Thursday, December 20, 2012

Save Piers Morgan: Ban guns now

I am changing my position on gun control. But not because I think that more gun control will prevent shootings like the one in Newtown, Connecticut (it won't), but in order to save liberals.

In the days following the tragic shootings, my initial concern for the families has slowly given way to a concern for liberals, and particularly those liberals who populate the media. If you saw Piers Morgan's emotional meltdown during his debate with Larry Pratt of Gun Owners of America, you will get a taste of what I'm talking about.

We are now in Day 6 of wall-to-wall CNN coverage of the shooting. Over the course of these six days, liberals have worked themselves up into such an emotional state that they are no longer thinking rationally.

Actually, now that I think about it, they never have.

But that aside, they first covered the shooting, then they stuck their prying cameras into every weeping face in order to show the justifiably emotional response to the shooting by those who actually lost loved ones. Then they went out and found people in Newtown who knew people who had lost loved ones in order to show how emotional they were. And then they went out and found people outside of Newtown who had absolutely nothing to do with the people in Newtown who had lost loved ones or the people who knew people who had lost loved ones so that they could report to us on their emotional state.

Is there is a crying person left in America who hasn't had a CNN camera stuck in his face?

The media's six day accomplishment? To explore strange new feelings, to seek out new sufferings and new griefs, to boldly go where no cameras have gone before. And in the process they have made themselves so emotional that they have rendered themselves almost incapable of engaging in rational thought or intelligible speech.

From watching liberals like Piers Morgan, it is clear that they have worked themselves up into such an emotional state that they are a danger, mostly to themselves. And it will get even worse when the adreneline leaves their system and depression sets in. So the first thing we need to do is prevent liberals from buying guns. Particularly now. In their present state. To do anything else would be to facilitate the potentially self-destructive behavior of well-meaning people.

But, secondly, we need to take a serious look at gun restrictions for others. Again, I say this for the sake of liberals.

We need to understand the form of reasoning by which liberals get from their feelings to their conclusions. In the case of gun control, we must gain an understanding of the following syllogistic form:
Premise 1: I am saddened by gun violance
Premise 2: Gun violence is very upsetting to me
Conclusion: Therefore, we must ban guns
Many of us cannot see the rationality of such arguments, but liberals see it quite clearly.

Part of the problem, you see, is that liberals are so good. They want to do good things. They are so concerned about good being done that they are willing to use force to make people to do the things they think are good. They are the do-gooders par excellence. They are the guys (and girls) who were in all the service clubs in high school, and who in college grew their hair out long, wore jeans with holes in them, smoked weed, and got elected to the student council--and who then went out and wouldn't leave all the other students who were trying to study alone because they wanted to talk about getting the U.S. military out of El Salvador and stopping investments in South Africa.

They wanted to help in any place they could, as long as it was so far away that they couldn't really have any actual impact.

They believed (and still believe) with unalterable certainty that the mere act of caring contributes to the good. The more they care, the more caring there is. And if all of them care together real hard, all of the good feelings resulting from all the caring will amount to one gigantic, enormous, good caring thing. If we all get together and care enough, the good vibrations will eventually reach a critical point at which the Harmonic Caring Convergence subsumes everything in a warm, soothing, synergistic feeling of holistic attunement. Even though we haven't actually done any particular good thing, the mere feeling of goodness will pervade our being and improve our life energy and get us close to the Solar Logos.

There will be nothing to kill or die for. And no religion too.

But one of the things we also need to do in order to reach this state of liberal Nirvana is to ban guns for everybody. The existence of guns in the hands of so many people dramatically reduces the psychic energy liberals need to reach a state of weaponless interconnectedness because, even though the vast majority of people use them for good purposes, they detract from the psychic energy liberals need to help us all achieve the ultimate astral weaponless state.

Liberals know, through retrocognition, what guns can do to people. And if we don't ban guns, then liberals won't be able to imagine all the people living life in peace. And if liberals aren't able to imagine all the people living life in peace, then they will be sucked in to a vortex of depression. And if liberals get sucked into a vortex of depression, they might become self-destructive. And if liberals become self-destructive, they might shoot themselves.

Don't let liberals shoot themselves. Save Piers Morgan. Ban guns. Now.

8 comments:

KyCobb said...

I know this is off topic, but its just too delicious not to mention that Martin's preferred candidate for President, Newt Gingrich, now supports marriage equality:

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/gingrich-gay-marriage-acceptance/2012/12/20/id/468587

Fred said...

I'm reminded of St.Paul's admonition to "rejoice with those who rejoice, weep with those who weep." Romans 12:15 ESV

You are correct in saying that your syllogism as framed does not follow logic, but then again emotions rarely do. Let me suggest another.

Premise 1: Guns don't kill people. People kill People.

Premise 2: Assault weapons (such as a Bushmaster .223) make it very easy for people to kill people.

Conclusion: It would be more difficult for people to kill people if they didn't have access to assault weapons.

Laws of this nature do make a real difference, especially in civilian walks of life. For example, there was a time when you could have called me a liberal pothead, but I no longer smoke pot for the very reason that it is illegal where I live. However, if it were legalized and regulated like alcohol, I would have much greater access to it and more desire to partake of it than I do now.

