In response to these incidents, most normal people would want additional means to protect themselves, especially in regards to the mass stabbing incident. Even more so when one considers previous mass casualty incidents like the one perpetrated by Omar Mateen in Tampa and the Tsnarniev brothers bombing and shooting in Boston. I say normal people for a reason, mainly because citizen control advocates (oops sorry- strike that) gun control advocates are most definitely not normal. Why would I say something like that?
As I have said before- I am glad you asked!
This week Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid said during a press conference that the Democrat gun control bill would prevent attacks like the ones that happened this past week.
You read that correctly.
Gun control would prevent bombings and stabbings.
Now I do try to be fair minded and give people the benefit of the doubt, so I spent the entire afternoon pondering how a gun control measure would prevent people from making bombs out of pressure cookers and keep people from stabbing one another. I took literally hours of my time to contemplate Sen Reid’s statements and how they would prevent another bombing or stabbing (especially since the good guy with the gun shot the bad guy with the knife). I looked at it from every possible angle, stretching the boundaries of logic and suspending my disbelief and have come to a conclusion.
That conclusion is based on a principle laid out by Franciscan philosopher John Punch: Non sunt multiplicanda entia sine necessitate. This translates into “Entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity” and is commonly referred to as Occam’s Razor. The core of the concept means that the simplest hypothesis is usually the correct one.
My theory is that gun control advocates are bats**t insane and this is how I reached that conclusion:
There is no way curtailing firearms leads to preventing a bombing. There is no way curtailing firearms leads to preventing a bombing. None. Nada. Zero. Zilch. It’s not even an “Apples & Oranges” scenario. It’s an “Apples & Boeing 747” scenario.
Bombs are used in bombings, not guns. Knives are used in stabbings, not guns (unless you count bayonet charges and as far as I know the last bayonetting was during the Viet Nam war).
In spite of this indisputable fact, in spite of common sense, in spite of every single individual with more than a passing knowledge of the English language understanding that bombs are used for bombings and knives are used for stabbing, gun control advocates want you to believe that gun control will stop bombings and stabbings.
To take this a step further the mindless drones of Moms Demand Action, Everytown, and the rest of those who believe whatever Shannon Watts and her ilk are paid to say by Bloomberg, believe this as if it were Holy Writ from the God and/or Goddess of your choice. They think this is truth. They think gun control will stop bombings. They think gun control will stop stabbings. They hold this to be a Truth (capitalized purposely) with the same zealotry as an ISIS fighter believes it is perfectly OK to saw someone’s head off on YouTube with a dull AK bayonet.
Now there is a term in the dictionary that covers this very situation. That term is delude, and its derivative deluded. Delude is defined as taking action to impose a misleading belief upon someone; deceive; fool. The derivative deluded is defined as believing things that are not real or true. Now that is what the dictionary has to say about these people. More accurately, it is what the Oxford English Dictionary has to say about them.
I prefer a more modern, hip, and trendy source.
The Urban Dictionary defines people like Watts, Bloomberg and Ladd Everitt as Bulls**t Artists. A bulls**t artist is someone who lies/boasts incessantly, usually to comedic effect, intentional or accidental. You can’t get any closer to an accurate description of the gun control industry shills and financiers than that.
The Urban Dictionary even goes so far as to define what they say. Their statements are called diarrhetoric, which is sewage, typically disguised as informed discussion that is often used by politicians, lawyers, and big business interests instead of honest dialogue in order to control the weak-minded by convincing them to believe something demonstrably false. (I really REALLY like this term- you’ll see it again for sure).
Now we have definitions for the big whigs of the gun control industry. What about their followers? Well we have all heard the term before as it is used quite frequently. That term is “Sheep” which the Urban Dictionary defines as a group of people who lack the capacity for careful consideration, imagination, or individual thought, who then go with the groupthink and allow god awful trends and events to unfold and make us all miserable. Talk about hitting a nail on the head...
But it is their mental state which concerns me. We all know the money men, 1% elitists, and their paid mouthpieces don’t believe the diarrhetoric (told you that you’d see it again) they spew. They proclaim good guys with guns don’t stop bad guys with guns, from behind a Spartan phalanx of heavily armed goons. Their hypocrisy is legendary. They have elevated it to an art form which can be admired for its artistry, if not for its message… but I digress.
The Urban Dictionary describes their mental state just as accurately as it describes them, and those who tell them what to think, along with the message that those gun control leaders try to get across. It is a grand, eloquent, and most importantly scientifically accurate definition. That definition is bats**t, which is defined as a level of insanity that the word alone cannot justify (used as a prefix). Hence my theory that these people are bats**t insane.
Now, when one considers my theory that gun control advocates are bats**t insane, that the hypothesis I used to develop my theory confirms to the principle of Occam’s Razor, and that the hypothesis and the theory it was developed from is correct based on the scientific method of systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of my hypotheses; one can confidently state that my theory can and will hold up to peer review and outside scrutiny.
- Mr. Decker
Blog posts are original content written by 1MMAGC moms and dads.