In the aftermath of Orlando’s recent terrorist attack, Howard Stern presents a great argument against “gun grab” legislative opinions.
During last Wednesday’s show, Howard Stern expressed his stance on the way the media has chosen to cover the country’s most recent terror attack. His sharp jabs began early in the broadcast.
“I’m so upset about Orlando and what went down,” Stern said, “but I can’t believe these people would come out afterward and their answer to Orlando is to take away guns from the public. It’s f***ing mind blowing to me.”
Stern continued to provide clarity on his point by laboring through an analogy that represented the public as sheep, the terrorists as wolves, and the military and police as sheepdogs. At this point, it is easy for the listener to see where this train of thought is speeding off to, however, he carefully makes his points with these following comments.
“Now, let’s say I walked up literally to a sheep herd, and they know that every night the wolves pick off a couple of them,” Stern said. “What if I went up to the sheep and I said, ‘You wanna have a shot at the wolves? I’m gonna give you a pistol. You can actually even the playing field with these wolves whose fangs are out — you could shoot them and save your family.’”
Switching his role to represent a passive sheep, Stern continues, “Well, baaaa. We’re not gonna do that. We don’t want to fight baaaack. He didn’t hurt uuuus. He only hurt the family down the streeeet. And the shepherd will protect us, the sheepdogs are out there, they’ll protect us.”
Stern replies, “Well, the sheepdogs are protecting you, but some of them can’t be with you all day. There’s not a sheepdog for every citizen, and a wolf is still eating one of you every night.”
This all to perfect analogy continues with the “sheep” actually demanding that their guns be taken away, despite the fact that this would render themselves completely defenseless against the “wolves”. Relying only on the concept that the “sheepdogs” or police will be sufficient enough to protect them. Stern continues:
Now, why would the sheep — baaaa — say, “Oh, we’ve got an answer to all the terrorism, all these bad wolves that are coming after us. We’ll hand in all our guns. We’re gonna hand ‘em in. Baaaa. You know who’ll protect us? The government. Or the police. Baaaa.”
Stern then declared, “That’s a baaaad f***ing idea.”
You are welcome to view the entire segment in the video below. Strong language is present so discretion is advised.
He further clarified his analogy and drew and end to the bantering by tying up the loose ends and asking a very simple question.
“I don’t like violence — I don’t like any of this stuff — but I consider myself a sheep, and I want the police to protect me. I support the police. And I want the government to protect me,” he explained. “But guess what? Most of your politicians … all have private security. … So they’re OK. Those are sheep that are very well protected. You on the other hand, you’re a sitting duck.”
“If you’re a sitting duck,” he asked, “do you want a fighting chance or not?”
This question should come with an obvious answer. However, certain talking heads in media and elected government officials including the president continue referring to gun laws and quick access to firearms as being the main problem needing to be addressed in order to stop these acts of terror from taking place in the future. Stern addresses this situation with the following comment.
“I’m not for taking away people’s rights. I’m not,” Stern continued. “I think the answer doesn’t lie in taking any kind of ability of the sheep to protect themselves from the wolves. I really don’t. I wish it was that simple.”
“In France they’ve done it very effectively,” he added, “the population is not armed — but unfortunately the wolves are.”