One thing I have noticed about Liberals in America is their uncanny ability to carry on a debate about something which isn’t so. For example, the Presidential election was about whether or not we should have a black President, at least in the minds of Liberals. If you were not for Barack Obama, then you must be opposed to having a black President. If you listened to the other side, the people who didn’t support Barack Obama for President, you more than likely did not hear anybody say “I don’t think Barack Obama should be President because he’s black”. Quite frankly, I never heard anybody ever say they are voting for Mitt Romney because they “hate women”.
In what seems to be a foreign concept to Liberals, the only people who think color of skin matters when it comes to qualifications are, by definition, racist. The only people who cared about Barack Obama’s skin color were his supporters. It was a perverted racism that’s completely lost on Liberals. Still, they managed to portray that the Presidential election was about Obama’s skin color, not his politics. In some circles, the color of Obama’s skin is more important than the content of his character or the content of his policies.
They did it during the gulf war, that instead of spending money on the war we should be spending it on our education. Did the war take money away from our education system? We continued to spend the same amount of money, in fact, increased spending on education during the war, but somehow Liberals made the debate that if you were for the war in Iraq, you were against spending money on our education system.
You don’t want government to raise your taxes? You must be against having roads being built and having police officers. You don’t want government bailing out large corporations? You must be against the poor. Somehow, Liberals always invent something to argue against that nobody is arguing for, and make it their central point.
The gun control debate has also seen its fair share of invented arguments. Take Piers Morgan, who during one episode claimed that if you weren’t for an assault rifle ban, then you were for people having tanks and nukes. Strange, I thought the debate was about Assault Rifles, not about Tanks.
Let’s not forget Danny Glover’s claim that the Second Amendment had racist roots. Never mind that slaves were the first people in the United States that gun control applied to. The only metal in the hands of slaves was their chains. I guess allowing slaves the right to own guns made it harder to own slaves. Then there was Michael Moore’s claim that gun owners are fearful racist. That gun owners fantasize a “black man will break into their house.” (perhaps a little insight into Michael Moore’s view of black people.)
When thousands of black teens have been shot and killed and it isn’t until 22 white children are shot and killed before gun control advocates are motivated to pass sweeping gun control laws, how can they possibly have the audacity to call the other side racists? I’m not saying they are smoking something, but if they are, it certainly isn’t legal in California, Colorado, or Oregon.
If that isn’t audacious enough, think about this, President Obama doesn’t understand why civilians need military style semi-automatic guns while he just supported civilian uprisings in the Middle East. Civilians, mind you, that were armed with military style automatic guns.
So I thought I would help the Liberal left break their habit of inventing fantasy debates and give them some real things to debate. I want to help them out with some arguments they can use, people who have benefited from the passage of gun control laws.
I’m a little miffed that our anti-gun President would send fully automatic military style weapons to drug lords in Mexico, thus violating Mexican anti-gun laws, but they probably could call in a favor. Why not get the drug lords to talk about how they’ve been able to expand their business since the passage of gun control laws? After all, people are still worried about the economy.
Maybe they can get George Soros to tell us how gun control laws helped him when he was 14, as a boy, working with Nazis as they took things away from unarmed Jews.
President Obama can bring Al-Bashir to the United States to describe how gun control laws helped his Arab Muslims commit genocide against Black Muslims, and maybe pick up a Presidential pardon from the ICC arrest warrant while he’s here.
Liberals can parade around Akazu from Rwanda to brag about how easy it was for the Hutu to slaughter thousands of Tutsi with just a few AK-47’s and thousands of machetes. Very easy indeed when your victim is unarmed.
Gun control works, obviously. Gun control works for those who are allowed to have guns, just not so well for those who are not allowed to own guns, just ask Al-Bashir, Akazu, Soros, and the drug lords in Mexico. Fair warning, if they decide to show you how effective gun control laws are against unarmed people, it could be the last question you ask.