from January 2013, Culture
When you hear the words Subsidy or Grant what first comes to mind? Thoughts of a benefactor giving generously to a noble cause? A charity getting money to help it achieve some worthy goal? The community benefiting from an outside contributor?
Words have meaning. Using language properly helps to successfully communicate a particular message or idea. However, language can also be twisted so that one can say a particular thing and yet mean something entirely different. Political scientists call this twisting of words, to say one thing but mean another, propaganda. The Nazi's and Soviets were masters at this game. For example, the Soviet paper was called "Pravda" and pravda means truth in Russian. However, the paper was anything but true in its reporting. It was filled with Soviet lies about America, the West and how wonderful life was in the Soviet Union.
Another group that is good at twisting words and meaning are liberals. Unfortunately their success has made it so we don't stop to think what really is happening. We just accept what is said as good and noble and move on with our day. For example, the words subsidy or grant has a positive meaning in our culture. If your industry or organization receives either, it means your group is doing something right, something well and we should all be thankful for your efforts. However, that is only true when it is a private subsidy or private grant. Private subsidies and grants come from organizations that have created wealth in the free market place. They have created a good or service that people like and in return freely given their money for said product or service. Furthermore the organization has done so in such a way to make a profit. Those profits have accumulated and now that organization decides to give back to the community in the form of a subsidy or a grant. In other words a gift. It can be in the form of a scholarship, in the form of matching funds, or just a lump sum. Private gifts are good things. They are voluntary. They are of free will. They allow for the full expression of liberty.
There has been a lot emotion and bloviating since the tragedy at Sandy Hook elementary school. The main theme has been how to prevent the Sandy Hook tragedy from ever happening again. Both the Right and the Left have been strongly advocating their solutions to solve this problem.
For conservatives the Second Amendment is sacrosanct and therefore removing guns from law abiding citizens isn't the answer. The Right argues that if more people carried weapons, if schools weren't "Gun Free Zones" but if there were trained teachers and administrators who were armed, Sandy Hook would not have been nearly as bad — if it had even happened at all. Most of these murders are cowards at heart. That is why they take their own lives in the end. They only prey on the helpless and a school full of children, without armed adults to defend, is an easy target to make their point —whatever sick point that may be. If schools were armed by trained adults who worked at the school everyday, such murders would think twice, three times or just give up before trying. They wouldn't be able to roam the halls and shoot whomever stood in their way, because around the next corner might be someone who will shoot back.
On the other hand the Left blames the Guns. If we would just remove all guns from society then sick people couldn't murder. Of course they can't get rid of all the guns now, so they move slowly picking and choosing which guns look the scariest. But the Left's end game is to remove all guns from society. No guns means that no children are mass murdered.