|
Letter: Terminating pregnancy like mass shooting?
Op-Ed · February 22, 2018
Just some questions:
The Second Amendment is our second-shortest amendment.
It could have been much shorter, and simply declared that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.
That would have been pretty clear, right? Everyone has the right to carry, any weapon, any where, anytime. So why did they make the sentence longer than that?
“The well-regulated militia” part was just decoration? Why not say militia, without the well-regulated phrase? How might their wording have been different if they intended to have standing militias and a standing national army?
“In order to form a more perfect union,” the state delegates under our first national document, The Articles of Confederation, gathered together to rewrite those Articles.
The Second Amendment of the Constitution is a condensed version of Article VI, which fleshes out in much more detail that militias are in lieu of a permanent standing national guard in each state, must be well-regulated, and the arms and ammunition kept in a public facility, not in personal homes. A personal right to carry arms is not in there either.
This “right” to defend ourselves from perceived dangers has killed (this time) 17 teenagers. You can feel the fear and observe the physical pain they experienced in the videos these children have shared on social media. Their friends, families, coworkers, teammates, surviving classmates and teachers are scarred for each of those lifetimes. The rippling effect of this will continue to grow and mar relationships for generations.
If you think that is acceptable, why the opposite view on women, making personal decisions that affect only themselves and their own potential offspring? Almost 99 percent of these unfinished “babies” are aborted before 20 weeks and are not developed enough to be aware of any fears, pains, suffering. There are no grieving friends, families, teachers, no relationships at all. There is no affect on anyone else, or the community in general. Yet you think unrelated government officials should decide what perceived dangers to an unknown individual woman are acceptable? Why should the government have any say here?
Do right-to-lifers really think terminating pregnancy is the same as murdering children? That women can’t discern their own perceived dangers?
Do one-issue voters going R for “pro-life” not understand that a lack of gun regulation is anti-life, anti-Christian, anti-logic, damaging our social contracts beyond repair?
We, the people, in poll, after poll, have asked for sensible gun regulations. The original intent of our Constitution supports that path. Political leaders ignore the grievances of the people, which is one of the “government tyranny” descriptions the Founding Fathers complained about the British doing.
So everyone still has their guns, yet tyranny has arrived anyway?
Laura Twing
Tipton
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