In my opinion, pot and guns are not a fair comparison, but for the sake of discussion, I will grant that others may have a similar passion for "safe and legal" use of guns. Even so, I've seen a number of reports where gun proponents are actually in favor of more legislation in the wake of this tragedy. Here's one:

http://tv.msnbc.com/2012/12/14/owning-a-gun-made-me-feel-secure-now-its-time-to-give-it-up/

The NRA does not speak for all gun owners; what we need is more compromise, and less extreme idealism--on all sides.

sherry jones said...

i can tell from you're snide tone that you're sitting there thinking you're pretty smooth, pretty smast and oh so very cool *rolls eyes*

but ... you're just simply - snide.

and "...the vast majority of people use them [guns? assault weapons?] for good purposes" um, GOOD PURPOSES? and what on EARTH would those 'good purposes' be - oh! to KILL something or someone!

i know this sad country will never have a gun ban, BUT there is NO "GOOD" PURPOSE FOR ASSAULT WEAPONS - period, end of story! and you don't get to define 'assault weapons' - any semi- or automatic weapon has NO BUSINESS being in the hands of ANYONE that isn't kept tabs on, like [not enough] peace officers.

this STUPID petition is calling for deportation of a man who was exercising ANOTHER of our supposed "inalienable rights!" if the gov't actually ACTS on it, what very, very small amount of respect i may still have remaining for our 'leaders' will be gone FOREVER...

momcat =^..^=

Anonymous said...

We need to remember that the second amendment was instituted not to protect hunters or homeowners, but as a defense against tyranny. It may not be evident today, when we are at the pinnacle of economic and social prosperity, but everything is going to collapse someday. When things collapse, people elect tyrants to bring back prosperity. But in the end, all of our rights are taken, and then genocides and world wars happen. We have seen this happen time and again throughout history.

We have also seen people revolt against tyrants throughout history. Often, these revolutions are powered The people who founded this country had just used privately owned military-style weapons to overthrow a British tyranny and they knew that someday the government which they were implementing would probably need to be overthrown. That's why we should be able to own assault weapons. Not because they necessarily serve any important purposes in our current society, but because banning them would keep them from our posterity, who might really need them.

Lets face it. Tragedies like Sandy Hook may be terrible, but we cannot allow them to deprive us and our posterity of our freedoms. I believe that we should try to find alternate solutions to this problem, solutions which don't erode our liberties.

Anonymous said...

One day in the garden of Eden, Adam decided that God's rule was tyrannical and unjust. The eternal peace thing just wasn't cutting it--God was stepping on his liberty to express his dissatisfaction (violently) and plot treason! Adam secretly created an AK-47 and hid it under a bush, so that when the day finally came for God to throw him and his wife out of paradise, Adam would have his say in the matter. Little did he know that bearing arms against God is nothing more than a suicide mission. That was the end of Adam, but he was proud to have died fighting for his freedoms.

KyCobb said...

"The people who founded this country had just used privately owned military-style weapons to overthrow a British tyranny and they knew that someday the government which they were implementing would probably need to be overthrown. That's why we should be able to own assault weapons. Not because they necessarily serve any important purposes in our current society, but because banning them would keep them from our posterity, who might really need them."

That is the Rightwing myth, but its false. The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to provide a "well regulated militia" which Congress can call up to SUPPRESS Insurrections. Says so right there in the Constitution you revere but apparently don't actually read. An example of the actual intent of the Founding Fathers was when President George Washington called up the militia to create an army which he led on the field himself to supress the Whiskey Rebellion against a tax imposed by the federal government. The protection against tyranny comes from the facts that the Constitution created a government of officials elected by the people, with powers divided between separate branches; the 2nd Amendment was to provide the firepower to protect the people's government, not to empower domestic terrorists to overthrow it.

Anonymous said...

KyCobb said it perfectly. Some people think the right to bear arms means they can use them against their own goverment, but remember, the 'goverment' was eleted by the people and for the people. The government is you. The right to bear arms is meant to protect the goverment who represent and protect you.

Lee said...

> KyCobb said it perfectly. Some people think the right to bear arms means they can use them against their own goverment, but remember, the 'goverment' was eleted by the people and for the people. The government is you. The right to bear arms is meant to protect the goverment who represent and protect you.

Just think of it as part of the balance of power. The idea that tyranny "could never happen here" is naive. Unfortunately, we have not discovered a new species of humanity with which to populate the government offices, one who is morally superior and intellectually better equipped than the old species of humanity than ran roughshod over Europe in the Forties and Asia in the Sixties.

It's the same old species of humanity -- a fallen creature.

That leaves only our institutions to protect us. One of those institutions is the Constitution. And one of the stipulations in that Constitution is that we have a right to bear arms.

> what on EARTH would those 'good purposes' be - oh! to KILL something or someone!

If I were to come across a scene in which you and your loved ones were being terrorized and threatened with murder, would it be okay with you if I were to stop your terrorist with my gun?

You're always allowed to suffer the consequences of your philosophy, but many of us prefer to defend ourselves wherever possible.