January 1, 2013 by Julia
Tonight’s Tale comes to us from the (unofficial) Rachel Maddow fan page on Facebook. A friend of mine shared this graphic:
Another friend commented that it was more like “hypocrisy” than “irony”–you know, because word choice matters when you’re blatantly mischaracterizing an organization’s positions.
Let’s consider this for a second. Merriam-Webster defines police state as:
a political unit characterized by repressive governmental control of political, economic, and social life usually by an arbitrary exercise of power by police and especially secret police in place of regular operation of administrative and judicial organs of the government according to publicly known legal procedures
Here is the NRA’s lobbying arm, and here is a history of the organization and its goals. Arguably, teaching the army better marksmanship could have been promoting a police state, but practically, no one can legitimately argue that was the NRA’s goal, especially these days. In fact, the NRA actually advocates that citizens be able to defend themselves from a police state. You know, the exact opposite of what the good little
lemmings liberals want us to believe.
Clearly, only the best and brightest on the left are Rachel Maddow fans.
(Do you think they are talking about the suggestion to place armed guards in schools? Gosh, these liberals are hard to translate. At any rate, even if they are, they are STILL wrong, because that suggestion, as set forth by the NRA, does not constitute a police state unless you change the definition of “police state.” Why is it so hard for these people to understand that political terminology has specific definitions, and you can’t just throw the terms around at will without looking like an uneducated idiot?)