Previous Post
Next Post

David Mamet courtesy

“Disarmament rests on the assumption that all people are good, and, basically, want the same things. But if all people were basically good, why would we, increasingly, pass more and more elaborate laws? The individual is not only best qualified to provide his own personal defense, he is the only one qualified to do so: and his right to do so is guaranteed by the Constitution.” – David Mamet in Gun Laws and the Fools of Chelm [via]

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. You can appeal to the ignorant, it’s pretty hard to convince em though. It’s like trying to argue with a pumpkin. They have no concept of what an AR is(bradys that is not pumpkins) , it truly is some kind of a Buck Rodgers ray gun to them. Repetition is the only hope I believe, Randy

    • Well put Randy. It took some repetition before my mother finally realized that there is not a porcelean Glock 7 that dosnt show up on airport metal detectors. But perseverance paid off. Just gatta keep on them until they get it.

  2. The right to keep and bear arms is not primarily about defending one’s self against ordinary crime. It’s about defending ourselves, collectively, against a tyrannical government.

    To that end, I move that we create a “Freedom Militia”, who’s task it will be to fight against unconstitutional and immoral actions by the government. A couple of hundred thousand armed men descending on Albany to punish them for violating the Constitution would make quite an impression, don’t you think?

    A couple of million armed men descending on Washington to show Barack Hussein the 1st and his minions our displeasure would make quite an impression.

    The government has long been an active menace to the well being of our society, and guess what, it’s our fault because we let it happen. It’s high time we rectified that mistake.

    I’m worried that we bought all these guns, these tools of freedom, but now lack the fortitude to use them in the last defense of our Republic. It may simply be a lack of leadership. Where are the modern day Jeffersons and Franklins and Washingtons? I am reminded of the following words:

    “…Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

    What are these seditious and disloyal words, you ask? Why, it’s our own Declaration of Independence. Truer words where never spoke. King George III or Barack Hussein I, a tyrant is still a tyrant.

  3. Many people are also unaware of the other side of the “Constitutional coin” that it established a constitutional republic rather than a democracy because the founders were as skeptical of “mob rule” as they were of tyranny. The rule of law was intended to trump a majority vote of stupidity.

  4. Whenever celebrities spout liberal opinions, we are supposed to dismiss their pontifications as worthless, because they’re “just celebrities”.

    When celebrities state conservative opinions, they are pearls of wisdom to be celebrated.

    • Yes, well this didn’t sound like a rambling incoherent thought now did it? There is no name calling, no emotional fear mongering, no vitriol at all. Also, no wild projections on how they feel about the issue. That’s why this isn’t the same.

    • Former Librarian of Congress Daniel Boorstein defined celebrity as being “famous for being famous,” Mamet is not a celebrity. He is writer and essayist. Whether you agree with him or not his views are well thought out and thought provoking.

    • Well, Mamet is a great writer, and the things that he has written are appreciated by folks on all parts of the political spectrum, so his words here just might find a receptive audience where other pro-gun forces would fail. And these are his words, not a script given to some airhead actor.

    • You are in error; We are ‘supposed’ to dismiss unreasoned, frantically-emotional, non-logical, poorly-stated personal opinions riddled with hyperbolic invective, and we are invited to celebrate well-reasoned, polite dissertations citing historical precedent, clear knowledge of human nature and behavior fraught with fact and accepted natural law.

      If you cannot tell the difference, I pity you.

  5. The next GOP President could do a lot worse than having David Mamet as a spokesman. Mamet can expertly skewer the left-medias’ slanted assumptions that lie behind their questions and statements. Who knows, he may even manage, as an added bonus, to get a NY Times reporter (or two) to chase a bottle of Abien with a fifth of Chivas.

  6. My guess is that Mamet leans more Libertarian than Republican. But I think that the NRA might want to tap him to write Wayne LaPierre’s next speech…

  7. What Mamet describes in the quote as the Founders’ view of man is known as the Judeo-Christian world view. It differs from other views in that it forgoes utopian dreams requiring perfected men, who do not exist. However it works quite well with the sinners we are. It is foundational to our government and legitimizes it. When those in office no longer buy into that worldview, you get what we are now seeing in Washington.

Comments are closed.