Contro The Language, Control The Argument

Those who wish to disarm American citizens would seem to have a powerful ally as the debate moves forward. They have the vast majority of the media on their side. These are the people who choose how they will phrase the information they decide to report. In this case, they have chosen to apply the term “Assault” to the weapons they are seeking to ban.

You may be asking yourself why is that important?

Well, the reason is that the word “assault” is an emotionally charged word. Webster defines assault as: “a violent physical or verbal attack”. So as they choose to call these weapons assault weapons, they are positioning it in the listener’s mind as the aggressors weapon, thus cannot be a “defensive” weapon.

The other straw man the media and the anti-gunners prop up is that these are “military” weapons that should not be in military hands. This fallacious argument positions it in the listener’s mind that these weapons are designed for war. When in fact the actual military version of these weapons are capable of full automatic fire and are in fact, assault weapons. The true military assault weapons ARE banned from ownership by the general public.

The “military” style “assault” weapons that the anti-gunners’ are attempting to ban are neither military nor assault. They look like a military assault rifle but do not function like one. The operator must pull the trigger every time they wish to fire a round, as opposed to a military weapon capable of automatic fire where one pull of the trigger will initiate continuous fire until the trigger is released. This is tantamount to saying that you should charge insurance rates on a Volkswagen Beatle with a Ferrari kit on it the same insurance rate you would levy on a real Ferrari. While they may look a lot alike, they are, in fact, different.

By having the media in favor of disarming the American populace, they control the language a large portion of the populace uses, and thus are able to place those who disagree with them in a defensive position. In point of fact, the media and their cohorts in this argument are the ones who are actually conducting the assault. It is an assault on your rights.

As the old saying goes about fighting with the media, “Don’t pick a fight with someone who buys paper by the ton and ink by the barrel”. In this case though, it was those exact folks who picked the argument, not those of us who support the Second Amendment.

We are faced with trying to respond and defend against ad homonym attacks against gun ownership. Arguments such as, “these weapons are not necessary for hunting”, or “these are not for self-defense, these are military assault weapons” , or “why would you need more than 7 bullets to stop an intruder?”.

Those who are arguing against the second amendment are totally ignoring the premise upon which it is based, which is, so the citizens of this country would be able to defend themselves against a government that over reached its authority. One that placed onerous demands and regulations upon its citizens.

Those who support an all powerful central government don’t want the citizenry to be able to resist.

Or so it would seem to an old country boy.

A Look Behind The Liberal/Progressive Curtain

A LibPo (Liberal/Progressive) lets the curtain slip.

LibPo icon Piers Morgan let the curtain slip aside recently when he spoke with Christine Quinn, New York Mayoral candidate, on his CNN television program.

In his interview he told Ms. Quinn, Mr. Morgan espoused that “occasionally” people need a nanny state to make their decisions for them, as left to their own devices, they make bad choices. So naturally, these decisions should be left to our betters.

I wonder just how strongly Mr. Morgan would espouse this feeling if there were others in charge of our government and the government decided everyone should own a gun. Or maybe a different government might determine that everyone should contribute to the NRA. Or maybe the government would decide it is best if all pregnancies were carried to term. Would Mr. Morgan be as supportive of their being a nanny state government to make our decisions for us?

As normally is the case, it would be a matter of whose ox is being gored. But LibPos seldom consider the other side of the coin. They can never conceive of themselves as not being the ones in charge, because in their minds, they are always the smartest kids in the room. They feel that the rest of us are not smart enough to make our own decisions and thus we should leave these important matters to them. We should trust that they know what is best.

I am never in favor of one person being able to unilaterally determine the course of another individual’s behavior. NO ONE should have power over another individual’s Life, Liberty or Property without their consent! Period!

It is for this very reason that our Founding Fathers wrote in the Declaration of Independence:

"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

I would postulate that when a government, any government, be it large or small, starts dictating individual’s personal behaviors, it has over stepped its bounds. It is at that point that the government should be over thrown. Luckily, our Founding Fathers set forth a manner to peacefully do this via the ballot box. It is not necessary for us to behave like some Banana Republic. A coup de ta is not necessary. We have the ability to change those making these onerous demands upon us on a regular basis. 2014 is the next such opportunity.

I’m afraid the old adage is true. “We get the government we deserve.”

In 2008, for whatever misguided reasons, a majority of Americans chose an individual who truly believes he is smarter than the rest of us and should make all our choices for us. In 2010, we put somewhat of a counter weight in place. In 2012, to my utter amazement, the majority of ballots cast (note how I’m saying ballots cast not necessarily the majority of legal voters) were for the same individual who believes he should be making all the decisions. That we can’t choose our own course.

