Skip to comments.Excuse Me, Your Illogic Is Showing: Orwell’s Vision Emerges In California
Posted on 02/17/2013 5:28:41 AM PST by Kaslin
In the 1940s and 50s, famed Author George Orwell surmised that both the English language and civilized society were in decline.
After a press conference held last week by Emeryville, California Police Chief Ken James, its easy to see a decline in both language and critical thinking skills in our country. And as Orwell thought, indeed civilized society may very well be in jeopardy.
It happened on February 14th. Taking to the microphones and cameras in his suburban San Francisco community, Chief James stood at a podium with the requisite group of serious-looking, professionally dressed, pouty-faced people standing behind him (it appears that Emeryville Mayor Kurt Brinkman was one of them). In part, the Chief said one issue that always boggles my mind is that the idea that a gun is a defensive weapon. That is a myth. A gun is not a defensive weapon.
From there, Mr. James went on to say that a gun is an offensive weapon used to intimidate and show power. Police officers dont carry a gun as a defensive weapon to defend themselves or their other officers. They carry a gun to be able to do their job in a safe and effective manner and face any oppositions we may come upon. If it was a defensive measure, why did we lose 55 officers nationwide last year to gun violence? And unfortunately, in just the two months of this year so far, we have lost two officers to gun violence in the state of California alone.
So, how shall we begin to analyze the logical fallacies here? Lets start with this: a gun is an inanimate object. A gun doesnt think; it doesnt feel; it has no intentions or aspirations; and despite what the Emeryville Chief of Police says, a gun does not have offensive or defensive tendencies.
In this regard, guns and footballs share something in common. Neither a gun nor a football is offensive or defensive in its essence. Yet each of them can be utilized by a human being for either offensive or defensive purposes. In short, whether a gun or a football is used for offensive or defensive purposes depends on who possesses it.
Having established this, consider these words again: a gun is an offensive weapon used to intimidate and show power. Police officers dont carry a gun as a defensive weapon to defend themselves or their other officers. They carry a gun to be able to do their job in a safe and effective manner and face any oppositions we may come upon.
Really, Mr. James? I wont bother doing grammar police work here (oppositions is not a word, and placeing we and they as the subject of the same sentence is problematic as well).
But seriously, does Chief James believe his own definition of a gun? If a gun is nothing more than something used to intimidate and show power, then why would police officers carry them? And is it the role of police officers to intimidate? Is it ever the job of a cop to show power?
I would answer both these questions with an emphatic yes. At times police officers absolutely need to show power and to appear intimidating in the face of lawless threats, and I suspect that most cops, if they were honest, would agree.
Yet James probably would not want to publicly say our job as police officers is to intimidate especially not in Californias very left-wing Bay Area because he would steer himself in to yet another public relations debacle, appearing as though hes making excuses for police officers displaying excessive force.
But if James assertions are true, and a gun is merely something used to intimidate and show power, and can never be used for defensive purposes, then police officers should abandon them immediately. Law enforcement officers should be about the business of defending property, themselves, and the citizens they serve. If a gun isnt helpful for those types of efforts, as Chief James insists, then its time for his police force to hand them in.
And heres another implication of Chief James illogical remarks: If a gun was really something to be used for defensive purposes, then cops would never get killed. Well, in a perfect world, maybe this would be true. But in the real and imperfect world in which we all live (and this would include Chief James), even the best defensive plans sometimes are insufficient to save a life.
I mean no disrespect here to law enforcement officers, or to Chief James. On the contrary, I respect the profession of law enforcement enough to point out the recklessness of this mans words.
I also realize that we live in a time when logic, critical thinking, communication, and the ability to draw inferences and to consider the implications of ones words are skills that are in short supply. Yet the demand for them has, perhaps, never been greater in our nations history.
A gun in the hands of a criminal is a dangerous thing. The power of law enforcement in the hands of people who cant think or speak logically is, perhaps, even more so.
What matters is using language in a way which "defeats" the opponent. If it sounds good, it is good. There is no other test.
