I caution my readers that the video this article is predicated on is the most convoluted, ideologically rabid, frothing-at-the-mouth nine minutes of inane arguing I have had the mixed privilege of listening to in a while.
To Gottlieb, his group, the NRA and gun rights advocates in general: Why don't we just agree that deliberately orchestrating a gun-rights campaign on the first anniversary of one of the country's worst school shooting massacres is maybe more than a little insensitive, inane and politically self-destructive?
The tenacious advocacy of a right to bear arms, over-and-above the rationale of natural right, for the sheer sake of its own end is "over the top."
When we recognize that the people fitting circumstances for which we would normally have them committed are similarly not fitted for the right to bear arms, we might discover that we will not bump heads with the "radical liberals" quite so much.
To Morgan, and anyone who agrees with him: At the risk of making an incredibly unpopular statement—maybe Gottlieb has one legitimate point. Maybe the politicization of the anniversary of Sandy Hook for an uncompromising gun control agenda is equally reprehensible. Maybe the first anniversary of the Newtown massacre should be devoted by citizens of all political denominations to focusing on the memory of the Newtown massacre.
Morgan might answer that this is the gist of his message to Gottlieb, but I disagree. While Gottlieb's agenda was rabidly partisan and laced with the fervor of mindless bias—so was Morgan's.
There's a note at the beginning of the interview that Gottlieb moved the day for "Guns Save Lives" to Dec. 15, instead of the actual anniversary of Dec. 14. Gottlieb says this is because Dec. 15 is "Bill of Rights" Day. Morgan's retort is something to the effect of "Obviously nothing to do with Bill of Rights Day or you would have made it that to start with." Now, it's hard to argue that Morgan is wrong, but why interview the gentleman beyond sheer spirit of sensationalist journalism if you're going to railroad a conclusion down his throat?
I could argue that the "laugh sequence" which drew so much attention to the interview to begin with, is overblown by perpetrating Gottlieb's laugh to be aimed at the victims, as Morgan asserts, when it actually could most likely be aimed at the rancorous character of the quote Morgan spits at him. There is no way to substantiate the conclusion. However, again, Morgan yells at Gottlieb "Your heart doesn't go out to them, you laugh at them [the victims of Newtown]." Again, Morgan is apt to be correct, but why interview the man if he's going to yell at him rather than interview him?
My axe to grind is over the partisan character of choosing a hack like Gottlieb to represent the interest of defending a right to bear arms as a way of corroborating the alternative clamor for a British police state.
To make it plain: I separate myself rigidly from a "Fox News" hack that says there can only be an all-or-nothing agenda and a CNN hack who effectively says the same thing. We could be having the same argument about Obamacare or any other issue with equally irrational character. It was a waste of my nine minutes that I want back.
But the fact is, while Morgan goes out of his way to appear "reasonable" and "enlightened" in the wake of frothing-at-the-mouth hacks like Gottlieb and Alex Jones—he doesn't go very far to convince me. His "enlightened" progressivism does nothing to explain for me where the dividing line is between "gun safety" and an infringement of natural right. Put simply: The issue will never be as simple as this gentleman purports it to be.
Secondly, his arguments are disingenuous. Gottlieb has a point: Morgan did in fact take him on for an interview to sensationalize an issue—no matter how insensitive Gottlieb might be. A quick Google search will reveal without much effort that Morgan has displayed a rabid gun control agenda for over the past six months. His conclusions are less than honest, and his vitriolic "debate" with Gottlieb lacks probity: Britain's gun related homicides in 2011 were 59, not 35 deaths—but this is mere pedantry. The disingenuous aspect of the statistical reference is that Gottlieb was correct about the British comparison: The United Kingdom has in fact been rated "the most violent country" in Europe, according to statistics generated by the European Union. Low and behold, even without guns, people still kill each other.
According to the FBI crime statistics referenced by Morgan he is, in fact, an out-and-out liar. There were 12,664 homicides last year in the United States. But only 8,583 were caused by firearms. Of those, 400 were justifiably committed by law enforcement, and another 260 were ruled justifiable homicides by private citizens with handguns. Gottlieb may have "invented that statistic" with regard to lives saved by guns ... but Morgan's entire ideological premise is equally spurious.
While I dislike Gottlieb, his incredibly callous insensitivity and the overall discredit he is to the Second Amendment, I have to share his suspicions of Morgan's intentions. Morgan makes the cop out repeatedly during the middle of the interview that he is only interested in "gun safety," that he "never" said anything about "confiscating guns." He just doesn't think people should own assault rifles.
I don't think people necessarily need to own assault rifles either. A veteran knows that the M16/M4/AR15 family of rifles are relatively poor quality weapons to use for just about anything. Gottlieb rightfully points out that Sandy Hook shooter Adam Lanza could have shot those poor kids with either of the sidearms he was carrying that day.
Which brings me to my point. In a May 3 interview, facing the same argumentative logic at the hands of Ben Shapiro of ideologically charged Fox News, Morgan finally openly admitted on television his rabidly partisan agenda of doing away with firearms on a British model.
Morgan told Gottlieb that his campaign on the anniversary of Sandy Hook is "one of the most disgusting things I've had to witness ..."
To both of them, I would say "ditto."
If you like to write about US politics, enter Allvoices’ The American Pundit political writing contest. Allvoices is awarding four $250 prizes each month between now and Nov. 30. These monthly winners earn eligibility for the $5,000 grand prize, to be awarded in December. If you do not already have a free account, sign up here.
Allvoices on Facebook
Sources retrieved from: