Lars Larson on the Museum Shooting, Guns, & Conservatives

That shooting at the Holocaust Museum is sure to set off a number of different things in our public discourse.

First, you’re going to hear more cries for gun laws. The fact is, gun laws aren’t going to make any difference. That man was violating at least sixty different legal regulations. He didn’t have a right to a gun. He certainly didn’t have a right to one in Washington, D.C., and he certainly didn’t have a right to shoot anyone.

Second, you’re also going to hear a hue and cry about conservatives. This man certainly wasn’t a conservative. He was just a nut. In fact, apparently, he took issue with George W. Bush and thought that Bush was somehow involved in the 9/11 attacks. That’s just plain nutty.

What we need is control of nuts, not control of America’s guns.

“For more Lars click here”

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook Post to LinkedIn Post to Reddit

Posted by at 05:50 | Posted in Measure 37 | 16 Comments |Email This Post Email This Post |Print This Post Print This Post
  • anonymous

    “Second, you’re also going to hear a hue and cry about conservatives. This man certainly wasn’t a conservative. He was just a nut.”

    More and more it is getting harder to tell the difference. What is Glen Beck for example?

    “What we need is control of nuts, not control of America’s guns. ”

    Sorry Lars. You’ll have to pry my filberts from my cold dead fingers.

    • vhriiyq

      COMMENT_DELETED

  • Rupert in Springfield

    I’m not entirely sure how being a racist and a Nazi has a lot to do with conservatives. I cant think of too many conservatives who aren’t pretty vocal in condemning this sort of thing, I can think of plenty on the left who are silent about it.

    Frankly this sad event was a bit of a reminder that maybe a lot of the lefts more racialist members should be a bit more constructive in their language. Sonya Sotomayor, Rev. Wright, Al Sharpton et. all. fan the flames of this sort of racial hatred. It would be nice to see a little less tolerance of of them. As long as being a member of racialist groups and using racist language is considered perfectly acceptable if ones party affiliation is correct, we can expect this to continue. This event was yet another reminder the left needs to start taking a long hard look at itself on this issue.

    • valley person

      “I’m not entirely sure how being a racist and a Nazi has a lot to do with conservatives.”

      Its pretty simple, even though I’m sure you will disagree. Nazis have always been considered to be the extreme of the right, just like communists are considered the extreme of the left. The first people Hitler rounded up were the communists and socialists. And conservatives in America have been closely associated with white southern racists (states rights) for many decades.

      That doesn’t excuse racist behavior when it shows up on the left, which it does on occasion, as you point out.

      Fortunately the old Nazi crumudgeon appears to have been a lone actor. But then so was Timoth McVeigh who did a lot more damage. These things have a way of getting out of hand so I hope responsible parties tone down the paranoid rhetoric (that means you Glen Beck) and let things cool off for a bit.

      • Rupert in Springfield

        >Its pretty simple, even though I’m sure you will disagree. Nazis have always been considered to be the extreme of the right, just like communists are considered the extreme of the left.

        Nazi’s were rightist? Maybe they were to the right of the Khmer Rouge, but they were certainly a left wing movement as compared to capitalism.

        Nazis were fascists. Fascists were the darlings of the left from day one. Nazis were National Socialists and exposed socialist philosophy. Nazis specifically and fascists in general were seen as the third way or middle ground between capitalism and socialism. Fascism was hardly a right wing movement. To the contrary, in its day it was hailed by the left. Mussolini was considered a genius by the left. This is about as obvious as a Klansman in the Senate.

        None of that is at all an extreme form of the right. Nazis were just another in a long string of genocidal movements the left is known for. History revisionism cant do a lot to change the genocides of the lefts various incarnations throughout history, the body count is simply too high to permit the rewriting of history you would seem to prefer.

        At any rate, your attempt here is a good example of what I was talking about. The left loves to throw stones but hates to own up to its own history. The idea that Nazism, a form of fascism, represents anything but a movement to the left of capitalism is perfectly ludicrous. It’s pretty typical, the de-linking of democrats from southern racists, the attempted linking of conservatives who support states rights with same, the Timothy McVeigh stuff ( obviously you are the last man on the planet to not know Larry Nichols was convicted with him, McVeigh hardly acted alone ), and Glenn Beck ( God knows what your issue is with him ) – but just scant mention of any errors on the lefts part. Nope, no naming of names on the left. Plenty of indictment of the right. And the left wonders why the are tarred and feathered as the party of no personal responsibility.