Obama absolutely fits this Age as chief sophist. Alinsky could be a patron saint. Shout down the opposition, tell lies, make up any facts you want, and just make outrageous claims and act shocked if anyone questions you. As Obama recently said about Bengahazi -- "The Republicans have exhausted all of the legitimate questions on this topic" -- ergo, any further questions are illegitimate by definition, Obama wins, and Republicans have lost. QED.
When government officially use language to say nonsensical things, and get away with it, then we are in deep trouble.
“A gun is an offensive weapon used to intimidate and show power.”
It looks like the good Chief has been talking to his local, friendly, brilliant Progressive genius whose understanding of everything in the universe is taken as the gospel.
To a Progressive, a gun is an offensive weapon, used to intimidate and show power, and that’s exactly how Progressives have done it in the past and will do in the future.
Watch for Progressives to push for gun control in order to save everyone and keep everyone safe. Then see how they use their guns to intimidate and show power while knowing they’ve disarmed everyone else.
Their perfidy knows no bounds.
Deny. Defy. Do Not Comply.
He’s probably right about most cops since they can’t hit anything but the family dog with fewer than 50-100 rounds. A random spray of lead is probably more intimidation than defense.
A gun makes a great defensive weapon because it has the potential to be used offensively. The Left has known this for decades; hence everything they don’t like being tagged as “offensive”. A purely defensive weapon would be a heavy desk to cower under and an acceptable offensive weapon is a stapler to throw at the perp as a last symbol of defiance as he shoots holes through you.
Law enforcement aside, there are aggressors, many with guns. When they assault you in your home, a defensive weapon can be used to repel the assault and kill the assaulter.
The aggression weapon during the assault is an assault weapon regardless of caliber or configuration.
No wonder politicians and control freaks don't want Citizens to have weapons.
They're scared (intimidated) of their fellow Citizens being armed and they want to keep the impression that the government has power and the People have none.
He sure screwed the pooch with that admission.
When libtards start spouting their predictable line about guns, I will often try to out stupid them by saying something like this: "Why don't we mandate that all guns involved in crimes be executed by either disassembling them and scattering the pieces to the four winds or melting them down."
Some of them will actually say "That's ridiculous. Guns are an inanimate object!" "Precisely," say I.
There is another profession that has lost its ability to apply the laws of logic: The Intelligence Community of the United States. Yes folks, you’ve heard it hear first. I could list similar examples of how today’s intelligence professionals do not have the most basic skills in reasoning.
Orwell couldn’t have warned anybody of anything in the 1950’s. He died in Jan., 1950.
'Rats want to eliminate the power of individual Liberty with gun confiscation.
“Some of them will actually say, “That’s ridiculous. Guns are an inanimate object!” “Precisely”, say I.”
One wonders if the Progressives who respond in such a way are really Progressives or just “useful idiots”.
Orwell couldn’t have warned anybody of anything in the 1950’s. He died in Jan., 1950.
Um, ‘cause his works live on...?
Considering how most Lefties are all in favor of gun buybacks which result in the guns being destroyed, I doubt you’d find a lot who would respond like that. They would probably be all for punishing the guns.
Of course that does demonstrate that they are animists.
I was driving on I-40 in Arkansas on Friday night. I pulled off the interstate and went into a Love’s truck stop at exit 233, which turned out to be within the corporate boundaries of the city of Palestine (population 741). On my way out the door after buying my snack, I encountered two extremely well armed members of the Palestine municipal police force. These two guys were driving around in a tricked out Dodge Charger police cruiser, and were dressed like SWAT team members in black fatigues (complete with the exterior kevlar vests). The metropolitan police in Washington, DC generally don’t go around looking as menacing as these two guys.
The Emeryville police chief may have let the cat out of the bag. Police apparently are encouraged to show off their “power” in order to intimidate civilians, as opposed to acting “to protect and serve” and in a manner conducive to developing respect and trust among the law abiding people who pay their salaries. Civilians having guns are a threat to the power of the police.
A word to the wise—when in Palestine, AR, always drive below the posted speed limit and never spit on the sidewalk.