« Apple Denied Health Care App Over Politics
Jenny Slate’s Unscripted “F-Bomb” Didn’t Bother Me Nearly As Much… »
“Keep Your Guns, and Buy More Guns, and Buy Ammunition”
That is part of what Kitty Werthmann, one of the speakers at the recent How to Take Back America Conference, told an appreciative crowd. Werthman’s speech, in which she compared the Obama administration to Nazi Germany, was available for sale in dvd format. A reporter for Think Progress bought one of the discs and asked Michelle Bachmann, who also spoke at the conference, to autograph it. She “happily obliged,” according to Lee Fang at TP, and now the good folks at Think Progress have Bachmann’s signature on a dvd of Kitty Werthmann telling an audience that the United States today is comparable to Nazi Germany in the 1930s, that the reason Hitler was able to carry out his terrible deeds was because the Nazis took Germans’ guns away, and that Americans should hold on to their guns and buy more guns, and ammunition.
Of course, Werthmann never told her audience that they should go out and shoot liberals or Democrats, or federal workers in general. She just said that America under Obama was the same as Nazi Germany under Hitler, and that Americans should stock up on weaponry to fight the government, which is trying to turn the United States into the Third Reich.
You can see a photograph of the inscribed dvd at Think Progress. The video is below:
15 Responses to ““Keep Your Guns, and Buy More Guns, and Buy Ammunition””
[...] “Keep Your Guns, and Buy More Guns, and Buy Ammunition” (themoderatevoice.com) [...]
Kathy,
I'm one of those gun-toting Bible readers. I have plenty of weapons. I disagree with the direction that Obama is taking us. Does that mean I would raise arms against the government? No.
Regardless of what Father_Time says, I stand against any violence toward the government. The only time I would EVER raise arms against the government, is if they attacked me first. That includes trying to disarm me by unconstitutional means. If I commited a felony, then they'd have the right to deny me gun ownership.
All law-abiding people should be armed, ready to be called as militia, in accordance with the Constitution.
You seem to think that America is incapable of becoming a dictatorship. If it ever does, then those weapons will come in handy, wouldn't they.
JD,
I do not think it at all outside the realm of possibility that America could become a dictatorship. In fact, under the previous administration, we took a number of significant steps in that direction. The jury is still out at this point on whether we will as a people be able to reverse that slide. And one of the major reasons we traveled so far down that road is because Americans enabled it — not just by their direct support but also by their silence, their indifference, and their lack of awareness.
An informed, educated, and concerned citizenry is the most effective way to prevent dictatorship, in my view. No matter how many guns and weapons you own, they won't protect freedom and democracy if at the same time significant numbers of Americans can't name the Secretary of State or the Vice-President, or think that Pres. Obama is a Muslim who was not born in the United States, or believe that Democrats are Marxist-Leninists, or never vote, or vote but know very little or nothing at all about the people they are voting for. There are huge numbers of Americans — perhaps over half, or even more — who never pick up a newspaper or magazine or read a book other than perhaps trashy mass market paperbacks, or who get all their information from Fox News.
I would be much more concerned, if I were you (which I'm not, of course) with how lacking America is in the protection against dictatorship that an informed, alert, involved citizenry provides. Guns can kill, but they cannot enable a person to distinguish between truth and propaganda, or help a person discern real threats to their freedom if they think that health care reform with a public option is a communist plot by a President who is just like Hitler to turn America into Nazi Germany.
An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, as they say.
An informed, educated, and concerned citizenry is the most effective way to prevent dictatorship
Kathy – it should read “An informed, educated, concerned and ARMED citizenry is the most effective way to prevent dictatorship.”
I am sure that was just a typo on your part.
Kathy,
You and I agree 100% on everything you said. Believe it or not, I am a Democrat – a conservative one, but a Democrat nonetheless. There are many of us out here. I seem to become more libertarian as every day passes.
I do agree a bit more with what AustinRoth said, though. “informed ARMED” citizenry.
You have to admit….
With all of the hubbub with Obama and Congress, the citizenry (in general) has become more informed than they have been in decades. The more conservative and liberal info (not spin) that is out there, the better the debate, and the better our nation will become.
And for the record…. I am not a GW Bush fan. I appreciate his contributions and successes, and laud the failures, but he was not a good executive. Reagan and Clinton were the best executives in my adult life. Doesn't mean I love them both, just means they lead well.
Kat. If you're ever in my neck of the woods, I'll give you a .45 free of charge. My gift. Everyone should have one.
LOL
I am sure that was just a typo on your part.
You wish.
