The Stupefying Erudition of Piers Morgan
It's always entertaining, and sometimes even instructive, when liberals display the sort of intolerance they regularly accuse conservatives of harboring. Take the case of Larry Pratt, Executive Director of Gun Owners of America, who made the mistake of appearing on Piers Morgan's show on a day when Morgan's civility was showing. In the aftermath of Sandy Hook mass murder, the left's solution appears to be to disarm as many law abiding people as possible, and anyone who doesn't follow the logic of that prescription will be severely reprimanded by the superior wit and intellect of such as Mr. Morgan, to wit:
Pratt: Your [Great Britain] violent crime rate is higher than ours as is the violent crime rate in Australia. America is not the Wild West that you are depicting. We only have the problem in our cities, and unhappily, in our schools where people like you have been able to get laws put on the books that keep people from being able to defend themselves. I honestly don't understand why you would rather have people be victims of a crime than be able to defend themselves. It's incomprehensible.
Morgan: You're an unbelievably stupid man, aren't you?
Pratt: It seems to me that you're morally obtuse. You seem to prefer being a victim to being able to prevail over the criminal element. And I don't know why you want to be the criminal's friend.
Morgan: What a ridiculous argument. You have absolutely no coherent argument whatsoever. ...
The reality, of course, is that Mr. Pratt was but a convenient piñata for Morgan's intellectual batting practice, a stand-in for the real culprit; those knuckle-dragging Americans who insist on self defense:
Pratt: The Second Amendment means what it says, and meanwhile, you want to continue laws against self-defense. Laws that prohibit self-defense. Laws that prohibit teachers and other faculty, other members of the administration in schools from being able to defend themselves if they have a concealed carry permit. The laws prohibit them right now. We have been lobbying against those laws since they were put on. We will continue to do so, pointing out that this is where the problem is. And for you to support them means that you're really blind to the role that that plays in enabling murderers to operate with impunity.
Morgan: Yes, I know -- I know why sales of these weapons have been soaring in the last few days. It's down to idiots like you. Mr. Pratt, thank you for joining me. ...
Put aside for a moment the fact that if weapons sales are soaring due to people like Mr. Pratt, who hasn't gone on a murderous rampage, as opposed to people like the killer of Sandy Hook, then it is the law abiding citizen, concerned with the protection of his family and property who paradoxically meets Mr. Morgan's definition of an idiot.
And put aside Piers Morgan's facility with rhetoric, which is rivaled only by any preschooler who has learned just this week how to engage in name-calling. If he can be persuaded to step down from Mount Nursery School and put aside his little sticks and stones for a moment, perhaps Mr. Morgan will deign to explain to the benighted masses the following:
1) What is the intellectual case for defenselessness and what are its virtues, both on an individual and national basis?
2) Will these virtues of be of sufficient comfort to the families of the deceased?
3) Is it your opinion that at the moment of peril, the victims of the Sandy Hook killer preferred to be unarmed and defenseless?
4) In light of the awful events at Sandy Hook, would you preemptively disarmed other teachers and students, trusting their safety to the tender mercies of future killers?
5) Do you believe that the lawless will turn in their weapons if ordered to do so by law?
6) If so, would you be willing to revise your definition of what makes one an idiot?
7) If not, do you believe civil society will be advanced by disarming the law abiding citizenry?
8) Do you have the means to protect yourself, be it through a personal firearm or arrangements made for your protection?
9) Are your offices at CNN protected by force of arms?
10) If so, wouldn't it boost the credibility of your argument to assume the same level of defenselessness you would impose on teachers at elementary schools given the fact that they are every bit as much of a target as a CNN personality?
11) Are you aware that the Aurora, Colorado killer chose as his target the only movie theater in town that posted signs prohibiting concealed handguns? Does this datum figure into your general estimation of the effectiveness of gun free zones?
12) Are you aware that, with the exception of the Tucson 2011 shooting, "…every public shooting since at least 1950 in the US, in which more than three people have been killed has taken place where citizens are not allowed to carry guns," according to John Lott?
