The other argument Jones made was that the 2nd amendment was for protection against the government. Like the first argument, Morgan didn't deal with it at all. Even as Jones said, Morgan offered those little factoids that did not deal with the important point of what would prohibit or negate the most violent crimes.
I don't know why so many powerful Democrats and moderate Republicans are so set on taking away people's guns. They are willing to take this tragedy, play on people's emotions, in order to make their case. The facts don't bear them out, so they persuade people with half truths and stories out of their context.
I'm concerned about losing our right to bear arms, but I also thought that the Morgan way of arguing is so typical today, where the truth isn't what really matters.
I've been busy, but I reread this and wanted to add another observation. I'm not sure if the media and the academic elite of the country actually do believe what they are saying about guns. What I think is that they do believe it, but it's based on a reprobate mind. And there are some, who don't believe what they are saying, but they are cowered by those with a reprobate mind. Here is a typical argument from a reprobate, as I have been hearing it.
2nd Amendment Guy: More guns result in less violent crime.
Reprobate Mind: What kind of guns were used in the killing of the innocent children in Connecticut?
2nd Amendment Guy: A semi-automatic bushmaster (etc. etc.), but it was an illegal act committed by self-deluded crazy, rebellious young man, who was into gratuitously violent video games. In other words, he liked to role play at blowing people away in his spare time.
Reprobrate Mind: (sarcastically) OoooKay. Right. So you think that these types of guns are needed for hunting?
2nd Amendment Guy: The point of the second amendment isn't hunting. The second amendment reads: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." But as I said, it isn't owning these types of guns that results in more violent crime. Gun control results in more violent crime. You can see that in the actual data, the actual statistics. Yes, overall gun crimes will decrease, but overall violence will increase. But even that misses the point of the right to bear arms. The actions of one crazy shouldn't take away the rights of law abiding citizens.
Reprobate Mind: Well, tell that to the parents whose children are dead up in Connecticut. I don't think you can really believe what you are saying, that you just want people like this to be able to freely have access to these types of guns to commit these types of horrendous acts.
2nd Amendment Guy: You haven't answered my point. Overall violence increases when there are less guns. It's easy to see why. Criminals can't be stopped, because people can't defend themselves against them. But even so, the second amendment is for protecting against the government itself, which is free to have as many and whatever kind of guns that it wants.
Reprobate Mind: What kind of gun was used in Aurora, Colorado to kill the people in the theater?
2nd Amendment Guy: A semi-automatic rifle.
Reprobate Mind: Exactly. If he didn't have that gun, he couldn't have killed so many people so quickly. More gun laws, outlawing semi-automatic assault weapons with high volume magazines would have saved those people's lives.
2nd Amendment Guy: If people in that theater had been carrying guns, they could have defended themselves, but it was a gun free zone for law abiding citizens. If he knew several others would be armed, he could have been deterred from doing what he did. There are already gun laws outlawing what he did.
Anyway, you get my drift. The reprobate mind doesn't make arguments. It just makes emotional appeals. It's essentially propaganda, which we saw in the last election is actually effective today in an age where the main audience is also reprobate in its mind.