Three pieces you really ought to read

I'll borrow a small bit from Part 1:
There is one aspect of CSGV's(Coalition to Stop Gun Violence) philosophy, though, that I now realize I had completely misunderstood. The strongest reason for their aversion to gun rights isn't "gun violence," or the supposed threat of "right wing terrorism" (although they exploit both of those to the maximum extent possible)--it's that they believe that a strong-willed, vigilant citizenry, prepared to say "No!" to government excess, and equipped to back that denial up, is right now impeding the "progressive" agenda.

Part 2:

These events provided ample political cover for the cabinet to declare a state of emergency and suspend the individual liberties guaranteed by the Weimar Constitution. The rights to free speech and free press, free association, and privacy, among others, no longer existed.

What the book doesn't talk about there is that the authority to enact such sweeping powers was codified in the Weimar Constitution in Article 48. Horwitz's reticence on that little detail is perhaps not too surprising, given the fact that Article 48's insertion in the Weimar Constitution was largely the work of Max Weber--the very same Max Weber cited so frequently and so admiringly by Horwitz in explaining why the government must have a monopoly on force. Well, the Nazi government certainly had that.

and Part 3:

Isolate the Insurrectionists by embracing the self-defenders and the sporting gun owners. The fact remains that most gun owners are not Insurrectionists. The majority of gun owners keep guns primarily for self-protection or recreation, not to prepare for some future Armageddon. Insurrectionists do not deserve the cover provided them by self-defenders and sporting gun owners.

Wait a second here . . . "embrace the self-defenders"? Are they planning to tell these self-defenders that until 1989, the group's name was not the "Coalition to Stop Gun Violence," but the "National Coalition to Ban Handguns"? How about the fact that the name change was motivated not by a loss of interest in banning handguns, but by a desire to expand the mission to banning so-called "assault weapons," too? From "Disarmed: The Missing Movement for Gun Control in America," by Kristin A. Gross:

In that year [1989], the National Coalition to Ban Handguns changed its name to Coalition to Stop Gun Violence to reflect its view that assault rifles, as well as handguns, should be outlawed.

Go read them; good look at the gun bigots and progressives(or should this just be shortened to 'fascists'?) real thoughts and intentions

Thanks to the man at Sipsey Street for pointing these out.

And part 2 now properly linked