        This is exactly why when the left starts stamping its foot about moral high ground and being so concerned about rights and justice everyone laughs. The left has no morals. Morality is simply a stick to beat the other guy over the head with, never something for introspection.

        Any crowd that could get all worked up about water boarding when it was Bush and not have thing one to say about Pelosi when here duplicity came out has no moral high ground to stand on. But then again as you have said in the past, you view the lefts fungible morality is a sign of their creativity. Truly the only thing creative lies in thinking anyone would take the lefts pomposity on morality or righteousness very seriously.

        Don’t come whining to me with “states rights” innuendo when you put forth the likes of Sotomayor. The Republicans left behind polite acceptance of her sort of racial bigotry behind long ago, you guys still defend it. You have a long way to go and your finger pointing post was a prime example of why.

        Clean your own house first, then maybe we will listen to your history revisionism. Until you can criticize your own, and get your history straight, the attempts at finger pointing here are typical Dean clownishness.

        • valley person

          Well, at least give me credit for predicting you would disagree.

          “Nazi’s were rightist? Maybe they were to the right of the Khmer Rouge, but they were certainly a left wing movement as compared to capitalism. ”

          There has always been a strain of extremism on the right that is nativist, racist, violent, and oppressive. Nazis were and are the ultimate expression of that. When you make it that far around the circle you meet the oppressivness and violence on the left that takes the form of communism. And when you get two movements with so much in common it is easy to confuse the origins and core motivations of both of them.

          But fascism is an ideology that pits the strong against the weak and sides with the strong. Communism pits the weak against the strong and sides with the weak. Both end up in similar places (oppressive, anti-democratic state controlled societies,) but start from opposite assumptions and motivations.

          • Rupert in Springfield

            >There has always been a strain of extremism on the right that is nativist, racist, violent, and oppressive.

            Say what? You are talking about Nativist and racist when BO just nominated Sotomayor?

            Pardon me while I clear my throat to chuckle.

            The Puerto Rican terrorist bombing in NYC in the 70’s? Left wing groups. The race riots in Greenpoint, Williamsburg and the Bronx in the 80″s? Those are all Al Sharpton baby, and no way he is right wing. In the nineties? Well, we had the Unabomber, the WTO Seattle conference, ELF and ALF, again not exactly right wing groups. And lastly, let’s face it, the goons standing in front of the polls with the billy clubs were Black Panthers, not exactly a rightist group.

            The left is way, way more noted for violent extremism than the right has ever been. Lets face it, you have a bunch of right wingers having the so called “tea parties” you send one or two cops. You have a left wing protest on virtually any issue, you send in a couple of swat teams. I doubt anyone was really concerned there would be looting and rampage during a tea party. I doubt anyone was concerned there would be rioting and looting if McCain lost.

            >And when you get two movements with so much in common it is easy to confuse the origins and core motivations of both of them.

            You really are simply wrong on your history. Nazism was simply virulent Fascism, and fascism is to the left of capitalism and to the right of communism. There is simply no way to construct the argument that fascism is to the right of capitalism, which is what it would need to be to be a right wing movement. You are confusing something being to the right of communism as being synonymous with it being a right wing movement.

            In short, Fascism was the darling of the left at its outset, there is simply no way to divorce yourself from the history on that. Fascism had almost nothing in common with capitalism, especially in regards to Nazi Germany, in which Fascism was quite socialist in nature. National Health, Government control of industry and extreme party loyalty are hardly hallmarks of the right and they were the mainstay of Naziaism. In addition, Eugenics, for which the Nazis were famous, was very much in vogue in intellectual circles of the left. This doesn’t mean the left in this country advocated gas chambers, but they did advocate forced sterilization and of course the Nazis also did that. The Nazis racial policies were also decidedly left wing. Racial identity, racial preference and indeed the entire concept of culture descending from race is an absolute banner of the left, the Nazis loved it as well. Hello Sonya Sotomayor, someone who clearly agrees with racial identity politics.

            If you are going to try drawing linkage or parallels between the Nazis and the right, good luck. Its going to be pretty tough given Fascisms conception from the start as being a movement halfway between communism and capitalism, thus making it by definition to the left of capitalism.

