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?