Amendment.

  17. avatar Blindman says:

    Yeah a dictator who immediately acts to sieze all civilian weapons.

    Why he sure SOUNDS like he plans to be benevolent! What would benevolent dictatorial actions two and three be you think? Now that hes just disarmed all potential resistance?

    1. avatar wrightl3 says:

      “Reeducating” us. What do you think?

  18. avatar Chuck in IL says:

    Dictators refer to people like this guy as “useful idiots”.

  19. avatar Brianflys says:

    Oh good, another reminder of why we will never, ever, no maybes, be the subjects of a monarchy or dictator like the willing slaves of England. Except maybe Kalifornia…

  20. avatar Bake says:

    It’s a good to see the fascists coming out of the closet.

    1. avatar Cliff H says:

      We have decided what is best for you. If you know what is good for you then you will NOT oppose us.

  21. avatar John Thomas says:

    See? Told y’all.

  22. avatar Andrew Lias says:

    Statists gonna state.

    As the lone commentor (probably to be deleted) says democracies are representative of their citizens not the rest of the world.

    Also amusingly worth noting:

    ” He was once, for a very short time, a member of the British Army but had to leave because he did not like guns or loud bangs.”

    With that I play the beta male card.

    To conclude, please stay in your country and I’ll stay in mine. Your fudged crime rates don’t really do much except hide the problem.

  23. avatar PeterK says:

    If you need less democracy to accomplish a thing is that thing worth doing?

    Also if you want gun control so bad that you are willing to accept a dictator, are you not the one who has killed democracy? Maybe next time you look up gun fact use more neutral sources that don’t overstate the number of gun accidents involving children. Unless this is pure agitprop/propaganda. In which case thank you for so convincingly making the case against gun control.

    EDIT: wow I tried to read the article but had to stop two paragraphs in when they can’t even get the news on the Executive orders right. Gun dealers don’t all of a sudden now need to get a license, they always had to. Good. Grief. The stupid is very nearly physical painful.

  24. avatar Smith says:

    True, most gun deaths are from suicides, but toddlers shooting and killing people? Less than 100 a year. If you’re going to meddle in the affairs of your former colony, who has kicked your ass twice and saved your ass twice more, at least get your facts right.

  25. avatar Sean in MT says:

    Setting aside for a moment that fact that his premises are all based on lies (suicides by children are causally linked to how easy it is for a law-abiding citizen to buy a gun, for example), I find it ironic that the subtitle of his book that is for sale right next to this editorial is “Why Democracy Matters in the 21st Century.” Democracy? He goes all-in for a benevolent dictatorship!

    Also somewhat infuriating to me is that the Oxford University Press’s website has as their mission statement at the top of the page, “Academic Insights for the Thinking World” as if those opinions are for “the Thinking World” and the rest of us are unthinking hayseeds. Pompous much?

    Luckily, this panty-wetting effete is a subject of the Queen and not a voting US citizen, so I couldn’t give a hoot about his emotionally-based opinions on anything. However, since his message resonates with so many in the Democrat party, I’ll use this editorial as a bellwether to show how far away from freedom the anti-2A Democrats might be willing to go to disarm us law-abiding American citizens. See you at the ballot box!

  26. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

    Ugh. If I want to see history repeat itself, I’ll binge watch the History Channel. Why must I have a front row seat to the re-runs as some dewy-eyed dupe hears the statist siren for the first time and unknowingly invites destruction?

  27. avatar Cuteandfuzzybunniess says:

    Oh and by the way God damn the queen !

  28. avatar DaProf says:

    Fascists gotta be fascists.

  29. He’s shilling for his new book by trying to creating a controversy.

    Right there on the right side of the page “Defending Politics: Why Democracy Matters in the 21st Century” by Matthew Flinders.

    Nothing to see here (except for a guy that who “was once, for a very short time, a member of the British Army but had to leave because he did not like guns or loud bangs.

    Sheesh.