13) According to Dr. Thomas Sowell, the rate of gun ownership is higher in rural America than in urban America. In which of the two areas is the murder rate the highest?
Today, I delivered a load of scarecrows to Philadelphia. I had originally assumed that I was carting a trailer full of freshly registered Democrat voters up here for the next election, but I see now that I was mistaken. Evidently, the left needs a few more straw men to debate, since they don't ask the sort of questions we pesky conservatives ask, untutored as we are in elementary ad hominem.
But when they've exhausted their intellectual energies defending such assumptions as that weakness equals strength or that a criminal will be more likely to honor gun laws than politicians are to honor the Constitution, perhaps people such as Mr. Morgan can pause and consider their happy station in a country predicated on the individual's right to self defense and thank their good fortune for people such as Thomas Paine, who wrote that, "The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms like laws, discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property." Or was Paine an idiot too?
- Comment (41)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (27)
Comments:
Oct '10
Re: The Stupefying Erudition of Piers Morgan
In this case, Mr. Morgan met a pinata that hit back, and said pinata knocked the dear chap out cold. Blimey!
Edited on December 21, 2012 at 4:13amMar '12
Re: The Stupefying Erudition of Piers Morgan
Dave Carter
4) In light of the awful events at Sandy Hook, would you preemptively disarmed other teachers and students, trusting their safety to the tender mercies of future killers?
The apparent answer is - YES!
Sep '10
Re: The Stupefying Erudition of Piers Morgan
Heh. I often sputter out insults from my couch while watching talking heads on the news give opinions I disagree with. Maybe I could get my own show on CNN too.
Aug '10
Re: The Stupefying Erudition of Piers Morgan
Dave
You are a generous man to spend that much time on yet another poncey twit . I am a confessed anglophile, but not that group. I would rather have Dawn French sit on me than listen to Piers whoever. Is Piers the english version of Doc ?
This guy replaced Larry King, so imagine the shame of being a substitute rutting cardiac dinosaur ? His interview style leaves a great deal to be desired. But then I generally avoid the channel. I'll be happy reading Waugh and worshipping Churchill when I need my britfix.
This male version of Tina Brown needs a cold serving of spotted dick and a bucket of treacle, just as a personality enhancement. His whole schtick looks alot like what some elite east coaster considers sophisticated. Like Hugh Grant cruising trannies at 4am - no class.
CNN has such sophisticated origins to maintain after all.
Eason Jordan and Ted Turner's values are on show here. CNN, Clinton News Network
May '11
Re: The Stupefying Erudition of Piers Morgan
Edward Murrow he is not. It's unbelievable that such petty morons get paid.
Apr '11
Re: The Stupefying Erudition of Piers Morgan
"If he can be persuaded to step down from Mount Nursery School and put aside his little sticks and stones for a moment..."
Brilliant.
Aug '12
Re: The Stupefying Erudition of Piers Morgan
When someone calls you a name, like "Idiot" . Thank them and point out that name calling is proof that they have no counter argument and have no where else to go. When someone calls me a name, I declare victory in the debate.
Dec '10
Re: The Stupefying Erudition of Piers Morgan
flownover:
This male version of Tina Brown needs a cold serving of spotted dick and a bucket of treacle, just as a personality enhancement. His whole schtick looks alot like what some elite east coaster considers sophisticated. Like Hugh Grant cruising trannies at 4am - no class.
Please do not squander my very favorite pudding in this wasteful way.
Unfortunately, in these politically correct times, even spotted dick isn't what it used to be, as it is usually no longer made with suet, nor firmly knotted into, and gently simmered for about three weeks in, a large square of muslin. At this point, its consistency and appearance are indescribable, so I won't even try. And I think there's probably a Health and Safety law against the thick, lumpy custard with the skin on top that it should properly be served with.
Sad, really.
