An industry continues to profit off the taking of human lives and politicians behave as if this should be the accepted normal.
They repeatedly and somewhat callously speak of Constitutional rights, while rejecting any and all common sense regulations and restrictions due, in part, to their being bought by powerful lobbyist.
Virtually every other nation, including most of the European Union, has more strict guidelines that successfully reduce the number of lives lost. But it is no matter, politicians grandstand and rile up their voters by casting opponents as draconian and downright evil.
To make any progress possible, it will require many to show real courage in the face of demagoguery and outright lies. It’s unfortunate then that many in the media and virtually the entire Democratic party are fully invested in protecting abortion.
I’m not sure many abortion supporters realize how similar they sound to gun rights supporters, with whom they often (and vehemently) disagree. This is why I ask, “Do you really support gun control?” Because I’m not sure advocates for abortion realize where their reasoning leads on the issue of gun control.
Read New York Times’ much publicized front page editorial on gun control and tell me how the same logic could not be applied to abortion.
Opponents of gun control are saying, as they do after every killing, that no law can unfailingly forestall a specific criminal. That is true. They are talking, many with sincerity, about the constitutional challenges to effective gun regulation. Those challenges exist. They point out that determined killers obtained weapons illegally in places like France, England and Norway that have strict gun laws. Yes, they did.
But at least those countries are trying. The United States is not. Worse, politicians abet would-be killers by creating gun markets for them, and voters allow those politicians to keep their jobs. It is past time to stop talking about halting the spread of firearms, and instead to reduce their number drastically — eliminating some large categories of weapons and ammunition.
It is not necessary to debate the peculiar wording of the Second Amendment. No right is unlimited and immune from reasonable regulation.
If only the Times editorial board actually agreed with that. I’ve yet to see them advocate for any restrictions on abortion, much less “reasonable regulation.”
Do you see them calling for the U.S. to follow in the footsteps of European countries that ban abortions after 20 weeks? Actually, their tone on abortion is much less “we must do something” and more “how dare you do something.”
In a June op-ed, the editorial board argued against restricting “a woman’s right to choose” and for protecting “reproductive freedom.”
For the last several years, opponents of abortion rights have cloaked their obstructionist efforts under all manner of legitimate-sounding rationales, like protecting women’s health. This has never been more than an insulting ruse. Their goal, of course, is to end all abortions, and lately they’re hardly trying to pretend otherwise.
Odd how in this instance the board does not recognize trying to limit a recognized Constitutional freedom as praiseworthy.
When speaking about guns the same ones who dismiss claims about the rise of black markets for weapons and the notion that only bad men will have guns, immediately appeal to “back alley abortions” and exploitive providers when speaking of limitations on abortion.
Much like Ross Douthat, I am not a gun person and am open to persuasive arguments about limitations on types of guns and ammunition available to the average citizen. But I see no real desire on the part of gun control advocates to marshall such a defense of their position or even a recognition of what they actually want.
When I discuss my opposition to abortion, the usual retort is two-fold: 1) I have no room to talk because I am a man, therefore I’ll never “need” an abortion and 2) If I, or anyone else, doesn’t like abortions, we don’t have to have one.
So let me turn that around on the abortion advocate in favor of increased gun control.
Many such individuals live in major urban areas where police officers regularly walk the streets. Depending on their current attitude toward law enforcement, this may give them a sense of security that if they need to be protected by someone with a gun, the police can be there rather quickly.
More rural residents do not have such a luxury. Crime may be less frequent in those areas, but if there is a home invasion or something similar the role of the police will almost always be investigation after the crime, not prevention or intervention.
Therefore, if you are not in a situation in which you potentially need a gun for your protection, then (according to the pro-choice individual) you have no place in this discussion. Your assertions that you are safe actually disqualifies you from commenting.
Secondly, pro-life individuals are told to merely avoid abortions personally and that should be enough. Translated into bumper sticker sloganism, it would be: “If you don’t like abortions, don’t get one.” Why does that not equally apply to guns?
If you are a member of The New York Times editorial board — liberal, elite, upper class, living in a low crime area of town, police around regularly — and you don’t like guns, according to the pro-choice logic, the solution is simply for you not to get one.
Hypotheticals and Potential
The Times editor may reply, “Yes, but an individual with a gun can impact me. They could shoot me or a loved one, so the choice of another to have a gun can have an impact on me.”
Very true, but how is that different from an abortion? We have no idea what ramifications result from ending a human life through abortion.
If we are dealing purely in hypotheticals, which is what you must do when arguing for taking away guns from individuals who have not committed crimes, the human life never allowed out of the womb could have been the politician that united the nation around a gun control measure.
Gun control advocates often speak of the potential number of lives that could be saved through additional legislation, but if we are speaking about potential, what about unborn life?
Pro-choice individuals frequently refer to those in the womb as a “potential person.” As I’ve argued before, how can you advocate for the reduction of Second Amendment rights based on potential lives being saved, but ignore what is, according to your own rhetoric, a “potential” life in the womb?
To campaign for both gun control, but reject regulations on abortion, you have to make the case that a Constitutional right that was not interpreted as existing for 200 years of our nation’s existence is more important and legally secure than one that was literally written into our founding document from its inception.
That seems to be a hard case to sell and one in which the inverse is much simpler. I can, as many legal scholars and Supreme Court justices have, argue the right to an abortion never existed in the Constitution. But it would defy logic to argue the same for the right to bear arms.
Do you really support gun control? Because if you do and you desire to be even remotely logically consistent, I look forward to you joining with me in campaigning for additional restrictions and regulations on abortion.