Apr. 30th - Rebuttal to Tracy Morgan anti Gun thoughts.
Tracy Morgan, Actor, made the following statement (http://gunssavelives.net/blog/tracy-morgan-of-course-i-want-to-get-rid-of-guns/):
“Of course I want to get rid of guns. My father fought in the Vietnam War and he forbid us to have guns when he came home when we were little, so yes.”
I see two possible meanings for this statement and let us discuss them below:
1. What he really could mean is that he wants to end all forms of violence, from war down. This is a beautiful ideal. I think we all shared in this idea at some point in our youth. I remember, fondly, being young, and having the illusion of peace as part of my very make up. But then, I started reading. Almost immediately I realized that of all the greatest destruction imposed on people, those worst moments of man's history, were done by a complacent, obedient people, whom just wanted to do good for others. War, strife, fighting for property, women or ideals, these things will never go away. Instead of wishing for an impossible object, why not be a well armed, well read, and always vigilant individual? Why not instead of being your brothers keeper, order your own house? Why not respect the Life, Liberty, and Property of others and when a villain attempts to encroach on your sacred rights, you take responsibility for your life and stop the villainous act? If Tracy's opinion is to get rid of all violence, then he's not an adult. He has not put away childish things and realized that the world is what it is and all he is really responsible for is his own life (and his children). Since he still holds such youthful opinions, his words, to an adult society, should be taken as those words coming from a child, and smiled at their simplicity, then ignored.
or
2. He wants to keep violence, but just get rid of guns. This is the greatest fallacy the progressive liberals make. They are either in fantasy land (option 1) and believe that getting rid of guns will end murder, rape, and theft, or they are okay with murder, rape, and theft, just not guns. I don't believe I need to explain how insane this argument is, its shear stupidity should be apparent, but just in case, here is why it is absurd. The idea of getting rid of guns, but in effect, leaving the violence, means that we are not doing anything but disarming people that would, on previous occasion, been able to protect themselves. The only kind of person that would make a statement to 'get rid of guns' would be some kind of elitist whom doesn't believe that individuals have the authority to protect and save their own lives and property from the destruction of others. The kind of person that would take away the equalizing tool that protects my Life, Liberty, and Estate from theft by others is the kind of person who believes that my life is not mine to protect, my liberty should be slavery, and my estate the property of others whom can take if from me. That is the definition of a Tyrant, and I say no thank you, sir. I'll keep my Natural Rights, thank you very much.
He also made a comment about his father being in Vietnam. I'm no psychologist, but it sounds to me like his father suffered from war and instead of being a good father to his children, put the burden of his emotional condition on his children and scarred them with the same wounds he received in combat. My father served in the same war. We may not have had guns in the house (I wasn't allowed to have a gun until I was 17 - because of my own maturity) but they were not forbidden or stricken down. I was around them, my friends had them, others had them. And if my father suffered terrible things he found his own way to deal with it that did not enforced his ideas on us. To me, that's what a parent should do: protect his children and instruct them to become adults in the Savage Garden.
“Of course I want to get rid of guns. My father fought in the Vietnam War and he forbid us to have guns when he came home when we were little, so yes.”
I see two possible meanings for this statement and let us discuss them below:
1. What he really could mean is that he wants to end all forms of violence, from war down. This is a beautiful ideal. I think we all shared in this idea at some point in our youth. I remember, fondly, being young, and having the illusion of peace as part of my very make up. But then, I started reading. Almost immediately I realized that of all the greatest destruction imposed on people, those worst moments of man's history, were done by a complacent, obedient people, whom just wanted to do good for others. War, strife, fighting for property, women or ideals, these things will never go away. Instead of wishing for an impossible object, why not be a well armed, well read, and always vigilant individual? Why not instead of being your brothers keeper, order your own house? Why not respect the Life, Liberty, and Property of others and when a villain attempts to encroach on your sacred rights, you take responsibility for your life and stop the villainous act? If Tracy's opinion is to get rid of all violence, then he's not an adult. He has not put away childish things and realized that the world is what it is and all he is really responsible for is his own life (and his children). Since he still holds such youthful opinions, his words, to an adult society, should be taken as those words coming from a child, and smiled at their simplicity, then ignored.
or
2. He wants to keep violence, but just get rid of guns. This is the greatest fallacy the progressive liberals make. They are either in fantasy land (option 1) and believe that getting rid of guns will end murder, rape, and theft, or they are okay with murder, rape, and theft, just not guns. I don't believe I need to explain how insane this argument is, its shear stupidity should be apparent, but just in case, here is why it is absurd. The idea of getting rid of guns, but in effect, leaving the violence, means that we are not doing anything but disarming people that would, on previous occasion, been able to protect themselves. The only kind of person that would make a statement to 'get rid of guns' would be some kind of elitist whom doesn't believe that individuals have the authority to protect and save their own lives and property from the destruction of others. The kind of person that would take away the equalizing tool that protects my Life, Liberty, and Estate from theft by others is the kind of person who believes that my life is not mine to protect, my liberty should be slavery, and my estate the property of others whom can take if from me. That is the definition of a Tyrant, and I say no thank you, sir. I'll keep my Natural Rights, thank you very much.
He also made a comment about his father being in Vietnam. I'm no psychologist, but it sounds to me like his father suffered from war and instead of being a good father to his children, put the burden of his emotional condition on his children and scarred them with the same wounds he received in combat. My father served in the same war. We may not have had guns in the house (I wasn't allowed to have a gun until I was 17 - because of my own maturity) but they were not forbidden or stricken down. I was around them, my friends had them, others had them. And if my father suffered terrible things he found his own way to deal with it that did not enforced his ideas on us. To me, that's what a parent should do: protect his children and instruct them to become adults in the Savage Garden.
Comments
Post a Comment