gun control

How to Talk to a Liberal: Redistribution of Wealth

/ warriorwoman91 / 7 Comments

Living in California most of my life has given me the opportunity to witness liberalism first hand in some of the most tragic ways. High taxes, manipulative policies, special favors for illegal aliens–you name it, we’ve got it. Liberals have left no stone unturned in finding new ways to legislate, regulate, and utterly ruin the lives of the average citizen every time they come in contact with a government run entity.

You’d think I’d one day get used to this kind of ideology–but no! California liberals never cease to amaze me at how ready they are to take your money and spend it on foolish, fraud filled programs. Take Chad for instance (real name withheld for privacy concerns). Chad believes that middle class families should be paying for his life as a college student. Their money should be taken from them and redistributed to those who do not make as much, if any at all.

This is all well and good if you’re Chad the starving college student who never worked a 40 hour week in his life. However, the best way to respond to this liberal (Marxist) nonsense is to set up the scenario in terms that he can understand. What if Chad got an assignment from his liberal college professor, and he worked REALLY hard on it for weeks on end to get it done. And what if Chad turned in the assignment and got an A, but when the teacher handed it back he said, “Chad, I know you got an A on this assignment, but I don’t think that it’s fair to the other people that didn’t work as hard and got lower grades. I think we’re going to have spread your grade around and just have everyone get a C.”

How does redistribution feel now Chad? Not so good when you’re the one having the earnings from YOUR hard work taken from you, does it? The way I always look at this Marxist ideology is not via the myth of taking from the rich and giving to the poor, but by looking at redistribution of wealth as what it really is:  theft.

Who Will Defend Your Freedom?

/ warriorwoman91 / Leave a comment

I was having a discussion with a friend of mine about why teens of our generation hated Bush so much.  He told me when he was in junior high and high school the main reason that they hated Bush was because they thought he was going to bring the draft back following the attacks on 9/11.  They feared they would be required join the military services against their will simply with the stroke of then President Bush’s pen, and they hated him for it.

The problem with this point of view is that it has no regard for the price of freedom.  I wish I could ask those students where they think freedom comes from?  Do they think that they are entitled to it and that the rest of the world just accepts that entitlement as a given?  Do they think that threats against our freedom are obsolete and that we don’t need to defend them anymore? Or would they just rather that someone else did the dying while they stayed home and enjoyed the freedom?

While few would admit it, a large portion of my generation would selfishly answer yes to these questions. The idea that freedom requires work and sometimes death in order for it to continue is completely foreign to us, as we have never experienced anything else. Certainly nobody likes to be told what to do or be forced to do something that they don’t want to do. However, when placed in the context of somebody crashing a plane into your building or invading your country this is all the more reason to fight to protect your freedom. When we realize just how easily liberty can be lost we feel an urgent desire to defend it without need of coercion or draft. Thanks to all who heeded that urgency, and gave the ultimate sacrifice so that we could be free.

“Greater love has no one than this, that one lay down his life for his friends.” John 15:13

How Liberals Argue

/ warriorwoman91 / 6 Comments

The way liberals argue about gun control is to refer to the gun, not the person, as the criminal. This gives them emotional license to regulate and ban guns or magazines however they want, because anyone in favor of the gun rights is therefore in favor of the criminal. This tactic of demonizing and disregarding a political argument is designed to effectively shut down all opposition to liberal perspectives on the issues.  If you identify, for example, the conservative position with the criminal’s position, you’ll never even consider their argument for fear you’ll be identified with the criminal.

This is similar to the gay marriage argument.  Liberals refer to gay marriage as a civil right, therefore by that definition if you are against gay marriage you are against a civil right.  This again gives them license to treat you and your arguments as bigoted, subhuman, and not deserving of any kind of respect or consideration.  This results–intentionally–in scaring away all who might consider the position against gay marriage, but fear to be identified with an idea that is associated with a heinous social sin.

So how do you successfully debate with someone using this kind of tactic?  Conservatives have to define the issue right from the beginning. Guns do not commit crimes, people do.  Therefore, the argument for gun rights is not to be associated with the side of the criminal. Likewise, gay marriage is not a civil right, it is a lifestyle choice.  Therefore, to be against the gay lifestyle is no more heinous than being against any other lifestyle such as that of a smoker or a vegetarian. Conservatives need to redefine the premise in order to win the argument, otherwise real political debates will cease to exist.