Michael Tomasky does the tiresome job of going through angry, rich old white guy David Mamet's rant on Obama and gun control, and concludes that the once great writer has not only made a nonsensical argument, but shamed himself by getting all the facts wrong:
Almost every “fact” is wrung through an ideological thresher and pulverized. Assault weapons, he writes, have been illegal since 1934, so what’s the big fuss? Actually, not quite. They have been really hard for the average citizen to obtain since 1934, but not completely illegal. And in any case the point here comes down to what we mean by “assault weapons” in the first place. For example, the very Bushmaster AR-15 used by Adam Lanza in Newtown and by James Holmes in Aurora is perfectly legal. Mamet doesn’t discuss this gun specifically, but he certainly means to convey the opposite impression.
Andrew Sullivan calls it something 'only a teenage anarchist could write' - an accurate (but rather benign) assessment when you look at the premise. Mamet basically attempts to call Obama as a closet communist obsessed with expanding the role of the state at the expense of the individual. He ties this in with a not so subtle suggestion that Obama is coming for your guns, while asking why the President is allowed to protect his own daughters with heavy artillery. Laced with dark warnings on individual liberty, overzealous bureaucrats, and dead children, Mamet uses his screed against gun control to further his view that America is headed for the gulags under the guidance of big, bad Barack Obama.
Just look at the alarmist beginning of his pretentious faux-philosophy lecture:
All of us have had dealings with the State, and have found, to our chagrin, or, indeed, terror, that we were not dealing with well-meaning public servants or even with ideologues but with overworked, harried bureaucrats. These, as all bureaucrats, obtain and hold their jobs by complying with directions and suppressing the desire to employ initiative, compassion, or indeed, common sense. They are paid to follow orders.
Rule by bureaucrats and functionaries is an example of the first part of the Marxist equation: that the Government shall determine the individual’s abilities.
What this has to do with gun control is anyone's guess, but that doesn't seem to bother Mamet who is more concerned with stoking up fear than anything else. I'd suggest reading Mamet's diatribe on Obama and gun control, but it doesn't make much sense. I'll summarize as best I can: Communism is evil. Obama is a closet communist. King George abused his power, therefore I should be allowed big guns.
And that's about it really.