Aug '12
Re: The Stupefying Erudition of Piers Morgan
In honor of the 200 year anniversary of the War of 1812, I propose throwing the Limy out of the country for treasonous talk, and a general bad attitude.
If we would have listened to this man back then we would have a king, insane debt, a useless constitution, and state run economy. Oh, wait......
Sep '10
Re: The Stupefying Erudition of Piers Morgan
Hypothetical question:
If half the crowd were packing heat in an English soccer stadium, would hooligans still riot?
Just asking.
Edited on December 21, 2012 at 5:08amJul '10
Re: The Stupefying Erudition of Piers Morgan
One of the unfortunate aspects of our modern society is that jackasses no longer have to worry about getting punched in the mouth when they deserve it; they're given their own talk shows instead.
Aug '10
Re: The Stupefying Erudition of Piers Morgan
Mr. Carter, an excellently executed post, as usual. There's nothing left to add but that I hope someday you have an opportunity to go on that show.
The only time it's watchable is when he invites on a true conservative who cleans his clock (e.g. Coulter, Goldberg). I enjoy watching him as he thinks he's just delivering a devastating argument and then leans back, laden with self-satisfaction, only to be immediately eviscerated by the counter-point. But the cherry on top is that he never seems to realize when he's losing an argument. It's uncanny and informs his viewers of his tenuous grasp on reality.
Jun '10
Re: The Stupefying Erudition of Piers Morgan
Mr. Morgan might be invited to explain why there hasn't been a mass shooting in an Israeli school in 34 years.
Nov '10
Re: The Stupefying Erudition of Piers Morgan
I'm telling you right now, I've been to Jerusalem, and wherever there is a gaggle of kids, there is at least one person with a pistol on their hip and a rifle over their shoulder. The idea is not so crazy. But the lunatic left are guilty of the very intolerance they profess to abhor. They make the assumption that if you own a gun you must be a crazy person, who could go off half cocked (pun intended) at any moment.
Jul '12
Re: The Stupefying Erudition of Piers Morgan
And those children seem really frightened of that rifle, too, don't they?
Eeyore: Mr. Morgan might be invited to explain why there hasn't been a mass shooting in an Israeli school in 34 years. · 45 minutes ago
Edited 43 minutes ago
Nov '10
Re: The Stupefying Erudition of Piers Morgan
As uncouth as Morgan can be at times I find it hard to believe that he doesn't know that ad hominem is a standard logical fallacy, and that by using it as the exclusive comeback to an articulate man spouting facts, reason and common sense, he has made an @$& of himself on national television.
Jun '11
Re: The Stupefying Erudition of Piers Morgan
He's the definitive argument against evolution. It's a known fact that chimpanzees in zoos world-wide fling [CoC-violation] at the TV when he comes on. They're outraged that they're caged while he runs free.
Jul '11
Re: The Stupefying Erudition of Piers Morgan
Nutshell:
This is the primary reason we see and hear garbage. It's the lack of respect shown to someone else who disagrees with you, because of the assumption that nothing will happen to you. Kind of like teasing the bullies in the schoolyard through the windows, from the safety of the classroom, with the teacher behind you.
What's it like to live your life doing something you would never do, if you had to live with the consequences of what you said? Like getting punched in the face? Would the lofty air of superiority look quite so dashing to a Piers Morgan if he was picking his teeth up off the ground?
Cowardice in any form is ugly to behold. The world does not live in the same place that Piers thinks he does. One day he'll find that out.
Jan '11
Re: The Stupefying Erudition of Piers Morgan
If Pratt is unbelievably stupid, why did Morgan's show bring him on? There are only two possibilities:
They planned to call their own guest "unbelievably stupid" before they brought him on. I wouldn't be surprised if Morgan was reading it off a cue card.
Dec '11
Re: The Stupefying Erudition of Piers Morgan
I remember watching cnn around 2002 or so CNN had someone on and they were asking them all manner of questions and the guest told the reporter they were lying and countered the argument. The reporter went bonkers.