Should legally armed men and women who peacefully carry their private firearms everywhere else the law allows.. be barred from college property?
That is a good question, but it isn’t the question that anti-rights advocates want to ask. It isn’t even close. The way you twist the question often determines the answer.
The anti-rights advocates want to phrase the question like this-
Should the pimply-faced delinquent who went off to college and got stoned the first time he was away from home.. be given a gun to play with at school?
Choose from the following-
Yes (are you crazy, guess again)
___ GIVE US YOUR CREDIT CARD NUMBER AND HELP OUTLAW THE NRA TODAY!
That was my sample question. Now that you know how the propaganda game is played, here is another bait-and-switch question to test you.
“Why shouldn’t we ban guns on campus?”
Do you see the hidden assumptions? We don’t really keep guns off campus any more than we stop drugs, robbery, or rape on campus. We only prohibit them.. as if drugs, robbery and sexual assault weren’t already against the law.
Now that I’ve sensitized you to the propaganda of false alternatives, listen carefully to the next gun-ban argument you hear and see if I exaggerated. When you do, please keep these facts in mind.
-Licensed concealed carry holders are over 21 years old and have no criminal history.
-They carry almost everywhere else.
-Concealed carry holders are less violent and more law abiding than the police.
-The seven states which allow campus carry saw a drop in crime on campus.
Those are facts rather than hypothetical speculation. Too bad the gun-ban groups forgot to mention them.
So I’m asking you, why do we want to disarm the truck driver who delivers to the college cafeteria.. or the mom who takes her child to the campus clinic?
Why will firearms prohibition on campus succeed where drug and alcohol prohibition failed?
You have 10 minutes to complete your answer. Cite your sources from the materials covered in class. ;-)
People cross our border illegally. They jump the fence, where we bothered to put up a fence, for several reasons. Money is the largest. Illegal immigrants come here to work. They also come here to use our welfare system. They come here to give their children American citizenship and to give their children an American education. Each situation is easy to correct.
Illegals cross the border for jobs. Companies pay illegals less than they pay American citizens to do the same work. Sometimes the employment is recorded, and sometimes the illegals are paid under the table. Almost always, employers claim the wages they pay to illegals as a cost of doing business. That means the wages are a deduction from income for the company.
A presidential executive order simply has to say that paying illegals is.. illegal. The executive order says a company can not benefit or receive tax credit for a known illegal act.. an illegal like paying an illegal immigrant. That means every dollar paid to illegals becomes taxable company income rather than an expense. The company is taxed for wages, benefits, social security and Obamacare payments paid to illegals. The job market for illegals will be gone the next day.. if we had a president who wanted to stop illegal immigration. Stopping illegal immigration is easy to do. Unfortunately, many politicians don’t want to stop it.
Before we go on and discuss the other incentives for illegals to jump the queue and the border fence, let’s talk about the politician’s incentives as well.
The magic of politics is to concentrate benefits and diffuse the costs. I’m going to say that another way because it is such a powerful and important idea. A politician wants to concentrate the benefits of a law onto a small group of beneficiaries, and the politician wants to distribute the costs across as many citizens as possible. Now let’s look at illegals and jobs.
Illegals benefit by getting jobs they couldn’t get in their home country. They wouldn’t need to support any politician in the United States if they entered the country legally. The illegals and their supporters favor a politician with votes or donations only as long as their immigration situation is in doubt and their jobs can be bought with votes. The illegal lobby doesn’t need to support a politician once the illegals have a right to live and work here. The politician has nothing to offer them at that point. That explains why we’ve had an incomplete immigration policy since 1985. Politicians benefitted by a leaky border.
Some businesses benefit as well. The business can benefit by paying sub-standard wages to illegals. The illegals will accept sub-standard wages because the illegals can not freely compete in the open labor market here in the United States. The businesses benefit in two ways. The businesses benefit as long as there are illegals who work for sub-standard wages. The businesses also benefit from an open border policy that floods the job market with workers, be they legal or illegal. In both cases, businesses pay lower wages and earn higher profits. That is why businesses pay huge political donations to keep our borders open.
