CSGV says only the government can protect you from . . . the government

St Louis Gun Rights Examiner ^ | 27 October, 2010 | Kurt Hoffman

[marktwain]

Yesterday, we talked about the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence (CSGV). More specifically, we talked about the real reason for that group's intense hostility to the right to keep and bear arms--as explained in a book co-written by CSGV executive director Josh Horwitz, "Guns, Democracy, and the Insurrectionist Idea"). Today, we'll look at efforts in that book to debunk what they call one of the "myths" perpetuated by the "Insurrectionists" (which are, remember, people who believe that the purpose of the Second Amendment is to protect the people's means to resist tyranny).

According to Horwitz, and co-author Casey Anderson, when gun rights advocates point out that scores of millions of civilians were murdered by their own governments over the course of the 20th century, after having first been disarmed under strict "gun control" laws, we are promulgating a "myth" of a link between forcible citizen disarmament and genocide. The Holocaust under the Nazis being the best known of such incomprehensibly massive evils, that's the one to which the book devotes an entire chapter. This excerpt captures the gist, though:

The awful truth is that the Jews were a small minority that a demagogue defined as the enemy of a large nation. The Nazis were going to disarm and isolate the Jews through any means necessary, and they had ample means at their disposal to do so no matter what steps--up to and including the acquisisition of private arsenals--the Jews could have taken to defend themselves.

Ah--the old "resistance is futile" argument. Not an argument that will get one very far with people who don't believe resisting evil is ever without value. Mike Vanderboegh masterfully describes some such people here. Zvi Bielski is another who might beg to differ--then again, he doesn't strike me as the type to beg

[marktwain]

Another thing that Horwitz studiously ignores is the use of the separation of powers and checks and balances to limit government power.

This is not surprising, as he certainly appears to worship government power over all else.

[556x45]

I read a much longer article about this yesterday and can say w/o doubt Mr Horwitz is a malicious salesman of destruction to the gullible. Only someone dead above the shoulders could accept his ‘arguments’. Really they’re not arguments at all but redefinition of words and terms to allow his agenda. In the face of fact his premises wilt. LOL, that won’t stop him or any other liberal bent on self destruction though. Perhaps he’s just looking for company as he jumps off the cliff. Isn’t this really the bottom line for all liberal schemes?