          • valley person

            Well…believe whatever you want I guess. Your thesis completely ignores the historic enmity between fascism and communism in Hitler’s Germany and Franco’s Spain, as well as in multiple places in South and Central America. It equates conservatism with libertarian capitalism, which are different animals that find only some points of agreement, and it turns racism completely on its head by equating those who have had legitimate grievances based on their experience of being discriminated against with those who tried to keep them in their place by appealing to racial superiority of the white race. It also completely ignores American liberal-conservative political alliances over the past 5 decades, but when you are on a roll, go for it.

            Nevertheless, I give you credit for your creative writing skills.

          • Davis

            The “historic enmity between fascism and communism in Hitler’s Germany and Franco’s Spain, as well as in multiple places in South and Central America”? Pray, tell me where such enmity has ever existed, o self-wise *valley person!*

            The *only* enmity between Hitler and the communists was the scope of their preferred reach. Communism was an *international* movement that Hitler believed did not serve his interests in *national* power. He wanted to call the shots and could not bring himself to trust anyone who might have an allegiance beyond Germany. Remember, he called his party the *National Socialists* which is why the *left* here in the States considered it a “third way” — both communism and socialism being international in scope could not make headway here since we were largely isolationist; National Socialism, as long as Hitler pulled it off, held an attraction because there was no obvious outside influence.

            Franco was a SOCIALIST, just like Hitler. It was the political left — Socialists and communists — in the States who swarmed to Spain to fight alongside him. Throughout the time of his rule the only thing that differentiated his country from the USSR was the fact that he did not strike out into empire building or otherwise become a threat to neighboring nations.

            Fascism speaks essentially to the means of accruing power to oneself (or small group) and wielding it to control absolutely. In a sense you are correct to say that it pits the strong against the weak, favoring the strong. It is NOT a political/governance philosophy as much as a methodology. That is why one can identify people whom they believe exhibit fascistic tendencies on both the left and the right. On the other hand, you have to be smoking and/or drinking something much more potent than anything in common usage today to claim that communism pits the weak against the strong, favoring the weak. That statement is the epitome of lunacy.

            Conservatism must always be connected to what ideals conservatives are trying to keep. Thus, conservatives today are defined by our efforts to protect and perpetuate the principles decreed by our Founding Fathers in the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution. We believe that history proves that the best society is that which was envisioned and (imperfectly) practiced by those who in their day were considered liberals — i.e. limited government, self-reliance and personal responsibility, and civic virtue (predicated upon personal virtue) — that results in liberty, both personal and corporate. Anytime people like you seek to link modern political conservatism to other “conservative” movements simply to besmirch our cause proves only that you lack discernment, historical knowledge, integrity, and honesty; you do not deserve to be taken at all seriously.

            But feel free to stick around on this blog since you might surprise us and yourself by actually learning something valuable.

          • valley person

            “Franco was a SOCIALIST, just like Hitler. It was the political left — Socialists and communists — in the States who swarmed to Spain to fight alongside him.”

            Davis…you need to brush up on your history reading. The socialists and communists who went to Spain fought on the side of the Republican government, which irony of ironies was leftist. Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany supported Franco, while the Soviets supported the Republicans, as did Mexico and the Socialist Internationale and a whole lot of volunteers. If they were all on the same side, someone should have told them and saved a lot of unecessary carnage.

            “you have to be smoking and/or drinking something much more potent than anything in common usage today to claim that communism pits the weak against the strong, favoring the weak. That statement is the epitome of lunacy.”

            Well, the low paid workers and peasants who joined the CP to fight against the landlords and capitalists would probably all be lunatics then. And by the way, there is some very potent weed out there that folks are smoking today. Way stronger than in my day.

            “Anytime people like you seek to link modern political conservatism to other “conservative” movements simply to besmirch our cause proves only that you lack discernment, historical knowledge, integrity, and honesty; you do not deserve to be taken at all seriously.”

            Well, I admire your admiration for yourself and your politics. I’d like nothing better than to see American conservatism move completely away from its long association with segregation, anti-unionism, anti-feminism, anti environment, and so forth and get back to some serious Burke. If that ever actually happens I may even join you.

