.@ChrisMurphyCT said it right: The @SenateGOP have decided to sell weapons to ISIS.
— Elizabeth Warren (@SenWarren) June 20, 2016
Dear Sen. Chris Murphy,
I have no doubt that no one on your staff will ever read this, much less you. However it needs to be said. I am, notwithstanding the tone I’m about to take, a reasonable person. I try to make arguments that stand on logic rather than emotion, and I’m open to hearing opposing views. Indeed, without hearing those views I can’t assess my own views.
Nevertheless, it’s quite clear that you only respond to incredible hyperbole and ad hominem attacks, and so I shall follow that tone from here on out, in hopes of getting your attention.
You, Senator Murphy are perhaps one of the worst persons I’ve had the displeasure of hearing about recently in the news. Oh sure, there’s been incredible evil lately. But blatant evil is…well blatant. In many respects you are worse because you’re evil and try to hide behind sanctimony.
The premise of your argument (repeated by the equally despicable Elizabeth Warren) would be laughable on its face, if its intent wasn’t to paint your opposition as murderers. Let us be clear, there is a sharp ethical distinction between valuing due process and freedom while understanding the risks those create and actively deciding to act evilly. In fact, the distinction is so sharp they aren’t even in the same ethical universe. But because it was convenient, you chose to ignore that distinction to gain political points against your enemies.
I shouldn’t have to explain this to you, it’s basic high school ethics, however, since you’re apparently as dumb as a rock I will. In the law there is a principle known as “double effect.” It’s actually borrowed from Catholic ethics, but that’s just because Catholics were doing this kind of thinking long before the legal system. Under this principle an action is ethical, even if there are bad outcomes, provided a few criteria are met. I’m lazy so I’ll steal the list from Wikipedia so I don’t have to retype it:
- The nature-of-the-act condition. The action must be either morally good or indifferent.
- The means-end condition. The bad effect must not be the means by which one achieves the good effect.
- The right-intention condition. The intention must be the achieving of only the good effect, with the bad effect being only an unintended side effect.
- The proportionality condition. The bad effect must not be disproportionate to the good effect.
Clearly respecting due process meets this test.
To be even clearer. I don’t want ISIS to have guns, hell I don’t want ISIS to exist. However, I cannot accept that the best method for that is to throw due process out the window. Indeed, that line of reasoning leads to horrific outcomes. I don’t want 182 murders in the City of St. Louis again this year. However, I also don’t want to create a secret list of people that are allowed to be arrested without cause as a way of trying to prevent that. Yes, it may save lives, but at the cost of failing to respect our rights and liberties. You may scoff that you’re not arguing that, but in reality the argument is in fact the same. You’re arguing that due process should not exist when there’s danger. I’m replying that “he who would sacrifice essential liberties for security will get neither.”
You will likely further argue that I cannot understand the pain of those who lost loved ones in these tragedies. I have noted elsewhere, that is not only entirely untrue it’s incredibly arrogant.
In short, you’re being an incredible asshole and by trying to score political points over actually doing your job as senator you’re embarrassing this country.
Now I’m happy to sit down and discuss this like adults with you. But not until you agree to apologize for calling me a heartless murderer and pull your head out of your fucking ass.
I do enjoy the no-nonsense approach to the CT Doucheweasel
Not to mention the undeniable fact that terrorists and other assorted scumbags have repeatedly demonstrated their ability to get their hands on whatever weapons they desire no matter what the law is. These proposed laws are nothing more than an attempt to further strip us of our God given constitutionally enumerated rights under the guise of “doing something”.
A pox on all those who support this crap.
“But not until you agree to apologize for calling me a heartless murderer and pull your head out of your fucking ass.”
I think you may have those two actions in the wrong order.
I feel no compulsion to treat with respect those who accuse me of racism, sexism, homophobia, slavery, and mass murder.
These are not honorable people we are dealing with.
on top of everything else, if you treat the other side
with respect, it goes unnoticed. Yet, start using the
same tactics [if they can even be called that] and every
newsite will report “Repubs attack resonable Dem arguments – want citizens to be murdered!”
by this logic, haven’t the Democrats decided to sell luxury Yachts to ISIS?
No order was implied there 😉
Too bad you used so many big words. Even if Senator Fredo were to attempt to read this, his lips would be worn out after trying to sound out the first paragraph.
Otherwise, brilliant column.
I’d like the idiot to have to answer a simpler question.
If you are proposing this legislation in relation to the current events in Orlando isn’t it reasonable to evaluate it on the basis of whether it would have actually prevented the attack?
So straight up, would your proposed law have prevented a LICENSED ARMED SECURITY GUARD from possessing the weapons he used? And if it wouldn’t, isn’t it fair to accuse you of simply standing on the graves of the dead to push a totally unrelated gun control bill you supported long before this incident and will continue to push after every future mass murder where the killer uses a firearm?
I don’t think you used near enough foul language. You are a really nice person. Maybe we’ll get lucky and the asshole will see this.
I have a much simpler question for this sack of dick tips. What does my AR-15 have to do with a terrorist 1000 miles away?
Nah, Cindy, the author used too many polysyllabic words. Makes the moron from CT eyes to glaze over and his interns would be weeping in the corner from all the trigger words. See Cindy, words are the true weapons of choice here and logic.
I just read enough of negative comments about Senator Murphy from ct. Why is this moron reelected to a 2nd term. Do you people vote?