Skip to comments.The two liberal approaches to failure - and why the second is more insidious
Posted on 01/25/2013 12:48:03 PM PST by dirtboy
The last hundred years are strewn with the detritus of failed liberal policies. Communism. Public Education. Keynesian economics. Just for starters.
However, most liberals see those failures as their ideas not having been given a proper chance, or given enough time or funding to work. So Paul Krugman attributes the failure of Obama's stimulus to not being big enough, public school advocates continually clamor for more resources despite continual failure, and to this day apologists abound for the failure of communism in the Soviet Union as being from other factors, such as it not being 'pure' communism or being despotic in nature (while failing to notice that despotism always becomes the form of governance in communist countries).
This makes rational debate with liberals impossible. Most sane persons, upon seeing several rounds of failure with a given approach, will reconsider their premises. But for liberals, failure buttresses their worldviews. It becomes positive feedback instead of normal negative feedback.
What is truly frightening about liberals is such is their LESS toxic approach to failure. The more insidious liberal approach to failure is deliberate and calculating, as witnessed by the current anti-2nd Amendment propaganda coming from the left.
A classic example can be found in this claim:
"There's no question that the AR-15 was used, the Bushmaster shot those children with multiple rounds and was instrumental in the massacre," Blumenthal told Hearst Newspapers on Thursday after a Capitol Hill news conference. "Those children and educators might well be alive today if not for the assault weapon and high-capacity magazines."
Might be alive today? Perhaps Senator Blumenthal, who is a co-sponsor of the Assault Weapons Ban of 2013, could take the time and explain how a shooter with two handguns and a collection of ten round magazines would somehow be less deadly in the enclosed space of classrooms - with mostly elementary school children as targets - than a shooter using a single AR-15 with larger magazines.
Tactically and practically, the claim makes utterly no sense. It relies on abject ignorance - accidental, or in the case of liberals, deliberate - for acceptance.
Also, rifles are not the weapon of choice for most murders in this country. Handguns are. Even bludgeoning with blunt instruments is a more-common form of homicide.
Banning so-called assault weapons will not make any appreciable impact on gun violence, as studies on the lack of impact of the 1994 ban have shown.
This legislation, this very approach is designed to fail in order to provide the perverse justification for subsequent steps at gun confiscation. Pure and simple. The first step didn't do the job, we have to go further.
This is why Piers Morgan, who supported broad gun confiscation in Britain, now pretends to be in favor of private handgun ownership, and that is why Ben Shapiro tried to goad him into admitting his hidden agenda by raising the fact that handguns are used in far more murders than rifles.
And that is why you seldom hear anyone nowadays talking about banning handguns, at least near a microphone. The Violence Policy Center missive on handgun ban rationale dates all the way back to 1999.
Unfortunately for their agenda (and fortunately for the Constitution and the right to self-defense), gun rights advocates across America remember the past calls by liberals for widespread firearms bans. And fully understand that an 'assault weapons' ban is destined to accomplish nothing other than denying self-defense weapons to the law-abiding. It is meant to fail.
The agenda of deliberate failure has been unleashed like the Kraken upon our republic. But it does not take Medusa's head to destroy it. Just our steadfast and continued resolution in the face of the latest onslaught, and continual efforts to educate those who are uninformed enough to fall for the anti-gunner nonsense.
We can't do anything to cure liberals of their deliberate ignorance and their deliberate deceptions. But we can inform those who are the targets of liberals wishing to spread their disease of ignorance and absurdity. Every chance you get, refute the nonsense to those willing to listen, and especially with those you know who simply don't know enough.
We are winning. But we cannot coast or assume the battle is already won. It is up to all of us to fight this level of mendacity, because the left will never give up, due to their very embrace of failure as affirmation of their principles.
Very well written! Thank you.
Or a crazed person with two home made Claymore swords made from straightened and sharpened truck leaf springs and hickory sledge hammer handles. Or Roman short swords - your choice. Big knives don't jam, don't over heat, and don't run out of ammo. Guns give you the advantage of distance, and chemical as opposed to muscle energy. Edged weapons are every bit as deadly at short range.
Politicians are the ones who are insane if they think the killings are due to the hardware.
Whenever we see tactical gibberish, we need to point it out as such. It deflates the rank emotionalism liberals use to try and sell their propaganda.
I agree this makes no sense. Most of the children were shot multiple times. Since a 9mm round is larger than .223, I can't see how it would have caused less damage.
Agreed. I do it every time I can. Sometimes I’ll grab a kitchen knife, in a non-threatening way, and dare a liberal of my acquaintance to take it away from me. You should see the looks they give you when they realize what they’re really dealing with even with a common household instrument.
To be fair there’s a reason guns are known as “the great equalizers.” Swords require more strength and skill. Also, they take longer and fatigue you quicker. Then again, that matters less when your victims are children and can’t escape.
Nicely written. I am forwarding to everyone on my mail list.
Guns give you the advantage of distance, and chemical as opposed to muscle energy.
Agreed, and noted in my original post. The comment about chemical energy as opposed to muscle energy is from someone else (long forgotten), to give credit where it belongs.