            ” But feel free to stick around on this blog since you might surprise us and yourself by actually learning something valuable. ”

            Oh, I learn valuable things here almost daily. Maybe not the things you think I should learn, but nevertheless…..

          • Davis

            OK, first off, I will cop to incorrectly assessing the motivations of the the various allied groups that made up the two side of the Spanish Civil War. From even a cursory reading of the history a la Wikipedia, though, a couple of things stand out: First, I was correct in my assertion that the only reason Hitler and Mussolini sided with the Nationalist Franco (other than to get some really good “real-world” test data for new technologies) was that the Republicans were in the hip pocket of the international communist movement as fronted by the USSR. Second, although one may accuse me of over-simplification, the war was fought between two equally horrendous authoritarian and tyrannical forces. It all comes down to this: once the dictatorship is in place, the people in whose name it supposedly serves become irrelevant. This is the point *Rupert* and I have been establishing — both socialism and fascism, as far as they describe the interaction of government and the economy, are anti-capitalist. Since capitalism has been the bedrock of Western European/American liberal democracy, both socialism and fascism are anti-democratic which places them to the left on the political spectrum. So, yes, those peasants, serfs, and laborers who, in revolution after revolution, succumbed to the perverse myth of the worker’s paradise were lunatics. They ended up in exactly the same place in that paradise as they had been under the old regime; only now instead of a real person, to whom they might have appealed in the hope that they could reach one’s better nature, they could only rail and flail against some faceless, amorphous, and brutally ruthless bureaucracy when they failed to fulfill the quota serendipitously imposed on them.

            >>”I’d like nothing better than to see American conservatism move completely away from its long association with segregation, anti-unionism, anti-feminism, anti environment, and so forth and get back to some serious Burke. If that ever actually happens I may even join you.”

            By whom is American conservatism long associated with any of the above, especially segregation? Why, surprise, surprise, surprise … I believe you will find that it is the opponents of American conservatism and their fellow travelers in the MafioSi Media (MSM). Besides, you seem to imply that any opposition to anti-competitive demands made by giant, corporate unions, abortion (yeah, yeah, I know, abortion is more restrictive than feminism, but you know as well as I do that it is the crux of the matter), and control freaks masquerading as advocates for the environment is all bad. As I stated above, the capitalist economic model is the bedrock upon which Western liberal democracy, especially as embodied in American history, has thrived. Naturally, seen in that light, to the extent that any belief system or special interest advocates for structures that diminish our competitive advantage, conservatives must oppose them. I see nothing inconsistent or shameful in that stand.

            BTW, the conservative movement is not monolithic. Various factions within the movement have their special emphases. The one thing held in common, though, is the goal to protect and perpetuate the principles embodied in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Social conservatives emphasize the moral ethic we adduce from the biographies and writings of the Founding Fathers that, as it intersects with the Judeo-Christian heritage received through the Bible, makes their accomplishment so significant and our nation so great. Economic conservatives stress the limited role government should play in the economic activities of the American people. Constitutional conservatives look to roll back intrusive federal and state governments in order to return to that envisioned by the delegates to the Constitutional Convention of 1787.

            Surely you can see yourself in agreement with at least one of these component groups. Who knows, perhaps, if you are able to flush your mind of all the sewage deposited there by the MSM and others willingly ignorant, you will be able to see how the individual strands described above really do weave themselves into a coherent tapestry. But you have to take that first step.

          • valley person

            “It all comes down to this: once the dictatorship is in place, the people in whose name it supposedly serves become irrelevant.”

            I’ve got no disagreement with this. Our disagrement is about whether fascism is a manifestation of the extreme right, as communism is without any argument a manifestation of the extreme left. I and most historians I have read point to evidence that fascism comes from the right. Saying that does not discredit conservatism in general, just as acknowldedging communism comes from the left does not discredit liberalism in general. They are both extremes that do not speak for or represent the source group.

            “both socialism and fascism, as far as they describe the interaction of government and the economy, are anti-capitalist.”

            Here we have a difference. Its true that totalitarian governments don’t like freedom, by definition. But corporate capitalism did fine under Hitler, with some German industrialists getting quite rich, and in present times Chinese capitalists are getting very rich within communist China. To me this shows that capitalism, which I define as private business re-investing profits to increase productivity and market share, does not need democracy. Other examples include Singapore, South Korea (for decades before it finally became democratic), Pinochet’s Chile, and Franco’s Spain.