  30. avatar DerryM says:

    I am the only person I have ever known, or known of, who is qualified to be a truly benevolent dictator. I have studied the failed dictators of the past and present and I fully understand the mistakes they made. I WILL NOT repeat them. So, whenever you are ready just let me know and I will gladly rule you all with kindness and humility.

    1. avatar Bob313 says:

      I always tell people that if we ban guns, the people with the guns will be the ones in charge…and I tell them that I am not giving up my guns. I tell them the first thing I will do as their new leader is imprison everyone who disagrees with me. It seems to get the point across. 🙂

      1. avatar DerryM says:

        I would simply declare all local. State and Federal laws and regulations that infringe upon the peoples’ right to keep and bear Arms are null and void and invite people who don’t like that to go to the U.K. or Australia. A mistake dictators make is to start imprisoning people, which creates unrest and resentment. I believe an armed populous benevolently ruled will feel confident they can partner with Law Enforcement to keep the domestic peace and will regard a Government they can readily rebel against if it becomes too tyrannical as a Government they can trust. My hypothesis is that if you make enough of the people happy most of the time, the dissenters will change their minds, leave or learn to STFU …for their own safety…wink…wink…

  31. avatar FlaResident says:

    >> As a result the democratic process tends to contain multiple veto points that can stifle responsiveness; a smooth policy change is suddenly turned into a sluggish and grating process that too easily morphs into gridlock and inaction.

    Could it therefore be that the problem with democracy is that it prevents the implementation of measures that look eminently sensible to the rest of the world?

    ——————————-
    This isn’t a flaw as the author seems to indicate, it is instead the crowning feature of democracy. The prevention of policy change on a whim (especially the whim of the few ‘elite’ who think they know what is best for the rest of us) is a good thing

    1. avatar Cliff H says:

      I fail to see the utility in allowing people in Bangladesh to decide what is eminently reasonable for me in America. Foolish argument.

      The problem with democracy, which is why the Founding Fathers worked so hard to invent our Constitutional Republic system, is “The tyranny of the majority.” That is, in any democratic system in history that they researched the people eventually discovered that by achieving 50% plus ONE vote they could impose their will on the other 49% of the populace. Once that happened they would vote themselves “Bread and circuses” from the government coffers and vote to harass or destroy any person or group (Christians?) that opposed them or they just didn’t like.

  32. avatar John says:

    The comment I left was apparently “moderated”.. Even though it was not imprecise or inappropriate.

    1. avatar outwardhound says:

      Ditto

  33. avatar Steve says:

    I wish all federal laws came with a sunset provision like the AWB. After 10 years, see if it did any good, and if not let it go.

  34. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

    He kicks off with this completely incorrect statement; ‘…an Executive Order from the President that requires all firearms sellers to seek a licence and initiate background checks on purchasers.’ Then makes a call for a ‘benevolent dictator’ to take over America. And how many people are going to have to be slaughtered in order to get this ‘benevolent dictator’ in power? How many reeducation camps will be necessary to suppress dissent? Show me one single ‘benevolent’ dictator in history. You can’t. It’s an oxymoron.

  35. avatar Michael says:

    I think if you tried this guy’s approach we’d find out exactly what the purpose of the Second Amendment is.

  36. avatar SuperG says:

    Elect me dictator, and I promise to step down after two years. I’ll do the following:
    1. Mandate term limits for Congress
    2. Impose a flat rate tax
    3. Make all heads of the federal government offices electable, and not appointees.
    4. Execute criminals upon conviction of their 3rd felony.
    5. Make parents face a judge when their kids disrupt of miss class.
    6. Disallow out-of-state donations for local elections.
    7. Mandate that Congressmen can no longer accept “honorariums” for public speaking.
    8. Cap profit margins for the medical industry.
    9. Mandate that all states establish reciprocity for CHL holders.
    10. Get the federal government out of education, and allow states to control it.
    11. Have all police departments establish an on-call panel of three psychiatrists to diagnose and recommend treatment for those suspected of being mentally ill. Institutionalize, via due process, those found to be mentally ill.
    I miss anything?