I certainly hope that 2014 will change the direction of this country and that the LibPos won’t have driven us so far into the weeds that we can’t find our way back.

Or so it would seem to an old farm boy.

A Root Cause Of American Decline

Oh my god! If you weren't aware of it all ready (clearly you have been on extended trip out of the solar system), here is prof positive that our country has turned into Bazarro World!

Three teens in Florida, tackle another teen who is pointing a loaded gun at yet another teen, at point blank range. They wrestle the loaded gun away from him and undoubtedly save a minimum of one and quite possibly more lives! And what do these heroic students get from the school for their efforts?

SUSPENSION!

That's right. All three were immediately suspended by there school!

And "Why" you might ask, would students doing the right thing at risk of their own life and health, be suspended?

According to school "policy" they were involved in an incident involving a gun.

Hello!

School!

These boys weren't the ones who introduced the gun into the situation! They were the ones REMOVING the gun from the situation!

In fact, if these kids had been to a government school the day they showed the DHS sponsored film produced by the city of Houston, they did exactly what the government says to do.

Run, Hide, Fight!

According to our federal government's Department of Homeland Security, when faced with an active shooter you should RUN if you can, HIDE if you can't, and FIGHT if options one and two won't work. http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=5VcSwejU2D0&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D5VcSwejU2D0

These boys were on a bus with one boy threatening to shoot another. Note the word "bus". Nowhere to run. Nowhere to hide. They did the right thing! (Actually, I'd say they did the right thing even if options one and two were available to them.)

We here all the time about how something bad happens and no one does a thing to help and we decry our civilization's uncaringness for others. All the while wondering "How did our country ever devolve to such a state?"

Well this case is exhibit number one.

Our schools are teaching our young to become uninvolved drones!

What is the real lesson being taught to our kids here? If you get involved and stop a terrible thing from happening you will be punished! If you do nothing, the system will not punish you. Negative reinforcement will be withheld! Removal of a negative is felt to be a positive, particularly in the young. The system is teaching our young that uninvolvement is the right course of action.

I put it to you that our lily livered educators (which have been taught this behavior by many folks who were 60's draft dodgers themselves) are the root cause of many of our society's current ills.

This country needs an immediate and drastic change of course in what we are teaching our young. We could do without many, if not ALL, of the touchy feely sensitivity crap our schools waste time and money on and return to some serious civics instruction! Teaching our kids what it should mean to be an American! Not some neutered world citizen view!

Or so it would seem to an old farm boy.

Here is a link to the story this is based on: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/03/02/high-school-student-disarms-gunman-gets-suspended/

With Choice Comes Responsibility

Being Liberal FaceBook page has the following post:

“The decision whether or not to bear a child is central to a woman’s life, to her well-being and dignity. When the government controls that decision for her, she is being treated as less than a full adult human responsible for her own choices.”        Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg

They are posting this as an argument in favor of pro-choice, which by the way, I’m in favor of. I fully believe that a woman should be able to choose who, what, when, where, why and how they engage in sex. I do not believe that the government should be involved in this decision in any way, shape or form.

Where I’m confused and where the feminists don’t seem to see the logical disconnect is when they say they don’t want the government to control decisions about their sex life while at the same time asking the government to pay for their choices.

Now I don’t know about you, but where I grew up, the person who paid the bills got the final say.

Liberals constantly like to whine and moan that conservatives are trying to remove a woman’s ability to choose. In fact, it couldn’t be further from the truth. Conservatives are not telling women how they must behave sexually. They are just saying that it is not the government’s job to pay for their personal choices.

I don’t know any conservatives who are trying to outlaw abortion, or birth control. They just don’t see it as their job to pay for somebody else’s personal choices.

I believe liberals can have sex with anyone they want, any way they want. However, it’s not my job to pay for the consequences of their choices and actions or to provide props for them, such as the pill or condoms. I believe that I have the 2nd amendment right to own and carry a firearm. That doesn’t mean I think I should use tax money, some of which a liberal may have paid (though the odds are slim), to pay for my gun and ammo, or even my holster.

But the liberal mind can’t seem to grasp the concept of “My choice, my cost”. If you want to give up your right to choose and turn it over to the government, than fine, the government can then pay. But don’t forget, they get to choose, and they might choose a cheaper option than birth control or abortion, they might choose to just sterilize you and avoid the whole issue. The government always knows what's best for you, ya know.

With choice comes responsibility. In this case, if you wish to have individual choice, you need to be responsible enough to pay for your choice. If you can’t afford the cost of a condom or the pill, maybe the sensible choice would be to not engage in sexual activity.

