Pages Menu
Categories Menu

Posted by on Mar 18, 2013 in News, Politics, Rants | 0 comments

His Abortion is Her Gun Control

His Abortion is Her Gun Control

What a month! The three-month anniversary of Sandy Hook, a lecture on the constitution by our Congressonal clown du jour Ted Cruz, and a few days in bed sick with nothing but time on my hands to make some sense of our gun control debate. I think like most issues, it’s a matter of language. A simple matter of words.

 

Like abortion, where the opposing sides don’t even speak the same language. Are you pro-LIFE? My God, who isn’t. To be otherwise would be pro-death, and that would be bad, wouldn’t it? Or perhaps you’re pro-CHOICE? My God, who isn’t, I mean we’re Americans, right? Freedom and all. And that’s the problem right there. Two completely different things set against each other as equal. Conservatives use emotional words like “Life” and “Children” on a topic that is essentially about civil rights: the right to privacy, mainly. And Liberals use logical words like “Choice” and “Freedom” to describe what they see as an infringement upon their civil rights. See the problem? How untenable that conversation becomes when two people are yelling at each other, arguing two completely different things? Maybe that’s why we can’t compromise on this one—no common ground can be found when one side, for example, spends millions of dollars to repeal Obamacare because they believe in a smaller, more limited Government that they fear is being tyrannical by infringing upon our liberty and invading that most private space between them and their doctor; but who at the exact same time is also spending millions of dollars to repeal Roe V Wade because they believe in a larger, more unlimited government that they believe is being moral by infringing upon our liberty and invading that most private space between their women and their women’s doctors.

Abortion is a medical service that legislators vote against by passing laws to prevent abortion access. Hence the term anti-abortion. A pro-Life law, by definition, would be advocating for a better life, i.e. higher minimum wage, pre-K schooling guarantees, stricter environmental regulations, universal health care—these things are pro-LIFE. Banning access to abortions is not pro-life, it is anti-abortion. But the opposition doesn’t call itself pro-abortion, because they really aren’t. Women don’t walk around hoping all of us have a bunch of abortions and soon! No, they aren’t pro-abortion any more than the conservatives are. They’re pro-choice. They don’t speak in terms of killings or children because that’s the not main issue. The issue is whether or not our government should be allowed to take away our constitution, our freedom to choose, our right to privacy, our very Liberty!

What’s that got to do with guns?

No different with guns. I recently told someone that Ted Cruz was an idiot for his questions regarding the Constitution. I was subsequently chastised by this person for being against civil rights. While I’m thinking about 20 children slaughtered by 151 shots in under 5 minutes with an AR-15 and five 30 round magazines; how a child or two might still be alive if the shooter had to reload 14 times instead of just 4; if the shooter had to use a handgun or shotgun instead of the AR-15, how many fewer children would have been murdered; the Rosa Parks of the Southern White Males is thinking his civil rights will be taken away if he can’t have Second Amendment access to every deadly weapon ever made. See, his debate is the abortion debate: it’s essentially about words. Let me show you how. Replace the words “abortion” et al with “guns” et al in the above, see if it makes sense. Here we go.

Justice?

Justice?

Like gun control, where the two opposing sides don’t even speak the same language. Are you pro-LIFE? My God, who isn’t. To be otherwise would be pro-death, and that would be bad, wouldn’t it? Or perhaps you’re pro-Civil Rights? My God, who isn’t, I mean we’re Americans, right? Freedom and all. And that’s the problem right there. Two completely different things being set against each other as equal. Liberals use emotional words like “Life” and “Children” on a topic that is essentially about civil rights: the right to privacy, mainly. And Conservatives use logical words like “Choice” and “Freedom” to describe what they see as an infringement upon their civil rights. See the problem? How untenable that conversation becomes when two people are yelling at each other arguing two completely different things? Maybe that’s why we can’t compromise on this one—no common ground can be found when one side, for example, spends millions of dollars to repeal gun restrictions because they believe in protecting themselves from a Government that they fear is being tyrannical by infringing upon our liberty and invading that most private space between them and their right to bear arms; but who at the exact same time is also spending millions of dollars to grow that Government’s defense budget because they believe in a larger, unlimited government that is being moral by infringing upon other nations that are not like us.

The right to bear arms is a constitutional amendment that legislators vote against by passing laws to prevent firearms access. Hence the term anti-second amendment. A pro-Life law, by definition, would be advocating for a better life, i.e. higher minimum wage, pre-K schooling guarantees, stricter environmental regulations, universal health care—these things are pro-LIFE. Banning access to guns is not pro-Life, it’s anti-death. But the opposition doesn’t call itself pro-death, because they really aren’t. Conservatives don’t walk around hoping all of us kill a bunch of school kids and soon! No, they aren’t pro-death any more than the liberals are. They’re pro-choice. They don’t speak in terms of killings or children because that’s the not main issue. The issue is whether or not our government should be allowed to take away our constitution, our freedom to choose, our right to privacy, our very Liberty!

Now you know

Words matter. Perspective matters. And at the end of the day, while you may want to save the unborn from the doctor’s scalpel, I want to protect a woman’s right to privacy, to choose, to be as free as me. While you may be ok with just a couple more kids dying so that our Second Amendment rights aren’t infringed upon, I’m not. It’s not perfect, but it’s close. And the more we confront our emotional conflicts and logical interpretations, the more perfect it will be. And that’s all I suppose we can ever hope for. Not perfection. But a more perfect union.

 

 

 

 

0 comments