One thing that I have learned while standing outside the cage labeled “False Dilemma” watching the unfortunate zoo animals trapped within is that it doesn't take a whole lot of mental acrobatics to dismantle most of their arguments, such as the one for stricter gun control laws. In fact, it takes no effort at all because they will do all of the work for you.
Awfully kind of them.
The proposed "solution" to the "problem" (maybe the cage should be labeled “Hegelian Dialectic”) of gun ownership follows the same absurd thought process as so many of their arguments:
1. People with guns are dangerous.
2. Dangerous situations should be avoided or prevented.
Therefore, we will issue guns to people to prevent people from having guns.
Yes, yes you are.
As is the norm with these Pavlovian creatures and their close cousins, the sociopaths that see the contradiction but propose the “solution” anyway, the proposed “solution” immediately violates the stated goal of the proposed “solution”. As soon as they issue the first gun to a person, they have done the opposite of preventing people from having guns. If they had a solution that didn't involve issuing guns (or other, even more dangerous weapons) to people in an effort to reduce the number of guns owned by people, that would be different.
How about this? After we issue guns to people to disarm people, we issue guns to the disarmed people to take the guns away from the first group that we issued guns to.
I think you are now qualified to vote in the next presidential election.
As you can imagine, going around stealing guns from people carries with it a certain amount of risk. Even if violence and threats of violence weren't the habitual choice for gun control proponents as an ironic "solution," it's fair to say that arming robbers who have orders to steal guns would be necessary in order to carry out the plan.
The plan of arming people to disarm people?
I can't quite put my finger on it but something doesn't sound right with that plan.
Truthfully, many of the people arguing in favor of this "solution" are ignorant of the absurdity that they are spouting. They have been raised to view USA, Inc. as an all-seeing, all-knowing, all-powerful, ethereal entity with superhuman powers, which is free of the ethical bounds of mere mortals. In short, to these people, USA, Inc. is a god.
According to Mittler Romney, corporations aren't gods, just regular people.
Maybe he meant to say, "Corporations are personages, my friend . . . of course, they
I could probably write several posts on the ramifications of this belief and the benefits gained by the rulers and their subjects by participating in this religion but for this post, it's enough to note the existence of the belief. Deifying the rulers' corporation causes a mental disconnect which blinds people from the reality of what they are truly saying. It's what leads to the most clichéd question asked when discussing freedom with a statist.
"Who will build the roads?"
"Well, who's building them now?"
They have grown so accustomed to referring to this abstract concept of government as an actual physical being with supernatural powers that they have forgotten that it's just a corporation that employs people to accomplish things.
In the name of god.
Any "solution" they propose to deal with a "problem" they have with people is going to have those same people utilized as part of the "solution." This obvious contradiction undermines any argument they may make and makes the rebuttals in Part 1, while still valid, completely unnecessary. The simple answer to calls for stricter gun control is, "So, let me get this straight, you're going to issue people handguns, assault rifles, sonic weapons, energy-directed weapons (heat rays), armored personnel carriers, tanks, and who-knows-what-else weapons in order to take weapons away from people?"
Not people, the government.
Who are reptilian aliens?
The argument is ludicrous but these people have apparently made a vow not to ever be outdone as holders of the Guinness Book of Records for Absurdity. Guess which people they want to give the guns to? The same type of people who have killed over 10,000,000 people in the last 75 years, employees of the US government. Now, I don't know about you but if I suddenly became demented and decided to impose my will on over 300 million people, I would still hope that my ideas sounded like they might possibly be in the vicinity of Rationalville. Employees of USA, Inc. and despots receiving billions of dollars in US tax money each year probably kill more people in one month than nonemployees do in an entire year. The plan proposed by gun control advocates is actually:
People with guns are dangerous.
Dangerous situations should be avoided or prevented.
Therefore, we are going to say, "Screw that!" and issue guns to those people with a predilection toward violence or who have been so fully indoctrinated into the religion that they will blindly follow orders to commit violence against innocent people . . .
I don't know the rest. What motivates these people is beyond me. I'm still guessing that it's because their high priests tell them what to do and what to think. It's clear that it has nothing to do with rationality, reasoning, logic, or facts. Perhaps it's the combination of obedience to their religion along with the emotional delivery of the message. Employees of USA, Inc. killed more children at Waco than were killed in Sandy Hook and they do this all the time all over the planet. Shouldn't gun control activists be advocating for control of those people?
It's against their religion.
If they did that, their souls may be condemned to Guantanamo Bay for all eternity.
Or until they starved themselves to death to escape the brutality of people employed by the US government.