At least that’s the way an old farmboy sees it.

iPhone vs Chevy Volt

iPhone VS Chevy Volt

So why do you suppose the Chevy Volt is such an unmitigated disaster? The federal government has directly sunk millions upon millions of dollars into its development and millions more indirectly. So why is it that it is such an Edsel? (I haven’t looked up the numbers, but I would actually bet there were more Edsels sold to a much smaller population base than GM has sold Volts.)

Compare this to iPhone sales. The iPhone is projected to sell so many units that it will actually affect the nations GDP. And as near as I can tell, it didn’t take a single dollar of taxpayer money to develop or market.

So what’s going on? Why is it that a product that the current government says we need, supports its development and, participates in its production (gave partial ownership to unions and gave millions to keep the company afloat) is such a colossal failure? While at the same time a product that the government has virtually nothing to do with is a runaway success?

I would have to speculate that the reason is simple.

Apple developed a product that quenched a consumer felt need. An easily portable, intuitively user friendly device that meets three needs that the consumer wants filled: 1) a mobile phone, 2) a personal entertainment device, and 3) easily portable connection to the internet.

The government, through Chevy, on the other hand, has provided a solution to a problem the consumer has not perceived. The need for an electric car.  Not only have they solved a problem no one has perceived, they’ve made the solution so expensive, that virtually nobody is willing to even give it a try. And to add insult to injury, at the exorbitant cost they are asking for this solution to a non-problem, they are costing the American tax payer over $40,000 per vehicle. That’s right, Government Motors is losing over $40k for every Volt they sell.

Apple, on the other hand, turns a tidy profit on every single unit they sell.

It’s an old lesson being taught once again. Government should stay out of business. It should not try and direct market activities or pick business winners and losers. Just as every centrally planned government has proven to date, when the government gets involved with deciding the who, what, when and where of business, chaos and failure cannot be far behind. The Chevy Volt, Solyndra, the EPA trying to run the coal industry out of business, all examples of the government getting involved in business to the detriment of the American people. And what does our current political leadership want to do when faced with this record of appalling failure? They want to double down on it. They ask us to keep them in place for another 4 years. This is so counter intuitive it is unbelievable. Common sense tells you the first thing you need to do when you find yourself in a hole is to STOP DIGGING!

In about a month we will find out just how dumb the American electorate is. We have a chance to stop digging. As the saying goes, ”we will get the government we deserve”. God help us all if we continue to dig.

Update: Watch What You Wish For

I’ve recently been reading where Christians in Egypt have been having real problems with radical Muslims. Over 50 churches have been closed. Christian businesses have been targeted for attacks. Christian women and girls have been attacked and raped. Yesterday, a Christian protest was attacked by a Muslim mob.

This would appear to be another case of “Watch What You Wish For Because You Just Might Get It”. I remember during the uprising to overthrow Mubarak, that the Christians were out there side by side with the Muslims and I thought to myself that this could easily come back to bite them on the butt. Knowing that the Muslim Brotherhood was one of the driving forces behind the uprising and that Iran was helping fan the flames, it was clear that this could easily go sideways for the Christians. And sure enough it has.

This is yet another example of how the enemy of my enemy isn’t necessarily my friend. We have been taught this lesson many times. The Soviets in WWII and the mujahidin when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan are two examples that quickly pop to mind.

In Egypt the Christians were duped into believing that this was a general uprising without an islamic factor being involved. When in reality, it was a completely islamic uprising to remove a politically moderate leader. The Iranian backed Muslim Brotherhood wanted Mubarak gone for several reasons. First and foremost, he had suppressed them, knowing full well that they were. Next, he was somewhat friendly with the US, the “great satin”. And finally, he recognized Israel’s right to exist and had signed and kept a peace agreement with them. Each reason by itself sufficient to draw radical islam’s ire, but a trifecta of all three gave the islamists a massive case of reflux. So of course, when the opportunity to remove him presented itself, they were quick to take advantage.

Please don’t mistake my comments above as meaning I think Mubarak was a good guy. He wasn’t! He was a brutal dictator in many ways. But he kept a lid on Egypt. He kept the radical islamic faction in check and allowed his country to move forward in relative tranquility.

Now what do they have? They have a bunch of Iranian backed radical islamists running rampant in the country. They are targeting Christians for subjugation or termination, and if given a free hand, that’s exactly what they will do. And to think that our administration, a Democratic one, didn’t learn the lesson from Iran when we helped Khomeini over throw the Shah (Jimmie Carter, another Democratic administration). Good ol’ Barak Hussein Obama and his Keystone Kops administration helped replace an administration that was friendly towards the US with one that will soon be violently against anything western. (Am I seeing a pattern???)

Once again, if you don’t learn from history, it will be happy to teach you the lesson again!