    1. avatar DerryM says:

      Good list overall.
      I would void all local. State and Federal Laws that violate the Second Amendment.
      I would destroy ISIS and be very hard on domestic ISIS sympathizers.
      I would seal the Southern Border using the Military, if necessary, at the outset.
      I would revise the Public Schools, Colleges and Universities to be places of learning, not indoctrination.
      I would restrict Abortion.
      I would end Foreign Aide, except in a very few cases.
      I would do whatever it takes to bring livelihood income jobs back to the American Homeland.
      I would figure-out how to cut the National Debt and unfunded debt by at least two-thirds.

      There are other things, but our lists are big enough for this fantasy-thinking for now and certainly big enough to be somewhat overwhelming about everything that needs correction in America.

  37. avatar silverwarlock says:

    Find me a benevolent dictator throughout history! Prove to me that it exist. Frankly, the author knows not of what he speaks.

  38. avatar Jason says:

    I see that the hoplophobe over there are very busy deleting even moderate comments that are critical of the original blog post.

  39. avatar Don says:

    Boils down to “I don’t want to have to think and be responsible for anything, so everybody else has to surrender all rights to somebody like Hitler”

  40. avatar Some Bloke says:

    Rockonhellchild can’t read.

  41. avatar Marcus (Aurelius) Payne says:

    The very reason we have the guns is to prevent someone from giving us “less democracy.”

    The idiocy burns.

  42. avatar Desert Dave says:

    In a nut shell, Life is Dangerous! Everything is dangerous! Breathing the air, eating food and God knows even drinking too much water can KILL YOU, let alone drowning in the stuff! Getting out of bed, taking a shower, heck even taking a dump (that’s what killed Elvis)! Driving, seeing the doctor, having a baby, taking a vacation, a walk in the park, you name it every single thing you do is designed by God and nature to do you in! There is no saving us; we are all going to DIE!

    I prefer to die free with my God given rights intact. Dictators are good for one thing. To fertilize the Tree of Liberty.

  43. avatar Chip Bennett says:

    …which is one of the primary reasons that our founding fathers gave us not a true democracy, but rather a constitutional republic: so that wanna-be tyrants and would-be mob rule are held in check under the Rule of Law.

  44. avatar George says:

    And thus, this guy unwittingly validated our adherence to the second amendment.

  45. avatar Ralph says:

    The potential for a “benevolent dictator” is the reason why the Second Amendment exists.

    1. avatar Accur81 says:

      Word.

  46. avatar Former Water Walker says:

    Bring it on slick-you forget who has 350,000,000 guns. And a bunch of us old guys don’t care who THINKS they have power…

  47. avatar W says:

    Hey Mr Oxford, tell us what you think about this:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford_Oath

  48. avatar William says:

    “could there be a case for a benevolent dictator”

    Hence our eternal need for our guns.

  49. avatar BDub says:

    It seems every progressive line of thinking always leads, invariably, to pining for a authoritarian regime or an outright dictatorship – always with the same built-in incorrect assumption, that said regime/dictator would be a benevolent, parental force (at least for their particular group).

    It is disgusting and antithetical to Liberty.

  50. avatar Anonymous says:

    Lol.

    In other words, this is what I want, this is what the people want, maybe I can force my opinion on them by this method (dictator).

  51. avatar Paelorian says:

    He calls this “reality”: “most deaths occur from guns being used to commit suicide, or are found by children and toddlers who mistake them for toys with devastating effects.”

    What a lying scumbag. Even when the New York Times devoted an entire frontpage to anti-gun propaganda with a lead story about these children who hurt themselves with firearms, they didn’t claim more than a handful of cases per year. We’re talking less than a dozen nationwide per year.

    1. avatar JSJ says:

      Correct.
      According to the NHTSA, 2 children die each and every week when their parents or another relative back over them in the driveway. Add a dozen more for the “front-overs”.
      Maybe we should arm the kids so they can blow the tires on Granny’s Death Machine.

      /Partial sarc

  52. avatar WillMcG says:

    Satire or Irony?