Seriously, though — I get the impression that many gun enthusiasts think that owning guns is somehow a substitute for being informed, educated, and concerned: You know, like “Oh, I have 25 guns in my house; I don't need to read or be informed because if they come for me, I'll just blast their faces off.”
Bottom line: I have nothing against people owning guns, as long as they're doing it legally. I just believe that, in the final analysis, relying on gun ownership to protect democracy is like letting your computer “increase your paging files” (i.e., use your hard drive) to compensate for the fact you don't have enough memory on the machine — it's inefficient. It's better to buy more memory.
I would have to get a license first. It wouldn't be legal for you to give me a gun if I didn't have a license. And I know you don't want to break the law.
But it's a moot point, anyway. I would never buy a gun, accept a gun as a gift, have a gun in my possession or in my home, or remain in the vicinity of anyone who had one.
Also, I can't see myself ever stepping foot in Texas. <grin, duck, & run!</g>
Well, maybe Austin. Nowhere else.
You don't need a license to worship. Why would you need one for any other Constitutional Right?
I guess you live in a blue state.
My “red” state has citizens that are 90% armed. We just so happen to have the lowest crime rate in the country, and (I'm told) the nicest people too.
” I get the impression that many gun enthusiasts think that owning guns is somehow a substitute for being informed, educated, and concerned”
Your impression and the process leading to it are illogical, to say the least — it has nothing to do with reality. (I'll refrain from suspecting too loudly if it is another case of lefty projection.)
As for guns, well, we're going to face another Supreme Court case soon. NPR engaged in scummy leftist propaganda about it earlier today; Nina Totenberg said that a recent ruling departs from “a more modern interpretation” or some similar deliberately misleading statement she made about the obvious individual right to keep and bear arms (as opposed to military service, which she dishonestly called a “modern” interpretation of the Second Amendment).
Speaking of that Supreme Court case (Sotomayor's first biggie!), it involves Chicago (on whose behalf Obama is debasing his Presidency even more with continued campaigning and now, shameless lobbying) and adjacent suburbs.
“… The justices announced Wednesday that they will hear an appeal in McDonald v. City of Chicago challenging a handgun ban in Chicago. Gun owners in the city questioned the constitutionality of the ban, citing the Supreme Court's June 2008 decision, in a case called District of Columbia v. Heller, overturning a similar handgun ban in Washington, D.C.
The same lawyer, Alan Gura of Alexandria, Va., who successfully argued the Heller case at the high court is also set to argue the McDonald case. …”
http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0930/p02s15-usju….
Because worshipping doesn't kill. That's why.
And your opinion notwithstanding, licenses are required in at least some states. If Texas is not one of them, then that's a disgrace.
I'm too weary to do the research now, but Texas has one of the highest crime rates in the country, not the lowest. Don't worry, I'll do the research at some point; I just can't deal with it now. Plus, my daughter is 20 years old today and I've got better things to think about than guns and crime.
15th in the country in violent crime. However, we are dealing with a huge cross-border violent crime problem with drug gangs from Mexico. To what extent that affects the overall rate, I do not know.
“Because worship does not kill. That's why”.
Guns do not kill either, Kathy. I've never known one to stalk someone and kill them.
The law-breakers that carry them kill. Law abiding citizens with weapons are the safest you'll meet.
It's like putting a lock on your garage. It's there to keep would-be thiefs honest. A gun is the same thing. It keeps would-be murderers and rapists honest. If they think you're “packin'”, they'll choose another more easy target.
“Guns do not kill either, Kathy.”
Well, they kill more easily than sticks or stones. But in this country, you are presumed innocent until proven guilty, and the burden of proof still should always be on authority, on government, to justify why any rights should be infringed or surrendered.
In this case, all too often with the anti-gun crowd there is outright mental illness (demonizing guns and irrational belief in gun control as a magical panacea) in addition to contempt for the Constitution, rule of law, law in general as well as logic when it gets in the way of what agitated people want.
“A gun [...] keeps would-be murderers and rapists honest.”
Actually, this is an opportune time to re-raise something I posted some time ago, which demolishes the specific goals of some, to ban not all guns (at least, not initially), but handguns. The fact is, the main right to keep and bear arms is for self-defense, and the most useful kind of weapon for self-defense is small and portable, and handy in close quarters. Namely, a handgun. Yes, of all guns, those which best fit the need and the definition of “personal” weapons (as opposed to military-style weapons or “mass slaughter” stuff of legend and lore), the most highly qualified weapons for personal self-defense and carrying on one's person, and best meriting legal protection, logically are HANDGUNS.