The Stupidity of Gun Control

This kind of stuff is rampant among the left, and I know that I’m saying a lot about the left recently, but a lot of this garbage has come floating to the surface recently.  This is probably no more true when it comes to the gun banning arguments that the liberals make, particularly following well-publicized shootings.  Whether or not these shootings are all that common of not seems irrelevant to them, the fact that the media is following the “if it bleeds, it leads” mentality and these gullible idiots are so programmed to look for it in the media, it’s no surprise that this comes up a lot.

And along with the stories come the idiots, like this one who thinks that for gun control, the only way anyone should be given a license for a firearm is to voluntarily take a bullet.  Yes, it is as stupid as it sounds. Salon writer D. Watkins thinks that the only way anyone ought to be able to get a permit for a gun is to stand up against a wall and get a bullet through a hopefully-non-lethal body part.

But that’s about as stupid as saying that the only way to get a license to drive a car is to get your ass run over.  Or if you want to buy rat poison, you have to be willing to swallow a hopefully-non-lethal amount?  After all, there are a lot more vehicular deaths in America than gun deaths and lots more people get poisoned than get shot.  But no, they have an irrational fear of guns, therefore, they demand people shoot themselves to get access to a gun.

The problem is, that’s just stupid.  The last people you want to give a gun to is a crazy person who is willing to take a bullet, those are people who are abnormal and insane.  But of course, liberals don’t think this stuff out very well.  Okay, more properly, liberals don’t think very well.  They feel.  They react.  They do not reason.  That’s the biggest problem with the liberal mindset, it’s the one that I generally complain about most often because it is absurdly true.

So, D. Watkins, if you want to be allowed to own a pen, please plunge it into your eye first.  Or if you want to use a laptop, smash it into your face repeatedly.  Prove you really want it.  Maybe you’ll just beat yourself into unconsciousness and we won’t have to read any more stupidity from you.  Wouldn’t that be nice?

 

14 thoughts on “The Stupidity of Gun Control

  1. "…they have an irrational fear of guns, therefore, they demand people shoot themselves to get access to a gun."

    What is this "they" bullshit. One obviously irrational liberal suggests an absurd idea and suddenly all liberals are responsible for it? By this logic you are responsible for all the equally assinine ideas proposed by your fellow conservatives.

  2. "Okay, more properly, liberals don’t think very well. They feel. They react. They do not reason. That’s the biggest problem with the liberal mindset, it’s the one that I generally complain about most often because it is absurdly true."

    This is not very well thought out. There are a great many liberals who are far better thinkers than are you. The number of liberals who are far more skilled at reasoning than are you is thousands of times greater than your IQ. Just to name several: Robert Reich, Noam Chomsky, Joseph Stiglitiz, Paul Krugman, Henry Giroux, and Vjack over at Atheist Revolution.

  3. I agree that the particular proposal made by Watkins is idiotic, but your headline falsely portrays any conversation about gun control as stupid. There is nothing at all unreasonable, irrational, nor stupid about having a conversation about what can and/or should be done to reduce gun violence in this country. Like any right, even the second amendment right is not an absolute right. Like all rights, it is subject to reasonable restrictions and limitations.

    1. I agree. This article is not about gun control, it is about some stupid article on Salon that nobody in the comments section agreed with.

  4. If Watkins and his insane article represent liberals and their ability to think, then Andrew Schlafly and the nonsense he posts on Conservapedia represent conservatives and their ability to think. More so in fact because virtually no one in the world agrees with Watkins' article but Conservapedia has many supporters.

    1. But people do, that's the problem. I'm trying to point out that there's as much an insidious disease within liberalism, that being progressivism, as there is among conservatism, that being the ultra religious right. These groups are increasing in both power and influence and need to be stopped.

      1. I agree with you that there is "an insidious disease within liberalism." I see it as a strain of authoritarianism tied up with political correctness and social justice warriorism. I am often surprised that I don't see you referring to it very often in your posts; you seem to prefer to talk about "the left" or "liberals," giving the impression that you think we are all like this. It is almost like you don't want to recognize that many of us on the left agree with you.

        1. I've gone on record saying that I have a major problem with a lot of the labels people choose to apply to themselves. There are a lot of people on the "left" who only refer to themselves as the "left" because they don't want to be on the "right". The same, of course, goes for a lot of people on the "right". But none of this actually differentiates what "left" and "right" actually is. I mean, the ultra religious idiots call themselves "right" and I share pretty much nothing in common with them, the progressives call themselves "left" and you share pretty much nothing in common with them, so where are these common labels coming from? They seem to have no objective meaning whatsoever. I actually question whether a lot of people who call themselves "left" and a lot of people who call themselves "right" have any concept of what those terms mean.

          1. I do share many things with others on the left (e.g., support for environmental regulations, social welfare programs, universal health care, reproductive rights). In terms of economic policies and positions on many social issues, I have lots in common with them. The primary area where I part ways has nothing to do with left vs. right and more to do with authoritarian vs. libertarian.

            My recent post Some Stories You Might Have Missed

          2. Whereas I disagree with a lot of things, or agree for entirely different reasons than they do. I entirely part company with them on financial grounds and on ideological grounds. I care not only what someone's position is, but why they take it. and the reasons behind just about everything the left does is abhorrent to me.

          3. That's interesting. I find many of the reasons the left gives for what they do commendable, and I feel the same way about many of the reasons the right gives for what they do (even though I find some of them less persuasive). Again, the part I am far more likely to object to is the authoritarian stuff and this is true whether it comes from the left (i.e., SJWs) or the right (i.e., Christian extremists).

            My recent post Losing Belief in Santa, Magic, and Gods

      2. "But people do, that's the problem." Who? I looked over the comments of the article you are discussing and I didn't find a single comment in support of the article. If this article was representative of the views of liberals, you would think that their would be comments on a liberal blog like Salon in support of the article.

  5. suicide, a new problem of the depressed men and teenagers. this is now out of cntrolling. so need to control them, mostly out teenagers. And along with the stories come the idiots, like this one who thinks that for gun control, the only way anyone should be given a license for a bullet.

    1. Suicide isn't exactly a new problem, but I get where you're coming from. Unfortunately, there are a lot of people who think that the only way they can be happy in life is for them to force everyone around them to live how they want them to live.

Leave a Reply to vjack Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Optionally add an image (JPG only)