Of Moral Superiority and Problems Unsolved

Now three days after the shooting massacre in Newtown, Connecticut, the country is steeped in moral superiority. Heard on the radio this morning Syracuse Basketball Coach Jim Boeheim using the event of his 900th win to speak out against “assault” weapons:

“If we cannot get the people who represent us to do something about firearms, we are a sad, sad society,” Boeheim said Monday night. “If one person in this world, the NRA president, anybody, can tell me why we need assault weapons with 30 shots – this is our fault if we don’t go out there and do something about this. If we can’t get this thing done, I don’t know what kind of country we have.”

As usual in our country, we ask all the wrong questions. Whenever you hear the word “need,” uttered by any public figure, be on your guard. This word is their “assault” weapon, for when it comes down to it, there’s very little in life we actually “need.” We need food, shelter and clothing…that’s about it, the rest is a matter of lifestyle, so this argument is weak. However, they counter with “If he had clips with fewer rounds or a gun you had to cock for each shot, that would mean fewer people killed.” Maybe so, but we have to take the argument above a third-grade reading level if we’re really serious about stopping this kind of tragedy.

Remember back in the 1980s there was a famous moment on the Phil Donahue Show with actress Laura Dern, the daughter of radical leftist actors Bruce Dern and Diane Ladd, crying out about having to live every day knowing she could be annihilated in a nuclear holocaust. Well, what’s changed since then? Sure sure, Reagan and Gorby signed some papers and we cut back on our respective arsenals, but now nuclear arms are everywhere. Israel has them, India, Pakistan, the UK, France and worst of all, China, North Korea and maybe Iran. Funny how this isn’t the issue it once was. I guess crying about nuclear war isn’t as fashionable anymore now that Reagan is in the ground. And isn’t it funny how world leaders signing papers hasn’t kept the world’s bad guys from amassing nuclear weapons?

Atomic bombs were invented and they can’t be uninvented…no more than guns can be uninvented, and no laws or treaties are going to eliminate what’s already been produced. We can go over the hypotheticals of an unarmed society and the consequences, but frankly it bores me at this point. On November 6th of this year, the majority of the American public (that voted) decided no matter how bad things were, they just weren’t bad enough to risk being called racist, so how am I going to convince any of these people that banning guns puts us in danger?

Many scoff at the idea of teachers or principles being armed or even having armed guards at schools. Okay, if that’s off the table, then the only intellectual argument you have is that the government must disarm our society. And how would the government have to do that? You know the answer…and even I think that’s a bridge too far for even the most radical members of our government. So, Coach Boeheim and company, you’re never going purge “assault” weapons from this earth…what now? Any new solutions given these facts?

No, they will wrap themselves in the flag of the SS Moral Superior and look down on us from on high, solving nothing, judging everything.

On a final note, concerning these schools that proudly display signs telling everyone they are a “gun free zone,” I did an internet search looking for signs for sale that say “This is a gun-free home” or some such. Couldn’t find any that weren’t ironic in nature.

Funny. Peculiar.

Thus Spat Zarathustra


2 thoughts on “Of Moral Superiority and Problems Unsolved

  1. As in virtually every case, the left mischaracterizes the arguments of their opponents and then ridicule the straw man they’ve created. This is the case with allowing administrators, teachers, security, etc. to carry arms on campuses. It’s not to hope that the principal can gun down a shooter in the midst of his massacre.

    Killers such as these carry out their evil in venues in which there is a high degree of certainty that they are the only ones carrying a firearm. I can’t begin to know what was going through the mind of the killer in Newtown but one thing I’m 99.99999% sure of is that he entered that school because he knew that no one inside was armed.

    The value of allowing trained, responsible citizens to carry weapons (or not, at their option) is not to turn public places into the OK Corral but to prevent violence. You don’t have to have all of the teachers, or half of them, or even one, carrying a gun. You just have to make those who would do harm believe that one of them might. That can be accomplished even if no one actually has a weapon.

  2. An example of what I was referring to in my previous comment can be found here.

    “One absurd argument some gun extremists already are making is that, instead of tightening gun laws, we should go in the other direction and start packing heat. That way, you see, we can mow down the bad guy before he gets us.”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s