It would seem we are in the calm before the storm of the next gun debate. We’ve gone through the invective of having blood on our hands and all the other insane accusations while the story has dropped from the headlines. But rest assured this is only a lull in the action. Republican leadership has foolishly decided to give a hearing on all the gun confiscation schemes the authoritarian socialist left has been able to dream up the past few years.
In light of all this, we decided to look at some of the language the Left uses in going after a basic human right. Some of it conveys their collectivist mindset, while the rest are simply base substitutions for real civil rights – ‘assault weapons’ instead of arms, hate speech instead of free speech. This gives the left a cynical excuse to attack liberty and individual rights while they pretend that isn’t the case.
The phrase ‘buy back’ goes to the fundamental political ideologies of Individualism and Collectivism, the basis of all other ideologies and the fundamental precept in arranging a rational political spectrum model. The country began with the setting out of the precepts of individualism in the Declaration of Independence:
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.
Note that it does not refer to people collectively and that each individual has certain rights that cannot be given away – they are unalienable. Furthermore, it sets out that government is to be limited to securing these rights. Not attempting the impossibilities of fairness and equality, not redistributing other people’s money.
Contrast this with how the collectivists look at the world, were they see everyone as belonging to a certain groups or collective aggregations without individual rights or property. Collectivists have a strange idea that rights or property are somehow under the ‘democratic’ purview of society as a whole. This is how they can rationalize the forcible taking these from some and handing it out to others. It’s that infamous line that is the crux of collectivist thought:
‘From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.’
[Never mind that Karl used gender exclusionary language]
The collectivist mindset is that individuals are only of value in so much that they contribute to the collective, with their rights dependent on being a part of that collective.
This is how the collectivist can rationalize the theft of private property from individuals. It’s somehow ‘collectively owned’ by society, so taking it back at gun point in exchange for what is essentially someone’s own tax dollars is somehow justified.
Purchasing a gun from a manufacturer precludes it ever being the property of the government [or society as a whole]. Thus, common sense logic would hold that it is impossible for the government to ‘buy-back’ something it never owned. It’s only by the bizarre logic of ‘collective ownership’ that this can be logically rationalized. An authoritarian mindset that believes that private property can be forcibly taken from the people simply because the socialist-left wants it to be so.
When it comes to the subject of assaulting liberty, the authoritarian socialist left has no equal. They really know how to twist the language to their own cynical use in developing weasel words as a substitute for basic human rights. These give the left the ongoing opportunity to go after civil liberties while maintaining the false pretense supporting liberty or being ‘Liberal’. The first being the term ‘hate speech’, the term’s construction implies a certain level of laziness in just swapping out the word ‘free’ for the word ‘hate’.
As in all of these weasel words, the idea is to use these as the supposed subject of their ire, while they are really going after free speech. The fact is there is no set definition for the term, so it can be applied to anything they want, this being a common characteristic of these phrases. We tacked on another set of weasel words just to illustrate the absurdity of this genre. Again, there is no set definition of ‘military style’ so it could apply to anything.
This is another weasel word construction meant to convey something, but without definition so it can be applied to anything
. The fact is, just about anything can be used as a ‘weapon’ to ‘assault’ someone; it’s in the definition of the word weapon
. It’s a scam because it’s meant to be used to ban certain arms and then expanded to anything and everything left wants. One can assault someone with any kind of weapon.
Other types of arms have a set definition. Banning those would restrict the standard to just those types of arms. For example, revolvers are one of the oldest repeating firearms. Banning them wouldn’t give them an open-ended way to ban everything else. They can’t very well ban a lever-action firearm as a revolver, for example. This isn’t the case with ‘assault weapons.’ Today it’s semiautomatic firearms with a detachable magazine, tomorrow it can be bolt action rifles. This is why this phase is a scam, although the same term can be applied to all of the other weasel words of the Left.
All of these phrases should be rejected by those who are fair-minded and support the rule of law. Since they are undefined or make no sense, they have no place in civil discourse. The fact that the left uses them with abandon proves they are not working in good faith with the rest of us, and any legislation that uses these terms should also be rejected.