U.S.A. –(Ammoland.com)- “Stalin Would Approve,” Ben Stein writes in his regular “Diary” feature at The American Spectator. “The only thing missing so far is the live ammo.”
It’s a perceptive point about the cold civil war manifesting itself in the “progressive” Brett Kavanaugh witch trial.
Stein, for those unfamiliar with his work, is an actor (as well as a writer, lawyer and former speechwriter for Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford) who enjoys Republican approval as a “conservative” commentator. He’s arguably best known for his role in 1986’s “Ferris Bueller’s Day Off,” playing the Economics Teacher who delivered the now-iconic droning and repetitious lines “Anyone, anyone…?” and “Bueller, Bueller…?”
It’s instructive that Stein gets that what is playing out on the Democrat side of the aisle is thinly-disguised Stalinism, and that totalitarianism is the goal with genocidal tyranny being the result. It’s not hyperbole if Stein’s observations are allowed to stand:
There is no trial on facts or law any longer. As others have pointed out, we now have “guilt by accusation.”…To stop Donald Trump, the Democrats have tossed out the whole basis of Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence — innocent until proven guilty…Is there no end to it? Stalin would approve. So would Goebbels…
“If this Democrat trick works, there simply is no meaningful legal protection in this country any longer,” Stein quite accurately declares. “This is a defining moment for the Constitution…Republicans…WAKE UP!”
Seeing that Stein appears to grasp the gravity of that, another “Diary” entry contradicts its own subhead:
“The Time for Civilians to Own AR-15s Is Over,” Stein wrote in February. “Let’s have at least a modicum of common sense.”
He’s adopted the goals and even the terminology of the gun-grabbers.
“Now, I’m a Second Amendment guy,” Stein argues, making essentially the same argument Barack Obama did. “I believe Americans who are sane and not criminals and pass a genuine background test should be allowed to own weapons for home protection and for target shooting and for self-defense.”
Prior restraints for “shall not be infringed”? “Allowed”? Perhaps Stein could point to the delegated power in the Constitution he says he recognizes “defining moments” for.
Next, he does what every gun-grabber who professes belief in the Second Amendment always does. He shows everybody his big “but”:
“But for the life of me, I cannot see why any American civilians need an AR-15 or any other military-style semi-automatic rifle.”
An entry over at Urban Dictionary comes to mind (Warning: explicit language/NSFW).
Readers weren’t buying it and took Stein to the woodshed in comments. Despite instructional feedback, like all with closed minds who presume to teach but don’t even belong in the class without passing some prerequisites, he doubled down on the cognitive dissonance.
“It’s horrifying and yet another example of why no civilian needs an AR-15 or a facsimile. It’s just sickening,” Stein declared in a few months later after a known nutjob who’d had his guns taken away twice before shot up a “gun-free” Waffle House. “I’m a Second Amendment guy, but no one needs a gun that just begs the owner to start shooting people.”
Only delusional lunatics who can’t be trusted without a custodian believe their guns are begging them to do anything. This “conservative thought leader” who would presume to instruct us on the Constitution has embraced the primitive “legal” concept of the deodand, where an inanimate object could be blamed for a death and then seized by the government.
Stalin would approve. And the further danger is Stein, by being presented as a “conservative,” is given a platform to influence Republican thought. We see the dangerous infringements that can arise from that type of “thinking.”
Who knows what the Second Amendment says and why the Founders considered it so fundamental to freedom?
Anyone? Anyone…? Stein? Stein? Stein…?
About David Codrea:
David Codrea is the winner of multiple journalist awards for investigating / defending the RKBA and a long-time gun owner rights advocate who defiantly challenges the folly of citizen disarmament.
In addition to being a field editor/columnist at GUNS Magazine and associate editor for Oath Keepers, he blogs at “The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance,” and posts on Twitter: @dcodrea and Facebook.
I sort of agree with him. If civilians are to remove a tyrant, they don’t need ARs. They need sniper rifles. The AR, you use that to take out his bodyguards.
Did Rosa Parks “need” the seat at the front of the bus? An armed citizenry will never be unwillingly forced into railroad boxcars at gunpoint.
Well well Mr Stein. Only what you approve of? Hummm???
You lost me sir. You’re just a FUDD.
Many people are conflicted. Some groups of people are more conflicted than others.
“From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.” – Karl Marx, Critique of the Gotha Program (1875)
Frankly, I do not need Stein or anybody else (especially someone in government) to question what I or anybody else needs.
The last I knew Stein was a financial wizard that peddled his market ideas on TV. He is a jack of all trades and master of none.
We must cut Ben some slack. He grew up apparently, in an atmosphere/culture where guns were instruments used only
by others. Basically, he is a decent, traditional conservative (not a RINO), who will come around when he is shown the
facts of gun ownership in America. Will someone out there invite Ben to a gun club meeting and maybe, take him to
a range?
Typical neocon. We need to kick all of them out and send them back to the Dem party.
Who has murdered more people in the last 100 years, governments or individuals?
“I believe Americans who are sane and not criminals and pass a genuine background test should be allowed to own weapons for home protection and for target shooting and for self-defense.” I have read our entire Constitution from 1st word to last word many times over the last 50 (+) years. To date I have not discovered anything that remotely approaches Mr.Stein’s statement. He is another person who, being much smarter than the rest of us, feels it necessary to adjust the wording of OUR Constitution to conform to his own personal opinions. Normally those people do not stop with… Read more »