Trigger warning:

This site may, in fact always will contain images and information likely to cause consternation, conniptions, distress, along with moderate to severe bedwetting among statists, wimps, wusses, politicians, lefties, green fascists, and creatures of the state who can't bear the thought of anything that disagrees with their jaded view of the world.

Jan 17, 2013

Piers Morgan admits gun ban ‘symbolic’

We probably shouldn’t pick on poor old Piers all of the time, but he is such a sanctimonious prick, so blatantly dishonest, so determined to Europeanize the US, and such a posturing idiot, he’s too tempting a target.
Now he is proving that his campaign against guns is purely symbolic and unlikely to achieve any sort of result as far as preventing mass shootings is concerned: 
At one rather humorous point, Morgan’s attempt to control the conversation nearly failed when an anti-gun professor, speaking via remote link, corrected him on the topic of whether, in fact, assault rifles were used most often in mass shootings (semiautomatic handguns are the weapon of choice). That nearly took the discussion back to where Shapiro had taken it last week--i.e. highlighting Morgan’s true desire to remove all guns.  
 The most telling moment of all came at the beginning of the program, when Morgan openly admitted that the Obama administration’s new proposals for gun regulations, which he supports and for which he proudly campaigned, are “not gonna stop mass shootings.” They are worth enacting anyway, Morgan explained, because they are an appropriate response to the Sandy Hook shootings, even if merely a symbolic one  
Morgan immediately proved the point that Second Amendment defenders have been making for weeks--that none of the gun control proposals of the left would have made any difference in preventing the Sandy Hook atrocity. But what is important is not, in fact, whether we save the life of even one child. Rather, the aim is to humble Americans, particularly conservative ones, into accepting limits on our constitutional rights.
When Hughes challenged Morgan to explain why the Second Amendment ought to be limited to the technologies of the eighteenth century, but the First Amendment should not, he failed to produce a coherent answer. Never mind--the debate is settled, and the verdict is that Morgan is a small, small man. …
So, what we have is a person who has spent the entire time since Sandy Hook dragging the bodies of the victims across the studio floor as a prop for his bully pulpiting campaign against the Second Amendment admitting that his preferred result is futile and wont achieve his stated aim.  He then has the gall to suggest that it should be done anyway as a symbolic gesture.
What the hell is it with the left and symbols?

No comments:

Post a Comment