Quantcast

Categorized | Featured, Opinion

Gun Control: Exceptions for Rape, Incest and the Life (or Health) of the Gun Owner?

gunsThe left wing gun grabbers seem completely oblivious to the fact that their arguments for “gun control” are in complete opposition to the beliefs most of these same people hold on the abortion issue.

The “right to privacy” that the Supreme Court found in the Constitution that allows a woman to abort her child can’t be only for abortion. The same “settled law of the land” right to an abortion must also apply to other areas as well.

Like gun control.

Ironically, the “right” to have an abortion is not actually spelled out in the Constitution and one must use convoluted logic to derive any such right, while the right to own guns is spelled out in clear language we know as the 2nd Amendment. Yet liberals who emphatically hold the right to privacy and abortions as “clearly” constitutional ignore rights that are specifically spelled out in the Constitution.

And many of these same people also miss the fact that the first 10 amendments to the Constitution – the Bill of Rights – do not actually “grant” the enumerated rights contained in those 10 amendments. If the left were somehow able to repeal the 2nd Amendment (as many would love to do) the right to own guns would not be taken away. These are unalienable (not inalienable!) rights. According to Webster, these are rights that are “incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred“.

Inalienable rights may be altered by law and the Constitution was quite specific and unambiguous in choosing the word unalienable. (See this explanation of the difference.)

The same cannot be said about abortion (except when a pregnancy threatens the life of the mother).

We all have a God-given right to protect ourselves.

Liberals insist that all reasonable people must allow for exceptions to any opposition others may have to abortion. To be totally against abortion in all cases is labeled “extreme”. So many otherwise pro-life individuals are forced to submit to exceptions to their moral beliefs for rape, incest or the life of the mother lest they be branded as extremists for not wanting to kill babies. And of course the Liberals always try to add in the word “health” of the mother which can be twisted to include “mental health” as in “if I can’t go out and drink and party while I am pregnant I would go crazy”.

Actually, a pure pro-life position would ignore the details of the conception that has already taken place, even violent circumstances. How the life came to be is irrelevant. But if the choice comes down to life or death for the mother, the mother has an unalienable right to self-protection. Therein lies the only “choice” in abortion.

And it is also the same argument that must exist for owning a gun. We all have the unalienable right to self-protection. For those of us the choose to carry a gun, concealed or open, our right to protect ourselves is beyond government control. And the weapon or magazine we believe we need is simply not any business of the government. Our right to privacy is absolute in this.

Now on private property or in a businesses the owner of the property or establishment has the right to forbid arms on the property if they so choose, and anyone concerned about their safety can go elsewhere. So while I believe an establishment like “Buffalo Wild Wings” has the right to turn away anyone who has a gun (even the 8 police officers they turned away), I don’t have to spend my money there. Which brings up an interesting dilemma for establishments that turn away those with guns. If a robber came in (with a weapon) and shot a customer who was forced to leave his (or her) weapon in the car, could the customer win a lawsuit against the restaurant because they deprived the victim the ability to protect himself?

And does Buffalo Wild Wings have insurance that would cover a huge award because law abiding customers are denied the ability to defend themselves from criminals? Or the movie theater in Colorado which also has a “no guns” policy. Isn’t there a reasonable expectation that an establishment that denies patrons the ability to protect themselves by prohibiting guns is taking responsibility for their personal safety?

But it is interesting (and frightening) watching the left argue the right to privacy exists on abortion issues yet push for a complete revocation of the right to privacy with guns.

We are already limited by law to using our guns against another person only to protect our lives or those around us. And only if we are threatened (or reasonably believe) we will lose out life.

Unlike the abortion advocates who seek exceptions for rape, incest, health of the mother, or life of the mother, those of us who are prepared to defend our lives only want the unalienable right to protect our own lives.

But perhaps liberals would understand better if we insisted on our right to privacy and exceptions for rape and incest with the pro-gun argument.

You can’t take away our unalienable right to self preservation. And if there were armed citizens at the movie theater that night, or in the school tragedy – the folks the left calls “gun nuts” – lives would have been saved.

The problem is not the “gun nuts”, it is “nuts with guns” and the liberals who love them. And you are completely missing the target.

About Tom White

Tom is a US Navy Veteran, owns an Insurance Agency and is currently an IT Manager for a Virginia Distributor. He has been published in American Thinker, currently writes for the Richmond Examiner as well as Virginia Right! Blog.

Tom lives in Hanover County, Va and is involved in politics at every level and is a Recovering Republican who has finally had enough of the War on Conservatives in progress with the Leadership of the GOP on a National Level.

8 Responses to “Gun Control: Exceptions for Rape, Incest and the Life (or Health) of the Gun Owner?”

  1. Anonymous says:

    Agree on all points – but I feel like unalienable and inalienable are the same. You’d have to use some logical jujitsu to say if it were “inalienable”, Liberals could have a field day.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. […] VA Right! – Gun Control: Exceptions for Rape, Incest and the Life (or Health) of the Gun Owner? […]

  2. […] VA Right! – Gun Control: Exceptions for Rape, Incest and the Life (or Health) of the Gun Owner? […]

  3. […] Fourth place *t* with 1 1/3 votes – VA Right! – Gun Control: Exceptions for Rape, Incest and the Life (or Health) of the Gun Owner? […]

  4. […] Fourth place *t* with 1 1/3 votes – VA Right! – Gun Control: Exceptions for Rape, Incest and the Life (or Health) of the Gun Owner? […]

  5. […] VA Right! – Gun Control: Exceptions for Rape, Incest and the Life (or Health) of the Gun Owner? […]

  6. […] Fourth place *t* with 1 1/3 votes – VA Right! -Gun Control: Exceptions for Rape, Incest and the Life (or Health) of the Gun Owner? […]

  7. […] Fourth place *t* with 1 1/3 votes – VA Right! -Gun Control: Exceptions for Rape, Incest and the Life (or Health) of the Gun Owner? […]


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

CommentLuv badge

Tom White Says:

Nothing is more conservative than a republican wanting to get their majority back. And nothing is more liberal than a republican WITH a majority.

Check out NewsMax!

Sign up for Virginia Right Once Daily Email Digest

No Spam - ever! We send a daily email with the posts of the previous day. Unsubscribe at any time.
* = required field

Submit a Blog Post!

Submit a Blog Post for our 'Boots on the Ground' feature

Click Here for Instructions on How to Submit a Post

Google Ad

Google Ad

Follow Us Anywhere!

Google Ad

Archives

Facebook Auto Publish Powered By : XYZScripts.com
%d bloggers like this: