Quote of the day—Excelsior

This is never going to end until we make it illegal to own firearms. Until then, thousands of innocent people will die every year. So this country has a choice – either give up the deadly weapons or admit the selfish desire to pack heat is DIRECTLY RESPONSIBLE for all those deaths. There is no other way around it – you own a gun, you’re part of the problem. Period.

Excelsior
November 24, 2011
Comment to Dear Amy, Should I Let My Holiday Guests Pack Heat?
[[sarcasm] And the abuse of recreational drugs and alcohol is never going to end until we make it illegal to own them either. [/sarcasm]

I’m always surprised that people who make claims like this were smart enough to assemble a sentence that was intelligible. They could not possibly have given their views more than a second or two of thought. Of course the last two sentences demonstrate they think proof by vigorous assertion is valid too.

It’s pure crap for brains.—Joe]

6 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Excelsior

  1. Sounds like the same kind of logic the extreme end of what used to be the “feminist” movement is using…the logic that says that ALL intercourse is rape:

    “This is never going to end until we make it illegal to have a penis. Until then, thousands of innocent women will be raped every year. So this country has a choice – either cut off the penis or admit the selfish desire to pack a penis is DIRECTLY RESPONSIBLE for all those rapes. There is no other way around it – you have a penis, you’re part of the problem. Period.”

    Do a reductio ad absurdum, and you end up banning knives, then cutting down every tree on the planet because there’s a possibility that a branch might be used as a club. All rocks must be turned into gravel, since you could use a rock to bash somebody with it; the gravel must be turned into dust because you might throw stones at someone. The end result is that we have to cripple every human being, because they could still use hands, feet, legs, arms, or even head-butting as a weapon.

  2. And the more obnoxious and ignorant their statement, the more likely they are going to end it with “Period.”

  3. Dear Amy, I’m thinking of inviting some unarmed holiday guests as an outreach-what do you think?

  4. Heh — the article is called “Should I Let My Holiday Guests Pack Heat.” Ignore for a moment that if somebody has a concealed weapon, that it’s concealed and the host wouldn’t have a clue unless they were strip searching their guests. Somewhat uncouth, that.

    That said, Thanksgiving at my house this year was an Open Carry affair. My guests — friends and family — were encouraged to carry their sidearms openly and proudly.

  5. First off, how does this not fail the test of logic utterly? If I have a gun, a car, a knife, or a nuclear weapon and I do not use any of them to kill someone, how am I culpable if someone else uses such a thing to kill someone?

    I like the opposite more tenable argument that if they forcibly take away firearms from innocent, law-abiding citizens, then every violent crime against them is blood on their hands. You can add on the genocides too, where evil governments have used their authority to deprive citizens of their right to self-defense arms and then slaughtered them.

  6. “They could not possibly have given their views more than a second or two of thought.”
    I am convinced that it comes from a hypnotic state, bolstered by the desire to fit in with a group. Thought has little to do with any of it.

    “…how am I culpable if someone else uses such a thing to kill someone?”
    It’s very simple; collectivists think collectively.
    Group identity = group victimhood, group guilt, group entitlement. There are no individual rights, and by extension there is no individual innocence. Group guilt demands group justice. You’re one of those people and so you are culpable. QED. We’ve been hearing this sort of argument for over 100 years so I would hope that anyone would be able to predict it and articulate it by now.

    It makes perfect sense once you’ve accepted the basic principle, and that’s why I keep beating the drum in favor of arguing on principle. You can call a person a blithering idiot for arguing the type of logic exhibited in the quote above, but they’ll never understand. Their logic, such as it is, remains sound. If on the other hand you go after the underlying principle, they have nothing with which to counter. They’ll become enraged and lash out because you’ve forced them to face something they don’t want to face, but they can’t argue with you. That is a start. Let it be and come back when they’ve had time to digest it. Do it with courage, so nothing can intimidate or upset you, and you’re off and running.

    In the end you’ll find that the Forces of Darkness have nothing to work with other than intimidation and fear. And that tells us something else of importance, doesn’t it?– They’re easily intimidated.

Comments are closed.