            We also have lots of examples of democracy being sustained in essentially socialist economies, including Sweden and Finland, and to a lesser extent in Denmark.

            So it is hard to make a case, as you are trying to do, that democracy and capitalism are joined at the hip, while totalitarianism (from either side) and capitalism are antithetical.

            “By whom is American conservatism long associated with any of the above, especially segregation? ”

            By historical fact. Conservatives in America and internationally have resisted the establishment of political equality of every minority and out of power group (i.e. women). I can’t think of a single instance where conservatives championed a disadvantaged group, with the exception of fetuses. And once they are born to poor single women, conservatives argue to cut off the welfare checks and food stamps.

            “BTW, the conservative movement is not monolithic. ”

            I did not mean to imply that it was. There are strains of conservatism that I admire and identify with. And there are strains of of liberalism that I am wary about. Since Reagan was president, I’ve seen mainstream american conservatism evolve into adopting fairly radical positions that seek to roll back hard won progress and make very risky proposals, like aboloshing social security and medicare, democratizing the world at the point of a gun, and ignoring science when it suggests we are over stepping the capacity of ecosystems. Its a radicalization of what should be a cautious political philosophy.

          • Rupert in Springfield

            Well, its not a question of what I believe. Its a question of what Fascism is. You just seem to want to characterize something that is to the left of capitalism as right wing. Why you insist on doing so is anyone’s guess but it doesn’t make a lot of sense.

            So fascism was antagonistic to communism? Well, that only makes sense if you know your history. Communism was in the vanguard of political theory and fading. Fascism was seen as the new middle way. Of course the Nazis, seeing themselves as the apex of this new way, would want to distinguish themselves from communism so the antagonism is no surprise at all.

            Have you really even though about this? Your argument doesn’t seem very well thought out. Then again I should take into account you argued with my school funding idea incessantly before even reading it. I guess someone who thought I had advocated for lower school funding when I explicitly stated it would be a 35% increase would be pretty unclear about the history of fascism.

            Did you even know the Nazis were the National *Socialist* Party before we started this? I would lay odds you did not, since even their name indicated they were left wing. Did ya miss the big red flag? Did you miss the socialist nature of virtually all the Nazi programs?

            >It equates conservatism with libertarian capitalism, which are different animals that find only some points of agreement

            Talk about creative writing. I never made any such comparison in cluing you in about the Nazis.

            >and it turns racism completely on its head by equating those who have had legitimate grievances based on their experience of being discriminated against with those who tried to keep them in their place by appealing to racial superiority of the white race.

            Racism is racism. Obviously you excuse killing people on racial grounds. I don’t. That was entirely my point. You are completely unable to admit the vast majority of racism has come from the left. Anything is excused by you excuse as based upon “legitimate grievance.

            If you think a bunch of black panthers with billy clubs, or Al Sharptons riots to go out and kill Jews are based on legitimate grievances, that’s fine. Its also inane.

            You obviously are unaware that Hitler not only felt he had legitimate grievance against the Jews, he also convinced a whole lot of Germans their grievance was legitimate.

            You are seriously unaware that Hitler blamed the fall of Germany from the powerful nation it once on the Jews? I would not think there was a single person on the planet who was unaware of this. Obviously I was mistaken.

            Any idiot can dream up a “legitimate grievance”

            No “legitimate grievance” excuses murder, or arson, or threatening people outside of polling places. Obviously you excuse it though.

            >It also completely ignores American liberal-conservative political alliances over the past 5 decades, but when you are on a roll, go for it.

            God knows what that means.

            Anyway, its pretty clear you don’t like having the fact pointed out to you that the vast majority of racist acts, mob violence and the like have come from the left. You just simply thought you could slap down some boiler plate and not get called on it. Sorry, the association of the left with violence and racism is pretty well established and you don’t have a lot of counter examples to what I said.

            You have a few race riots started by conservative or even Republicans in the past few decades? Lets hear about it. You have incidences as blatant as Black Panthers with billy clubs standing outside of polling places? Lets hear about it. You have instances of Republican appointees to the Supreme court saying white people are wiser than Hispanics? Lets hear it.