These political payoffs stop when the border is closed and the illegals can’t get jobs. That explains why we’ve had an incomplete immigration policy since 1985.
Illegals and some businesses benefit from illegal immigration. Illegals and their advocacy groups pay politicians. Businesses also pay politicians. The average citizen pays the cost with lower wages and higher taxes. The benefits are concentrated and the costs of open borders immigration are widely distributed.. as I talked about earlier. That explains why we’ve had an incomplete immigration policy since 1985. Politicians will keep the border open as long as we let them.
How long is that?
We’ll talk about welfare and corruption next time.
A picture is worth a thousand slogans.
Starbucks Race Hypocrisy: Check Out Their Executive Leadership Team… | The Gateway Pundit.
“Let’s get the government out of marriage?”
You’ve heard that catchphrase. The headline works. It grabs your attention and it sounds appealing. The phrase is easy to remember. It is also an easy phrase to use when you want to end debate. Too bad the phrase doesn’t work in the real world. Let’s get some reason into the marriage debate.
The government has done a bad job with marriage. Divorce law and family law is a mess. You and I want the government out of marriage so we have more freedom to honor the commitment of marriage. We don’t want a government bureaucrat in our bedroom. We don’t want the IRS in our bedroom anymore than we want the IRS in.. say.. in our doctor’s office. Let’s look at what a government-free marriage really means and why some people want it.
Today, getting the government out of marriage also gets the contract out of marriage. Businesses need contracts so people keep their word. Marriage needs people to keep their word too. A free society can’t survive without it. When we look back, we see that marriage pre-dates society. That may come as a shock to some young people, but the reception party after your marriage and the stunning bridal gown are recent inventions. Those modern artifacts are not the purpose of marriage. For thousands of years, marriage is how working societies connected fathers to mothers.. and fathers to their children. Marrying couples together is essential to a free society. Those obligations are the essential public purpose of marriage. Everything else.. from the flowers to co-insurance from your employer.. everything else is a private purpose of marriage.
The public purpose of marriage is important. Intact functional families keep government small. We asked for more freedom, but we see that government grows whenever a marriage fails. Government grows to take care of abandoned children. Government grows to subsidize single parents. Government grows to enforce a divorce decree. Government grows for humanitarian reasons to clean up the broken promises, the broken homes and broken children from a failed marriage. Things get worse from there. Government continues to grow for political reasons.. to turn these vulnerable dependents into a permanently dependable voting bloc. Freedom shrinks when marriage fails.
Intact families teach children to govern themselves. That is essential for a free society. Marriage does that and no other institution comes close to matching its performance. Not government and social workers. Not midnight basketball and subsidized tutors. Government expands again when broken children from broken homes grow to be broken adults.
Some people are willing to break society as they seek affirmation for their “non-conventional marriage”. Any society that doesn’t support their sexual activities deserves to die.. or so they say. I disagree. I think the people attacking marriage seek affirmation for themselves. My motivation is different. I want marriage so families thrive in freedom.
Should we ever get the government out of marriage? We could, but today, government won’t allow it. Instead, what politicians want to do is dictate the terms of marriage and sell “marriage” to their favorite political donors.
Look at the libertarian ideal of marriage without government. We could have contracts without government. The analgy isn’t perfect, but marriage, like a contract, is a promise to perform. We need someone to enforce that promise if one of the parties breaks their oath. That institution used to be the church. These days, politicians won’t let the church have the power to enforce marriage. Politicians won’t let the church grant a divorce or enforce a divorce decree. Politicians won’t let a private arbitrator do it either. Politicians want to keep that power for themselves.
How much power are we talking about? We have to let the church garnish your wages because you signed and broke a marriage contract. We have to let the church collect your tax refund and seize property if you renege on your promise. Can you see any politician returning that control to the people? I have not seen it. I’d like to.
Politicians poisoned marriage instead of letting it grow. Politicians gave us unilateral divorce. The divorce rate soared with one-sided divorce. If marriage is a contract, then the government said that either party could get out of the marriage contract any time they wanted and with no questions asked. The results were predicable.. and predicted.
