Reductio Ad Absurdum

From Brietbart editor Ben Shapiro’s appearance on Piers Morgan’s barely seen CNN show last week:

MORGAN: You genuinely believe your own government is going to turn on you in a way that you require an AR-15 to challenge them? You really believe that will happen in modern-day America? Is that what you think?

SHAPIRO: They may not turn on me. They may not turn on my children. But the fact is this, history is replete with democracies going tyrannical. It has happened. It happened in France in the 19th century. It happened in Spain in the last century. It happened in Germany. It happened in Italy. It happened in Japan.

And later:

MORGAN: I know the second amendment. What I haven’t heard is one coherent reason why any civilian in America needs an AR-15, military style, assault weapon. Tell me why you need one.

SHAPIRO: I told you, why the general population of America, law-abiding citizens, need AR-15s.

MORGAN: Why do they need those weapons?

SHAPIRO: They need them for the prospective possibility for the resistance of tyranny. Which is not a concern today, it may not be a concern tomorrow.

MORGAN: Where do you expect tyranny to come from?

SHAPIRO: It could come from the United States, because governments have gone tyrannical before, Piers.

MORGAN: Do you know how absurd you sound?

Keith Appnell e-mails:

That’s right, the federal government would never, ever send armed troops into the sovereign, private homes of law-abiding American citizens – especially under a Democratic president whose personality, instincts for peace and negotiating skills are so superior that such an episode would never even be contemplated.

elian-gonzales-raid

That would be… absurd!

Cost of Obama's 2012 Regulations: $236 Billion
Chicago's $22.5 Million Payout To A Gang Rape Victim Is Probably A Bargain
  • MartinLandauCalrissian

    Excellent point.

  • jim_m

    MORGAN: Do you know how absurd you sound?

    You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

  • 914

    Absurd is listening to such snobbish ignorant condescension as Piers.

  • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ Proof

    The chap in the photo isn’t evil. The large capacity magazine is making him do it.

  • jim_m

    The leftist media knows beyond a certainty that the government will never impose a dictatorial tyranny on the American public.

    At least not one they will ever report on.

  • 914

    ^Were from the government and were here to help!

  • http://www.wizbangblog.com David Robertson

    Doug, are you saying that a father should lose his parental rights just because the father lives in a nation that has a government that you disapprove of? That appears to be what you are saying with the image that you chose to use in your post.

    The people who tried to keep Elian Gonzales from his father were wrong to do so. It is sad that armed federal law officers were needed to return Elian to his father, but his father had every right to have his son back. Those people who were trying to keep Elian from his father were not law-abiding, which is why the scene in your chosen image took place.

    • jim_m

      It’s tiresome David. Whatever your position on the Elian Gonzalez fiasco, there was never a cause to have a SWAT team charge into a home like that with assault weapons, prepared to murder all the occupants in order to retrieve the boy. And if they were not prepared to murder those occupants then why did they need to draw their weapons at all? (Hint, you don’t draw a weapon and point it at someone without holding the intent to use it)

      It was a fascist move by the Clinton admin. When you treat people like enemy soldiers you demonstrate that you view the public as the enemy.

      IIRC no one in the family was charged with a crime so why was it necessary to treat them like the home was a drug cartel hideout? Hell, obama gives the cartels guns so you can argue that the government treats drug lords better than the common citizen now.

      • herddog505

        Agreed. Whether one thinks that the father’s rights to be ordered by his tyrannical government to drag his young son back into what amounts to a concentration camp, there was no need to send in a SWAT team.

        One would think Janet “Tank Girl” Reno would have learned the first time about how things can go badly wrong, and it’s therefore a good idea to keep the heat down from the start. On the other hand, she paid no penalties for the colosal f*ck-up at Waco, so maybe she SHOULDN’T have learned.

        • LiberalNightmare

          Funny how often things like this happen when the left is in charge, isnt it?

