Your Arguments Are Bad, And You Should Feel Bad

Last Sunday I was finishing up a post about gun control and I turned on Fox News Sunday, just in the background, to see if I heard anything interesting.  What I heard can only be described as an avalanche of stupidity, a symphony of imbecility.  Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin let loose approximately 10 minutes of nonsense so detached from reality that I honestly couldn't keep up.

I decided to mention it a little at the end of what I was already writing and just move on.  I'm not going to take the time to sit here and pick apart every idiotic thing he said.  That would be...actually that would be really fun.  Let's do that.

Everything attributed to Senator Johnson below is a direct quote.

Right off the bat, first thing out of his mouth after the obligatory acknowledgement of the tragedy and sending his thoughts and prayers out - "he's a sick and demented, evil individual and unfortunately I don't think society can keep sick, demented individuals from obtaining any type of weapon to kill people."  He went on to reference explosive devices as a possible alternative weapon if guns weren't available.

OK yes, that's true.  Crazy people can also make bombs.  But we at least try to regulate bombs.  A person would have to break several laws in purchasing bomb ingredients, assembling a bomb and transporting explosives before they even got anywhere near a movie theater.  It doesn't mean we stop them every time, but at least we try.

Later in the same ramble - "this isn't an issue about guns".  Stop.  Stop right there.  You don't even get to finish that sentence.  I'm perfectly willing to concede that this isn't entirely about guns.  There's a really important conversation to be had about access to mental health care, for example.  But, when a guy walks into a theater with guns, and shoots people with guns, my personal opinion is that it's a little bit about guns.

And then - "I don't think there's a solution here in Washington to solve this problem." Yeah, I mean especially with Senator moron here running the show.  But what if we started voting for smart people?  Then there might be a solution in Washington.

"I wish I could wave a magic wand and make this tragedy go away".  I already addressed this in my last post, but it doesn't get any less dumb the second time you hear it.

"Criminals will always be able to get whatever they want."  I'm glad the Senator has completely given up on law enforcement.  Then he said it's not an issue about guns again, and then the real fun starts.


"It's really an issue of freedom.  And I swore an oath to defend the Constitution and part of that Constitution is the second amendment which guarantees the right to bear arms and these types of laws (referring to assault weapons bans) infringe upon that right."

I don't even know where to start.  So, does the second amendment mean I have the right to own any firearm with no restrictions.  Can I own a working cannon?  Can I keep a surface to air missile launcher on my lawn as long as I promise not to shoot at commercial aircraft?  Can I build my own missile silo in the backyard?  Or, can we all agree that maybe there's an obvious line of common sense we get to draw with this and every right, so nobody's attacking the Constitution when they ask if assault rifles might be on the other side of that line.

Chris Wallace then specifically asked him if something that would limit 100 round magazines infringes upon that right.  Senator Johnson says yes.  Then, again, "you simply can't keep these weapons out of the hands of sick, demented individuals who want to do harm and when you try and do it, you restrict our freedoms."  OK, so, just to be clear, Senator Johnson is saying we can't keep these weapons out of the hands of sick people but, more importantly, we shouldn't try to because, apparently, his right to to hunt deer with 100 bullets at a time is more important than my right to not be murdered.

Then Wallace asked him if we need more guns, not less guns - "It certainly is one of the rationales behind concealed carry, where criminals have to be a little concerned before they commit a criminal act that maybe somebody could stop them, and I think that is the truth, that if somebody, a responsible individual, had been carrying a weapon maybe, MAYBE, they could have, ya know, prevented some of those deaths and some of those injuries, and that's just the truth."

This particular run-on sentence was a masterpiece of numbskullery.  Ron Johnson is the Mozart of nonsense.

1) I'm not sure "truth" is the word he was looking for on either occasion there.
2) I addressed the whole public shootouts thing in my last post too.  To which a friend of mine from when I was a kid added: "if you had a kid, would you want everyone on the street to have a gun and have to worry about it every day."
3) Could the death and injury toll have been lower if someone in the theater and had shot back and stopped the shooter?  Maybe.  But if neither of them had a gun, then the death and injury toll would be zero.  Are we really willing to accept "less dead and less wounded" as our ultimate goal?
4) I think we're overestimating the ability of people to shoot each other.  Yes, crazy people shoot people, but that's why we call them crazy.  Most regular people, even if they own a weapon, aren't cut out for actually shooting a person, even if that person is shooting other people.  It's not as easy as conservatives fantasize about it being.

Still three minutes left...

In response to Senator Feinstein's point about the assault weapons ban basically making an exception for every hunting rifle ever made - "but the result of that ban...it didn't solve any problems.  I mean, we've had bans here in Washington DC, we've had bans in Chicago, and you can argue statistics but, ya know, I take a look at the statistics and I say it has no measurable effect, you can actually argue that it's made matters worse...but I don't want to get into statistics"

There's more, but I'd just like to point out this little verbal judo move the Senator just pulled.  First, he brought up statistics and suggested that the statistics show he's right and the assault weapons ban had no effect.  Then, as Senator Feinstein was attempting to jump in to point out that he was lying, he immediately decided he didn't really want to talk about statistics.  And, of course, Wallace let him get away with it.  What happened to you Wallace, you used to be cool?  Anyway, he continued...

"...we are talking about basic freedoms and the Constitution's second amendment."  Just show me in the second amendment where it says we have a right to assault rifles with 100 round magazines.  You know what Thomas Jefferson would say if he saw you firing an AR-15 rifle?  I'm not sure, but I think it would be something like "holy shit! Are you some kind of fucking wizard?"  because they didn't have assault rifles when they wrote the second amendment.

And then my favorite part right at the end - "I really would hate to see a tragedy like this used to promote a political agenda to reduce Americans' freedom.  Enough of our freedoms have already been taken away, we don't want to lose any more."

Other than my freedom to die if I'm too poor to afford health care (which we all admit Barack Obama is ruthlessly trying to steal from us), I'm begging conservatives to tell me what freedom of mine has disappeared in the last three and a half years.  I mean, I know I've seen some people desperately trying to take rights away from women, but I don't remember that being Barack Obama.  Although, I guess Republicans would argue that Barack Obama is trying to rob American women of their right to shut up and do whatever their husbands tell them to do.  What, you don't have a husband?  Well then who tells you what to do, and why are you such a slut?  Where was I?  Oh yeah, freedoms!  I still can't think of any freedoms that I'm missing, but I guess that's what makes Barack Obama so damn good.

I'm done with Senator Johnson for now, but I hope he runs for President next time or something, he's just so much fun.