For starters, anybody seriously into the Second Amendment battles is well aware of the similarities between Nazi and US gun control laws. We've also had the "fascism discussion," wherein the fact that it was called National *socialism* (and for a damned good reason) is well understood. (And the Germans, in fact, created the welfare state, via Bismark – Hitler was merely standing on the shoulders of giants).

I'd be willing to bet that the large majority of Jonah's "hyperbole" is accepted as simple historical fact in substantial and knowledgeable parts of the conservative intellectual world.

So my initial reaction to somebody who brushes off Goldberg's hypothesis as "partisan hyperbole" is not to be awed by the man's intellectual breadth, even if it is Charles Murray doing the brushing. The difference with Murry is that he read the book and changed his mind. But many won't. Because why would you want to waste your time with partisan hyperbole?

Murry, to his credit, did surmount that. I have a lot of respect for Murray's work. But the ability to reject something like Goldberg's book out of hand, even for a moment, betrays a narrowness of knowledge and a willingness toward closemindedness, even if he did overcome them.

I think that Murray's initial reaction is an understandable one. Heck, the two posts I've made on the book thus far have gotten pretty much that initial reaction. Unlike most I've encountered here, though (yourself excluded, of course), Murray was willing to read through the book before he made up his mind.

I'm still not sold on your interpretation. I think you may have sold Murray a bit short.

I still think my interpretation of Murray's reax is at least thinkable, though. A lot of things are dismissed as "partisan hyperbole" that shouldn't be, precisely for the reasons I mentioned.