Anti-abortion advocates call themselves “Pro-Life.” They insist that a fetus has a “right to life.” There’s more than a little debate on that point, but not at nj.com . . .
Check out Trumpcare’s Rx: Unwanted babies and no health insurance and the last paragraph of N.J. anti-abortion marchers turn out with Trump on their side. And yet this is the same news organization that writes . . .
What will no longer fly in this country are NRA lackeys who neglect public safety as children are being slaughtered, while advancing a guns-everywhere agenda that excludes no one – domestic abusers, felons, terror suspects, the mentally ill, bar patrons, churchgoers, students and teachers.
Their constituents no longer want lectures defending the right to own assault rifles from weather-vane politicians who take NRA blood money and refuse to defend the right to live without fear. Or live, period.
In On guns, N.J. Congressman’s rhetoric doesn’t match his horrid record the editorial board reckons it’s OK to degrade and destroy Garden Staters’ natural, civil and constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms because it threatens their “right to live.” A right that somehow doesn’t extend to the unborn.
Hang on. Before addressing that apparent hypocrisy, note that there is no legal “right to life.”
Yes, the Declaration of Independence acknowledges “the right to life….” But it’s a declaration, not a legal document. It no more codified the “right to life” than it did “the pursuit of happiness.”
The U.S. Constitution makes no mention of a right to life. No surprise there; the government commits executions on both the state and federal level (e.g., Timothy McVeigh).
Ironically, the Second Amendment is the closest Americans get to a legal “right to life.” The prohibition against government regulation of a citizen’s right to keep and bear arms establishes their right (and ability) to use the best possible tools to defend their life. And thus protect it.
So the “right to life” is a moral construct. And a pretty good one, too. While we wait to see how someone can be both pro-abortion and anti-gun, one thing’s for certain: there is no right to live without fear.
That’s a monumentally preposterous idea. Impractical, subjective and incredibly dangerous.
Codifying a “right to live without fear” would create a fascist state. The state could ban just about anything as fear-inducing: movies, TV shows, textbooks, protests, even harsh words…this blog. Yes, the First Amendment would be the first to go.
After that, pit bulls, pet rats, spiders and snakes? Muslims? NRA T-shirts? The NRA? I bet nj.com and the rest of the civilian disarmament industrial complex would have to work hard not to agree with that one (until the state banned them).
If you think about it, suggesting that Americans have a right to live without fear affirms their gun rights. Gun ownership does an excellent job of reducing Americans’ fear of criminals, crazies and terrorists. Not to mention statists who justify homicide of any sort, kind or description.