Update: 8/3/12 http://www.theblaze.com/stories/if-you-dont-leave-you-will-all-die-christians-flee-egyptian-town-after-deadly-riot/

(The Blaze/AP) — When the angry mob was rampaging through town, storming her home and those of other Christians, the 70-year-old woman hid in her cow pen, pushing a rock against the door. There she cowered for hours, at one point passing out from tear gas being fired by police that seeped in.

When Sameeha Wehba emerged just before dawn, she found she was the only Christian left in this small Egyptian village just south of Cairo, the location of some of the country’s earliest pyramids.

Dahshour’s entire Christian community – as many as 100 families some estimate – fled to nearby towns in the violence earlier this week. The flock’s priest, cloaked in a white sheet to hide him, was taken out in a police van. At least 16 homes and properties of Christians were pillaged and some torched and a church damaged.

What Liberals Call Fairness

OK, I’m having a little trouble getting a handle on the definition of “fairness” according to LibPos (Liberal/Progressives). It seems to be a moving target, depending on what topic they are on and who they are talking about.

Now as I understand it, if you are talking about fairness as it relates to a productive citizens taxes, it is only “fair” that they pay a bigger percentage of their income because they make more, while a less productive person will pay a smaller percentage merely because they make less. Others may actually receive money “back” when they never paid any taxes in the first place, all in the name of fairness. Even though there would appear to be nothing fair about this at all.

Just where exactly is the “fairness” in this?

A productive citizen will put more into the system than the less productive citizen will even if they pay the same “rate” just by the simple math it. Twenty percent of 100 is more than twenty percent of 10. To make the productive citizen pay a penalty for being productive is negative reinforcement. Pavlov proved a long time ago that negative reinforcement extinguishes behavior. A “graduated” tax schedule is, simply put, a negative reinforcement of productive behavior. Fortunately for the takers, many productive citizens believe they can out produce the negatives effects of the current confiscatory tax policies and thus they continue to produce.

This phenomenon has led the takers to believe they can keep taking more and more from the productive citizen cash cow and it will just keep providing. This is an error. The non-productive takers, if left to their own devices, will eventually confiscate from the producers to a point of diminishing returns and the producers will stop producing.

If you doubt my words, take a look at what’s happening in high tax areas around the world. Now that the takers are in control in France and they are looking to implement a near 100% tax on income over certain levels, the producers in France are exiting the country at an alarming rate. In California, where the LibPos have been in charge for decades, they have created a system where they are giving more away than they are taking in. They have been doing this for many years while increasing the taxes on the productive class to pay for their largess. It has reached a point where the productive citizens are looking for the exits as fast as they can. Texas alone is seeing an influx of over 300 California citizens per day. New York is seeing the same phenomenon for the same reasons. And yet the takers can’t seem to see that it is their own policies leading to their downfall.

So, when it comes to taxes, for LibPos, unfair is fair. If on the other hand, we are talking about health care, LibPos seem to feel that everyone should receive exactly the same treatment. No one (other than the LibPos themselves, who are making the rules) should be able to have any better or worse care than anyone else. If someone is able to afford a “Cadillac” health care plan they will be fined, excuse me, taxed, to punish them. Because in this case, they really do want people treated exactly the same, with the noticeable acceptation of the rule makers themselves.

This is in contrast with most Conservatives.

To a Conservative, fairness is getting what you earn. If you earn more, you should have more. If you choose to put in the effort and the grit and take the risks to be a high achiever, you should not be punished for doing so.

Many years ago, I made the choice that I wanted time with my family and didn’t want to dedicate my life to work. I willingly made the choice to forgo the possibility of possibly achieving large amounts of money because personal time was valuable to me. Others chose differently and created large fortunes. I do not begrudge them what they have earned. They made different choices that led to different returns. I am happy with my choice and see no reason the system should take more from them just because they earned more.

And YES they earned it, as opposed to what the LibPo in Chief might think. If his position were true, that the roads and all the other infrastructure the government puts in place is what made a business successful, then every business would be a success. Every business has access to the same infrastructure so they should all be successful. Right? Every business operates under the same government regulations. Clearly, if the LibPo in Chief were correct, every new business would be a success no matter what effort the business owner put in, or failed to put in.

LibPos then seem to have developed a rather free form definition of “fairness” that allows them to call it up to justify whatever logically contradictory positions they might choose.

The word “fairness” is one that is impossible to argue against, because it would seem to be un-American. However, when we allow the LibPos to control the language and let them use good words in such a cavalier manner, it makes it near impossible to publicly argue against them. Those who do not think in a clear and concise manner will be easily swayed by such slight of hand use of the language.

Conservatives need to point out these inconsistencies and call bull shit on the LibPos at every turn.

Or so it would seem to an old farm boy.