          • herddog505

            It’s the do-gooder mindset: when one is convinced that his actions are beneficent, there’s nothing to stop him committing the worst crimes. After all, he’s Doing Good.

        • JWH
          • herddog505

            Seems like quite a lot of after-the-fact excuses by the DoJ:

            “They… they… they… refused all workable solutions! And they THREATENED us! And some of them had criminal records! Why, some of them even might have had guns! We HAD to do it that way!”

            Wait… Is this the United States Dept. of Justice explaining why they had to send in heavily-armed paramilitary officers to take a boy away from his family, or is this a representative of the Crown after the botched raid at Lexington and Concord in April, 1775?

      • Vagabond661

        Kinda like tanks at Waco?

    • LiberalNightmare

      I think Doug is suggesting that a frickin’ swat team shouldn’t have been involved.

      • jim_m

        I believe that David is claiming that despite the fact that no charges were filed, that the family were law breakers and that all lawbreakers deserve to be held at gun point by a swat team with full auto weapons.

        I certainly hope that should David ever get pulled aside for speeding that the officer who does so does not decide that David is a dangerous lawbreaker that needs to be held at gunpoint. After all, he will have already done more to demonstrate lawlessness than this family.

    • RichFader

      Here in America, when somebody has a dispute with the immigration authorities about whether they belong here, or when family members have a dispute about who should have custody of a minor child, or, for that matter, when there’s a dispute about whether people are law-abiding, the question is normally settled in a court of some kind. Not so much in the Gonzales case.

  • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

    Piers just doesn’t get it, does he?

    It’s a simple concept, and anyone who’s ever read a prospectus for their 401k or a stock they’re buying will see the phrase “Past performance does not guarantee future results.”

    But to Piers – there’s no possibility of it ever happening – or so it would seem.

    As an attention whore, he’s selling himself admirably.

    And really, isn’t he a typical liberal? You point out example after example of what you’re trying to demonstrate could happen here, plainly showing that it’s NOT unthinkable, that it COULD happen – and his response? “You’re absurd.”

    Yeah, great way to prove folks in error. Who needs counter-examples? Just call the other side ‘Absurd’ for mentioning their concerns, and end the argument.

    • herddog505

      I’m wondering if ol’ Piers would be so dead certain that tyranny could never-never-ever come to the United States if a Republican was in the White House.

      • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

        Hell, the attention whore would claim it’s already happened.

  • Commander_Chico

    Ben Shapiro is not the best advocate for bearing arms.

    He’s a simpering effete chickenhawk. A warmonger who spent his military age years during the wars cheerleading for more deaths of young Americans his own age. He couldn’t even sign up for the reserves or National Guard.

    • The_Weege_99

      I’ve always found that people who use the term “chickenhawk” usually aren’t arguing from a position that has any rational support. So, I gather you don’t like Ben. Other than that, what was the point of your decidedly whiny puling about him?

      • Commander_Chico

        That he is a poor advocate for the right to bear arms.

        • jim_m

          And you’re a good demonstration of a totalitarian pig. Your constant Chickenhawk bullshit is tiresome. Fuck you and your service. You didn’t do it for your country or for the people in it , you did it for yourself. No one who really understood liberty or freedom would take the fascist positions you do. People who didn’t serve still have rights in this nation. The military serves the civilian government not the other way around. You don’t like that? GO live in a military dictatorship somewhere else.

          • Commander_Chico

            Fuck you and your service

            I am shocked. Are you the long-haired guy who called me a “baby killer” when I was at Indianapolis airport in uniform back in ’75?

          • jim_m

            Nope. And I would not have. But I do not respect you for the sake that you served, which is what you demand. As I said, you have demonstrated that you served, not for your country but for yourself. I can respect service without respecting the selfish fascist who demands that I bow down to him because he wore a uniform.

          • Commander_Chico

            Kneel before General Zod!!!

          • jim_m

            You know Chico, there are others on his board who have served, but you are the only one who touts their service like it makes them something special. You are the only one who boasts of having served like it means your shit doesn’t stink. You are the only one who thinks that having served conveys upon you some special privilege of being able to opine on matters of national security and that people who have not served should not have that right.