            You don’t, and that ,my friend, is the problem with the left. They are completely non introspective as you have demonstrated quite well here. you slapped down the boiler plate without thinking and got caught with your pants down.

            As for Fascism and the Nazis that was kind of a bonus. I have never met anyone who just blindly associated it with the right and then didn’t have really much evidence to support such an obviously erroneous conclusion.

            Hint one – If you are going to go on about Nazism, at least learn a little more about it than you get watching Hogan’s Heroes!

          • valley person

            “Well, its not a question of what I believe. Its a question of what Fascism is.”

            Its a question of what you believe fascism is.

            “You just seem to want to characterize something that is to the left of capitalism as right wing”

            Capitalism is an economic, not a political system. Capitalism exists quite happily in Communist China. Fascism is a political structure that can acomodate capitalism just as easily.

            “So fascism was antagonistic to communism? Well, that only makes sense if you know your history. ”

            OK. Then explain the Spanish Civil war. Explain Pinochet. Explain why the first people Hitler rounded up and sent to camps were the socialists and communists.

            “Have you really even though about this? Your argument doesn’t seem very well thought out.”

            Yes Rupert….I’ve read about it, thought, about it, researched it, and written about it.

            “Did you even know the Nazis were the National Socialist Party before we started this?”

            Yes Rupert. I also knew that the Spanish leftists called themselves Republicans. Does that mean that our Republican party is leftist?

            “Obviously you excuse killing people on racial grounds. I don’t.”

            Oh. I didn’t mean to be that obvious about it. Damn.

            “You are completely unable to admit the vast majority of racism has come from the left. ”

            Right you are. I find myself unable to admit that which is patently false. And your continued repeating of it doesn’t make it any more true.

            “You obviously are unaware that Hitler not only felt he had legitimate grievance against the Jews, he also convinced a whole lot of Germans their grievance was legitimate.”

            I’m unaware of that ? Whatever. Hitler and the German people who followed him were the racial majority that opressed a racial minority that had been scapegoated and pushed from one end of Europe to the other for 1000 years. How you equate that to racial minorities in the US trying to overcome slavery and Jim Crow is a mystery. But then a lot of what you believe is a mystery.

            “No “legitimate grievance” excuses murder, or arson, or threatening people outside of polling places. Obviously you excuse it though.”

            Yes, obviously. I also put on a beret from time to time and look for honkies to harass. Makes me feel good.

            “God knows what that means.”

            I’ll spell it out for you. Jim Crow, Brown versus board of education, Civil Rights Act, Southern strategy, states rights, solid Republican south.

            “Anyway, its pretty clear you don’t like having the fact pointed out to you that the vast majority of racist acts, mob violence and the like have come from the left. ”

            Only if you also include the KKK as left. But then you probably do.

            “You have a few race riots started by conservative or even Republicans in the past few decades?”

            Now why would white people stage a race riot Rupert? Who would they riot against? The 10% of the population that is oppressing them? I mean how ridiculous can you get here?

            “You have instances of Republican appointees to the Supreme court saying white people are wiser than Hispanics? Lets hear it.”

            I don’t have that. What I do have is a long history of all white guys occupying the Supreme Court except for 2 women and 2 African Americans, no Hispanics or other Puerto Ricans. So the white dudes have never had to say they are better.

            “the problem with the left. They are completely non introspective as you have demonstrated quite well here.”

            This is delivered by an introspective blogger?

            “Hint one – If you are going to go on about Nazism, at least learn a little more about it than you get watching Hogan’s Heroes! ”

            Right you are Rupert. That Sargent Schultzie, he was a raging Nazi communist. Filled my head with all sorts of things.

  • devietro

    So this nut shoots up the Holocaust Museum and he gets linked to conservatives but when a different nut shot and killed a soldier outside the recruiting office, they fail to mention that the guy was a recent Muslim convert and when it did get brought up it was considered “racist”.

  • Jaynee Germond

    I agree totally with Lars on this. I am tired of liberals trying to use criminals to rationalize taking rights away from law-abiding citizens.

Stay Tuned...

Stay up to date with the latest political news and commentary from Oregon Catalyst through daily email updates:

Prefer another subscription option? Subscribe to our RSS Feed, become a fan on Facebook, or follow us on Twitter.

Twitter Facebook

No Thanks (close this box)