Liberals actually love guns
By Special guest Columnist Craig Cantoni
The conventional wisdom says that liberals hate guns. Actually, the opposite is true. Hillary Clinton proves the point. She advocates nationalized healthcare.
Huh? What does that have to do with guns?
Everything.
Nationalized healthcare would not be voluntary, which means that it would be required and depend on government force for compliance. This means it would be backed up by government agents with guns. For enforcement.
Under nationalized healthcare, if a physician were to refuse to participate in the system and set up his own practice, he’d be fined and receive cease and desist orders. Eventually, if he continued to treat patients outside of the socialized system, he’d be arrested by agents with guns. Liberals support this pro-gun approach.
The same with patients. They would be arrested by agents with guns if they were to have the audacity to act like free people and pay private physicians for medical treatment out of their own pockets.
If you think this is just hype, I respectfully suggest you read Medicare’s regulations.
Every government program near and dear to liberals (and millions of ersatz conservatives) depends on putting guns to people’s heads — Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP, public education, minimum wages, and PBS, to name several out of hundreds.
The nation was founded on the libertarian (classical liberal) belief that the only legitimate use of government force is to protect life, liberty and property. By extension, that means government has legitimate authority to prosecute murderers, thieves and con artists.
But now, the government uses force to take property (money) from respectable citizens and then spends the loot on fraudulent Ponzi schemes such as Social Security and Medicare. (If you don’t believe that Social Security is a Ponzi scheme, then please show me the Social Security Trust Fund.) Ironically, the government that is supposed to prosecute con artists has become the biggest con artist of the land.
Without a gun pointed at my head, I would not let the government take 15 percent of my income for the schemes. I wouldn’t pay protection money to a Mafioso unless a gun was pointed at my head either. Most intelligent, freedom-loving people wouldn’t.
Unfortunately, most intelligent, freedom-loving people now engage in policy-wonk debates with the likes of Clinton about nationalized healthcare and other programs — that depend on guns. They debate the efficiency of socialism versus free markets, putting people to sleep with statistics and economic theories. What they should do instead is say, “A healthcare system that depends on government coercion for its existence is by definition unconstitutional, un-American, and likely to make things worse.”
If government-run health care will be so good, why is the Veteran’s Administration health care system so bad?
The Founders wanted citizens to own guns to protect themselves against a government that used guns for other than protecting citizens. That’s why liberals love government guns but hate the Second Amendment.
An author and columnist, Mr. Cantoni can be reached at ccan2@aol.com.
| More from Alan Korwin
Stumble It!
December 19th, 2007 at 9:47 am
Who could be against the SCHIP bill? After all, it was written in accordance with what is now the true American spirit: “Find a way for someone else to pay your expenses!” This country has been transformed from a land where you reap what you sow, to one where we all pay something for nothing so that we may all get something for nothing. That is the true nature of this bill, yet another tax-and-spend scheme, using the poor little children as political shields. What descent human could oppose a measure to assure their health?”
Everyone just loves Santa Clause, except for those from whom he must steal in order to be able to give away so much, The SCHIP expansion bill is another instance of our government’s attempts to remove financial responsibility from a broad class of people, and instead burden those who are powerless to refuse. Rather than have everyone, or at least those who have chosen to raise children, pay for their health care, Congress is still attempting to single out a minority which they believe will not be able to defend itself, those who manufacture, sell and consume tobacco.
The unfair and illogical use of tobacco taxes to finance programs which are being touted as essential to such a large class of people, when coupled with attempts to actually discourage tobacco’s consumption, is one of the poorest strategies this writer has ever encountered. Here is an example of a business depending for its survival on increased sales of a product, and spending an enormous advertising budget to convince customers they simply cannot live without it. When everyone involved ignores the manufacturer’s repeated announcements that it intends to curtail or discontinue production of the product, for which there is no substitute, there can be nothing but disappointment. The customer, who hadn’t even considered shopping elsewhere, is left with nothing but empty promises, and real frustration upon finding out that those who would have provided something are no longer in business, because the competition’s claims were too good to be true.
Congress would not even dare to consider financing a measure benefiting children with taxes on such things as baby food, diapers, children’s clothing, juvenile furniture or toys. Even more outlandish would be the mere thought of doing away with dependents’ tax exemptions to fund their health care and education. Never in a million years could we count on something that fair happening in the land of the free and the home of the brave!
December 19th, 2007 at 10:08 am
without question liberals have a love/hate relationship with guns.
Someone posited the notion that if the governement is the only one to have guns, then what is to stop them from trampling the rights of the individual citizen with impunity.
Chuck Schumer has said sometime in the past, that government officials like himself should not have to have to live in fear for their lives, for their public service. While it is complicated to rebut such an argument and still appear to be civilized, it is not impossible. But that mindset, is the nut of the liberal politician’s argument against guns.
The counter to Schumer’s argument is that I would rather government (and its agents like Schumer) fear and armed populace, rather than an unarmed populace fearing an armed government.