“No right is unlimited and immune from reasonable regulation.”
Imagine if the editorial was about abortion instead of guns. Read the article and everywhere firearms are mentioned, mentally replace that mention with the word “abortion”. Do you think they would write the same editorial?
I know they wouldn’t.
Once again, the CDC records deaths from firearms in 2014 at a grand total of 33,636 (including over 21,175 suicides). For comparison and contrast, Planned Parenthood noted in its own 2014 annual report that it provided “women’s health services” that ended the life of 327,653 babies.
“Mass shootings” have come to be defined in such a way to further the progressive agenda. That makes them no less horrific but statistically, they are less of an issue than death by poisoning (48,545) or automobile accidents (33,804). Firearm deaths are even significantly less of an issue (at 12,461) if you take out the suicides which are death by choice – and I might add that the progressive left supports euthanasia – I guess they just disagree with the tool used.
So why is this a front page issue for both the NYT and the President of the United States?
It is an opportunity to use emotion and sensationalization of a tragic event to disguise the progressive agenda of stripping rights from individuals. It is a covert attempt to rid society of another threat to progressive control. It is also an attempt to cause the general public to avert their eyes from the consequences of a progressive agenda in hopes that a scared public will make decisions to give up their own liberty based on feelings rather than cold reason.
This “issue” of, as our semi-retired and fully ineffective president says, “easy access to weapons of war” is illegitimate. There is no statistical validity to the argument. This is pure politics.
Because one of my missions in life is to help progressives understand their penchant for irony and hypocrisy, I took the time to re-write the front page editorial in the NYT calling for abrogation of the Second Amendment. I simply replaced references to firearms with references to abortion. If you read what follows, you will understand that this is an article that would never be written by the Times’ editorial board, much less published – but because I’m helpful like that, here it is:
All decent people feel sorrow and righteous fury about the latest slaughter of innocents, in California. Law enforcement and intelligence agencies are searching for motivations, including the vital question of how the abortions might have been connected with Planned Parenthood. That is right and proper.
But motives do not matter to the dead in California, nor did they in Colorado, Oregon, South Carolina, Virginia, Connecticut and far too many other places. The attention and anger of Americans should also be directed at the elected leaders whose job is to keep us safe but who put a higher premium on the money and political power of an industry dedicated to profiting from the unfettered spread of ever more elective abortions.
It is a moral outrage and a national disgrace that civilians can legally obtain “health services” designed to specifically kill unborn people with brutal speed and efficiency. These are weapons of a war against the unborn, barely modified from legitimate medical procedures and deliberately marketed as tools of feminist vigilantism and even moral insurrection. America’s elected leaders offer prayers for the aborted children and then, callously and without fear of consequence, reject the most basic restrictions on this weapon of mass infanticide, as they have done many times before. They distract us with arguments about the words “women’s health services”. Let’s be clear: these abortions are all, in their own ways, acts of eugenic terrorism.
Opponents of abortion are saying, as they do after every Planned Parenthood video expose, that no law can unfailingly forestall a specific abortion. That is true. They are talking, many with sincerity about the constitutional challenges to effective abortion regulation. Those challenges exist. They point out that determined women obtained abortions illegally in places like Louisiana, Mississippi, Kansas, North Dakota, and Arkansas that have strict abortion laws. Yes, they did.
But at least those states are trying. The rest of the United States is not. Worse, politicians abet would-be killers by protecting funding for Planned Parenthood, and voters allow those politicians to keep their jobs. It is past time to stop talking about halting the spread of abortions, and instead to reduce their number drastically – eliminating so large categories of such “health services.”
It is not necessary to debate the peculiar wording of Roe v. Wade with its emanations and penumbras. No right is unlimited and immune from reasonable regulation.
Certain kinds of abortions, like the elective abortions provided by Planned Parenthood and certain kinds of abortifacient drugs, must be outlawed unless in the cases of rape, incest and the health of the mother. It is possible to define those abortions in a clear and effective way and, yes, it would require Americans who to support abortion on demand to give them up for the good of their fellow citizens.
What better time than during a presidential election to show, at long last, that our nation has retained its sense of decency.
Booyah (I might have added that).