  53. avatar Joe R. says:

    Violence BEGGED, in rhe name of averting violence.

  54. avatar Saml Adams says:

    Rather than sound off here, go pay Mr. Flinders a visit. It’s easy and you can leave a comment.

  55. avatar Stuki Moi says:

    Monkey, as usual, gets it backwards.

    What we need are more guns. To achieve less “democratic control,” over our individual life and rights.

  56. avatar Hannibal says:

    haha yeah, that’s what it’ll take alright.

    I’m not sure what is more funny… that there are portions of this country that can say the words “benevolent dictator” as if that’s a thing in history or that this guy thinks that he could achieve such a rule without killing a large portion of the country.

  57. avatar Indiana Tom says:

    When it comes to gun control and American politics then maybe – could there be a case for a benevolent dictator who understands that the ballot and bullets are incompatible with a fascist state?
    Hey, at least Matthew Flinders is honest.
    Bang, bang — democracy’s dead: Obama and the politics of gun control.
    Hey, he got that right.

  58. avatar Accur81 says:

    The article seems to be open to comments! Have at it, gentlemen. I’m not sure if my dissent will be “allowed,” but it’s worth a shot. (Sorry for the terrible pun.)

    1. avatar Accur81 says:

      My pro-gun, pro-freedom comment was deleted in a few hours. That’s one of many things that fundamentally disgusts me about anti-gunners. Dissent is not permitted. I said nothing hateful to the author, but simply disagreed. Anti-gunners are truly angry and intolerant people.

  59. avatar Jim Bullock says:

    I-want-my-way-guy rejects the notion of, small-r republican government, meaning when people rule themselves. I’m pretty sure I don’t want someone who thinks that way in charge of anything.

    Small-r republican government is based on:

    – People fundamentally, intrinsically get to pick what they want for themselves. Bossy-pants is just wrong, Mr. Mrs. Miss, Ms, or anti-citizen-self-defense bossy-pants; still wrong.

    – Republican government is an arrangement of convenience allowing us – the people – to work together to secure the space to do what we want. Against bossy-pants. If they’d mind their own business we wouldn’t need a mutual protection society to get left alone.

    – For that purpose, some limited things are delegated to a government, subject to relatively easy, majority determination, while changing the scope of government is a Big Deal.

    – In particular, very little of one guy imposing his preferences on someone else through the government. That doesn’t stop people who want their way from grabbing on to the government to try to do that.

    – Some things are explicitly carved-out of the scope of government. This is done explicitly becuase people like wants-his-own-way can’t be relied on to mind their own bees-wax.

    – The US federal system is designed to address the conundrum of delegating agreed, limited authority & resources to a government to act on our behalf to our ends, without that government coming to act on its own behalf, to its own ends; including using the authority and resources it’s been delegated to propagandize, demand, or seize more authority and resources.

    – I-want-my-way-guy demanding “maybe we need less democracy (Meaning republican, limited government, but why bother with precision. – ed)” so he can get his way makes some of us a tad uncomfortable. Where does it end?

    This is precisely the risk (of high-handed imposition – ed), that the structure of US Federal, republican (not “democratic” – he’s confused – ed) government is structured to manage.

    – So, the mechanisms created to keep people like wants-his-way-guy in check seem to be working. Yay, us.

    The fundamental mindset preceding the impulse to republican government is humility: humility enough to allow other people room to live by their wrong opinions, because they may be right, it’s their business. Small-r republican government is designed assuming that most of what anyone does, is mostly their own business.

  60. avatar meadowsr says:

    I am that “benevolent dictator who understands that the ballot and bullets…just don’t mix”.

    I do solemnly swear to take the politics out of the issue, and issue ammo and arms to every non-liberal and solid gun-rights advocate; libs and antis are on their own.

    Now, when do I take office?

  61. avatar http://www./ says:

    Bloggers spend much of their life on the internet. This is the fact. I used to spend at least 12 hours a day every single day. And I found this was not good. I have to socialize in the real life. We have to combine the online and offline world.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email