            Newsflash: This isn’t Starship Troopers and you don’t become a citizen because you served. I don’t respect your service because I don’t respect you.

          • Commander_Chico

            I think Starship Troopers had some good ideas.

          • jim_m

            Exactly why I tell you that you are a fascist because that was also a fascist state. (and poorly acted too, but the bad acting and script was part of the appeal)

          • Commander_Chico

            I read the book. The movie was a parody and entertaining in its own right, but it was not faithful to the book.

            To the everlasting glory of the infantry . . . .

            Down deep, you’re a snarky sneering leftist, Jim. I bet you did call a soldier a “baby killer.”

          • jim_m

            Nope never. When Vietnam ended I was too little to even be paying attention to such matters. I was much more into riding my bike and playing ball in the street.

            I think you’re falling back into projection again. I’ll bet you are the same kind of soldier as John Kerry. In it for your own glory and ready to betray your fellow soldiers at the drop of a hat if you thought you could profit from doing so (that would be a special hat).

          • herddog505

            Thanks for posting that link! I’ve always wondered what “The Ballad of Roger Young” sounded like. I must say that it’s not exactly a rousing tune, though: sounds more like a Sunday school song.

          • Commander_Chico

            Yeah, maybe there’s a livelier version.

          • herddog505

            Please do not ever mention that movie again. If I could have Ver-whatshisname whipped for absolutely ruining one of my favorite books, I would do so. A pox upon him.

            At any rate, I agree with Commander_Chico that there were some good ideas in Starship Troopers. The accusations of fascism are, I think, unwarranted: the only thing “fascist” about the fictional Earth government was the requirement that people do some sort of government service (not necessarily in the military) to earn the franchise and hold certain types of public service jobs such as being police officers.

          • jim_m

            I was in fact referring to the movie. As with most such cases, the movie differs from the book significantly.

          • herddog505

            Very true. In this case, the movie differed from the book as a pile of runny dogsh*t differs from a five-star prime rib dinner.

    • herddog505

      Oh, for pity’s sake! Quite aside from the fact that a person’s military record has exactly f*ck-all to do with the gun control debate, this is a blatant ad hominem. For what other causes is Shapiro “not a good advocate” because he didn’t rush out to serve with the colors?

      Tell me: is Chuck Schumer an equally bad advocate for gun CONTROL because he, like Shapiro, didn’t serve in the Armed Forces? As far as I know, he did not despite being of prime draft age during the Vietnam War. I wonder how that happened…

      The_Weege_99 hits the nail on the head: you’ve apparently got no rational argument to make against Shapiro’s position, so you’re reduced to calling him a (to you) bad name.

      • Commander_Chico

        Yes, it is a blatant ad hominem. But I get to indulge in them, too.

    • jim_m

      Wake up Chico. Less than 10% of Americans have served in the military. You’re surrounded by chickenhawks. We have the right to vote too. I know you don’t think that should be allowed, but then that is why this is still considered a democracy. I know that you don’t like that either.

      People have the right to take a position on matters of national security and the military regardless of whether they served. Fascists like you would love to take that right away. Like I say below, you didn’t serve your country, you served yourself. You demand the benefits of that service and demand that everyone else should sacrifice but that you should never have to on account of that service.

    • LiberalNightmare

      Now that we are living in the age of “Leading from behind”, do liberals still get to use the chickenhawk argument?

      • jim_m

        Sure they do. obama can fight wars and murder Americans and use unmanned drones, but he is not a Chichkenhawk just because he never served and his children will never serve. He’s Chico’s “Dear Leader” Mmm mmm mmm.

    • RichFader

      Since prior service is not required to avail oneself of the protection of the Second Amendment, Shapiro’s service or lack thereof is entirely irrelevant to the merits of his argument. Want to try again?

Optimization WordPress Plugins & Solutions by W3 EDGE