Well, our beloved anti-gun, Second Amendment-hating, frothing news anchor Piers Morgan decided to mix it up with Dana Loesch following the recent threats made at a White House press conference by dear leader to enact even more anti-gun rights legislation in wake of the Newtown massacre.
Piers’ interview with Dana was a classic example of how one should deal with a hyperbolic, overly emotional progressive liberal. Often times, I have watched liberals plaster a phony smile across their face as they prattle on about their progressive agenda to trash the U.S. Constitution. Presenting a calm and cheery disposition is a very effective technique during a debate. If one’s argument is sound, but one presents that argument in a hostile, disparaging or aggressive manner, then many times the listener will side with the non-aggressive party, despite the fact that they may be wrong, because they empathize with them. It’s a just a human nature thing I would surmise. As a famous bumper sticker reads, “Mean people suck!”
Well, Dana presented a calm, cheery face to Piers Morgan and I could clearly see him seething beneath the surface as he attempted to challenge his guests’ rebuttals. It was a beautiful thing to watch Dana twist the sword of calmness into Piers’ bitter soul. Masterful.
One argument that is routinely bantered about by the progressives in the gun rights debate is what limits should be placed on the type of arms a citizen can legally own. For example, Piers kept asking Dana whether the Second Amendment meant that a person could own a tank.
Well, that’s an interesting question. I’ve been a student of World War II history since I was nine years old. In the early 90’s, I was a member of a WWII reenactment group. At most reenactments I participated in, there were real tanks and other assorted military vehicles present. Around that time, Fred Ropkey of The Ropkey Armor Museum in Indianapolis was nice enough to sit down with me for an interview. I also interviewed his curator at the time–Skip Warvel.
Does the Second Amendment allow us to own tanks? YES! But how many citizens can afford the licensing and expense to operate and maintain armored vehicles? Not many. Besides, I can’t recall one instance where a lawfully owned armored vehicle was used in the commission of a crime. Although I do recall a deranged man commandeering a M-60 main battle tank from a San Diego National Guard Armory in 1995; he proceeded to lead police on an insane rampage that only ended when he hung the tank up on a median and an officer shot him dead through the driver’s hatch.
Additionally, I wrote in a previous article about the fact that properly licensed individuals can buy machine guns:
I just read an article that seemed to express a certain amount of incredulity that so-called “Rambo-style weapons“ are legally for sale in Stafford, Texas. Well, properly licensed gun dealers can sell “restricted” or Class 3 weapons, and do so all over the country. Most people who purchase Class 3 weapons are collectors who must themselves be properly licensed to purchase “restricted” weapons. In other words, it is well-regulated. Buried deep in the article is this rather interesting quote: “Despite the discomfort some might have over private citizens owning guns that were made for soldiers, law enforcement authorities say they can’t point to a specific instance in which a legally registered machine gun was used by a private citizen to commit a violent crime.” Judge Jeanine Pirro stated on her Fox News show that in her 30 years of law enforcement experience she could only recall one instance of a legally registered gun being used in the commission of a murder.
Do you see smell what I’m stepping in? Piers is claiming that the authorities will protect us at all times, despite the fact that the Supreme Court has ruled law enforcement is legally not obligated to protect you from harm, even though most will do their best to do so. It was an officer himself who told me, “When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.” Remember, the tank that was stolen from the National Guard Armory was under the jurisdiction of the government. Despite all their safeguards, bad people do bad things. And that is why we have a Second Amendment!
My ears are burning with the acerbic retorts of unheard liberals right now. I can hear them screaming, “So, can citizens own atomic bombs and chemical weapons, too?” What a ridiculous argument. I believe it is referred to as the slippery slope argument, i.e. “If we let citizens own military-style weapons legally, then what is to stop them from stockpiling and using atomic bombs and chemical weapons?” Ask yourself this, liberal: how many citizens have the bankroll or the knowledge to manufacture and deploy atomic bombs and chemical weapons? Get real! It is a patently absurd argument.
This has already been settled, as far as gun confiscation is concerned, in the D.C v. Heller case. Piers and ilk are fighting from a losing position. Journalist Ben Swann recently dissected and dismantled the gun crime statistics Morgan employed in his fiery interview with Alex Jones. There is no statistical data or scientific studies that will back up the left’s assertion that more “gun control” will result in less violent crime. If this were the case, Washington D.C. and Chicago should be the safest cities in the nation, yet they are the murder capitals of the United States.
So, if all these laws pushed through by democrats restricting gun rights are not resulting in reducing violent crime, why are democrats like Senator Dianne Feinstein, Congressman Chuck Schumer and the president constantly pushing for ever more curtailment on the rights of Americans to bear arms? Well, that is the question, isn’t it!