Before we get the government out of marriage, we have to understand that some people want life long married love.. and some don’t. Some people want to have sex and run away with the next man or woman they think offers them something better. These run around lovers are happy to leave their abandoned spouse and children in the care of the state. That is how government grows.
Disposable marriage isn’t fair to children. I’ve been there and seen that as a foster parent. Disposable marriage isn’t fair for the rest of society either.
There is more going on behind the scenes. Getting government out of marriage is a code phrase for letting politicians establish protected classes. These legally protected classes are based on sexual orientation and justified by “fairness”. Big government advocates love it. I don’t like it because government grows and freedom shrinks once we redefine marriage.
In the libertarian ideal, the utopia ends with the government out of marriage. That is not where liberty begins today. We have to radically downsize government as a first step. We need to create the social institutions that support marriage before we get the government out of the marriage business.
Have at it. It is a worthy goal. Start with the family courts and tell me how it goes.
Thanks to Steve Pauwels for the inspiration for this article. It first appeared at Clash Daily.
Clinton era banking regulation led to housing bubble and bust.
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms claimed the most popular rifle cartridge in the US was illegal. That was a huge power grab by the Obama administration. That claim required the ATF to reinterpret its long standing rules. And why not. There is no one to stop President Obama if he pressed forward with an illegal presidential finding. Certainly the republican senators or congressmen will not stop President Obama. That leaves me wondering .. who stopped the latest gun grab?
Republicans said they might do.. something. That is a hollow threat. Remember this is the legislature lead by Representative John Bonner and Senator Mitch McConnell.. Messeurs Spineless and Chinless. These are the same RINO politicians who voted for Obamacare and supported open borders immigration while they were in the legislative majority. They could never find the courage to defund the ATF. Obama set the groundwork to outlaw rifle ammunition in the US.. and a few Republicans wrote a sternly worded letter in reply.
The republicans are posturing politicians and the Obama administration knows it.
This proposed ammunition ban by the ATF opened the door to outlaw all civilian rifle ammunition. That door remains open. The director of the ATF, B. Todd Jones, said all 5.56 ammunition is a threat to law enforcement. So is most rifle ammunition in general. We should not be surprised by the ATF Director’s comment. The sentiment comes directly from the community organizer we elected as president. So what stopped the ATF?
The ammunition grab didn’t go as planned. The Obama administration assumed the news media would offer unquestioning support. Instead, the news media actually reported the ammunition grab.. as news. That is amazing. I was as shocked as the Obama administration must have been.
The media actually reported the news and what it meant to American firearms owners. Suddenly, the Obama ammunition ban became politically dangerous for the ATF. Their action could galvanize America’s 100 million gun owners into opposition. Yes, even the gun owning old Fudds who think they are immune from politics could wake up. Gun owners, that sleeping mass of Americans, might wake up and realize that Obama wants to take their guns after all. Those “non-political” gun owners are a giant the ATF wants to leave alone. The ATF wants that giant to sleep soundly.. at least through the next election. Another 10 million members of the NRA could change an election. The Obama administration didn’t want to risk that.
The ammunition ban almost woke up the gun owners of the United States. This ammunition ban almost drove American gun owners to join the National Rifle Association, the Gun Owners of America, and the Second Amendment Foundation. I say almost.
The gun groups were ready to beat the drum and expand their membership. The gun groups ran commercials asking people to join them. The political masters at the ATF do not want to politicize and activate the 100 million gun owners in America. So who stopped the ATF ammunition grab?
The ammunition ban isn’t over. The ATF will wait until a cop is shot with a rifle.. even if they have to sell the rifle to the criminal. Then the ATF will return to the main stream media with fresh talking points in hand and propose an ammunition ban. Count on it.
What should we do? How can the average Joe and Jane support liberty? I’m sorry, but it is not by giving money to the Republican Party and its RINOs. Wake up, America. Join the National Rifle Association, the Gun Owners of America and the Second Amendment Foundation. They support liberty and protect our rights.. even when Republican’s don’t.
Please rate, share and comment