Thursday, January 10, 2013

Add "Gun Buy-Backs" To The State's Orwellian Lexicon

By, Chris Rossini
Email | Twitter

Wherever The State extends its cancerous influence, a bizarro upside-down disaster results. One of its most important tools is the twisting of language.
  • Politicians incessantly use phrases like "it's what the American people want", when it's most often what their cronies want. The free market, on the other hand, has something called profits and losses, specifically tailored to relay to everyone what people really want.
  • The counterfeiting Federal Reserve, that pick-pockets your purchasing power, says that it's administering an "Elastic Currency" via "Quantitative Easing."
  • When The State steals from one and gives to another, the recipient refers to it as a "benefit". The more bolder sucklings are now starting to call it a "right".
There are surely many more that can be added to the list, and feel free to leave them in the comments if you'd like.

But, since "Gun Control" is at the top of The State's power grab list these days, we can add Gun "Buy-Backs" to the list.

If the government is buying the gun back, are we to presume that they were the original owner to begin with?

Are we merely just giving them their guns back?

And isn't it ironic to give your guns to government?...an institution that has brought more mass death than any other gang on earth. Just in the 20th century alone, governments killed hundreds of millions

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but didn't the U.S. government drop two atom bombs? Aren't they the only nation on earth to ever do such a thing?

They're supposed to be in charge of "gun control"?

The State twists everything into a bizarre upside-down disaster.

Don't get sucked into its linguistic black hole.


( h/t Manuel Lora & Geoffrey Allan Plauché )

13 comments:

  1. 19th century -> 20th century. just nitpicking.

    ReplyDelete
  2. the right for some right wing nut with a gun fetish to own a gun, a death machine, doesnt come before the right of 6 and 7 year old children to breathe. every gun owner is guilty of that crime and every gun owner has blood on their hands. people need to be forced to give up their rights for the rest of society to have their right to live.

    if you disagree, then answer this question, how many gun murders have their been without guns? none.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster

      Delete
    4. Ah the sheep. Only caring about issues when they are told to. How many children did Obama kill in 2012?

      Delete
    5. I'm more scared of the anonymous poster than I am of gun owners.

      How crazed to post something so insipid, insane and easily refuted. Is that you, Piers?

      Delete
    6. Like usual the anti-gun contingent frames the question so that the resulting answer fits their agenda.

      Certainly a world totally devoid of guns would be wonderful. That isn't the world that you and I live in.

      The idea of confiscating guns from good citizens isn't a new one and almost always results in more death, not less.

      Lastly, I wanted to say that I reject your ridiculous placing of mass murder at mine, and my fellow gun owners, feet.

      You would have us bow our heads in shame as you promote the government, which is guilty of FAR more egregious human rights transgressions, as the medium by which confiscation is accomplished.

      Shame on you.

      Delete
  3. Heard this multiple times in the last 4 months:

    "I wish we could live in a world without guns."

    This delusional, first world, solipsistic, bubble gum naivety is representative of the level of the whole debate on the issue.

    I'm so tired of pointing out that humanity invented - and excelled at - war, mass murder, genocide, slavery, torture, and persecution during a 20,000 year history without a single gun that I'm starting to think seriously about joining the seasteading movement. How much do you think it would cost to buy Tahiti?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Chris, I think that even the term "gun control" should be thought of as orwellian newspeak. If you think about it, it is an euphemism for "gun PROHIBITION". It sounds good, it sounds nanny state, it sounds like a mother forbidding a two-year old from accessing the balcony or the window, to prevent him from falling.

    And it is, indeed, what the elites tell the slaves. They are just "protecting us from ourselves".

    ReplyDelete
  5. Exactly correct. "Gun Control" is people control. It is not really about guns at all. If it were, it would be simplicity itself for the government to divest itself of guns, as an example of how well that works.

    As for a "world without guns", no thank you. I do not want a world where the strongest and most vicious lord it over the smaller, weaker, and infirm. Guns are the great equallizer.

    ReplyDelete