|
Full disclosure, we support the Second Amendment right and the individual decision to exercise it through gun ownership. We also understand that there are times where an abortion is justified (danger to the mother’s life due to complications, quality of life for the baby due to sever development issues in the womb, etc.) therefore, we support the right of the individual to make their own decision regarding an abortion. Having said that, we know that each have the potential to cause death and the individual responsible for it (justified or not) will have to live with that decision, along with any possible repercussions from it. According to the data, abortions are responsible for far more deaths or the potential for death when used, than guns are. 619,591 - Induced Abortion in 2018 [source 1] 39,523 - Gun Deaths in 2019 [source 2] Our issue is not with either one, but with how politicians apply their “concern” to them unequally. For instance, in a statement released on January 22nd, 2021 by President Biden and Vice President Harris (full statement down below), they address their commitment to protecting the right of people to have an abortion and making it more available to people “regardless of income, race, zip code, health insurance status, or immigration status” [source 3]. I am very glad to hear that they are committed to protecting the rights of...some people anyway. Clearly, they are not as concerned about the death caused by abortion, which is interesting because in almost every instance, abortion leads to death. What It sounds like they are more concerned with is the individual right to make the decision to have an abortion, not the almost certain death caused by it. Applying their own logic to guns, they are on the opposite side of the spectrum. They want to restrict or ban guns because in some instances they cause death. What it sounds like here is, they are more concerned about the possibility of death, not the individual right to make the decision to own a gun. Now that we’ve established their concern for death, along with the individual right to make their own decision is not applied equally, my question is why? Since both topics concern the individual rights of a person and the potential for death, each topic should be able to be compared fairly on those two parameters. Since that is not the case here, I wonder what is the real motivation to further restrict or ban guns? Is it because it’s a political agenda? Is it because they want to deprive Americans from making the individual decision to exercise their Second Amendment right? Because guns are scary? Because “gun control” is a “feel good” topic? I do not know what the real reason is, but to me, the reason is not about the preservation of life, which they push. My ConclusionEvidence of their (President Biden and Vice President Harris) hypocrisy can be found in past statements discussing their concern for death caused by guns or that gun violence is a national health crisis/epidemic. My question to you sir and ma’am, how is approximately 39,523 death caused by guns any more of a health crisis or epidemic than approximately 619,591 deaths caused by abortions? Gun deaths in 2019 equal approximately 6.4% of the number of induced abortions for 2018. It should be noted, out of the 619,591 induced abortions it is reasonable to assume that some of them did not result in death or the fetus was no longer viable, so the cause of death might be slightly lower than that number. My opinion is, just like most politicians, they are full of crap. They have a specific agenda they are pushing in order to stay relevant and liked by the people who are most likely going to vote for them again in the future. To be fair, this is nothing specific to just them. This is politics and politicians on both sides of the political isle do the same thing. Matter of fact, more times than not, people decide who they are going to vote for based on the alignment of that politicians views with their own. There are plenty of politicians I support and plenty that I do not support, and even more that I think are worthless because they form their “beliefs” on what is trending at the time. My issue is not so much with politicians or what they stand for, but how they apply cause or “justification” against or for certain topics. If a politician is pushing to further restrict or ban the rights of the American people on the basis of preservation of life, then they better apply that concern consistently across the board. I get it, these two topics are not the same so it is very difficult to compare them equally, but they are similar as both require the right to make a personal decision which could result in the possibility of death. In my opinion, regardless of your stance or position, if you support one more than the other, then you should support the individual right to make a decision on either. Thank you for reading this article. We hope it was informative. If so, please share it with others and don't forget to leave a comment below!
- Intuitive Defense -
"TRAIN. ACT. LIVE." Related Articles
Sources
Statement Release by President Biden and Vice President Harris
2 Comments
This statement has less to do with the inauguration or the security associated with it and more to do with the double standard of protection that has been present for many years. More specifically, the right of protection across the board and it being applied or “allowed” to be applied evenly. Whether you are rich or poor, elected or not, your right to protection does not increase or decrease. However, the extent of protection may increase as a privilege due to social standing or elected position, but the basic right of protection naturally granted to all people remains steadfast. It is very interesting that politicians have gone to incredible lengths by bringing in thousands of people armed with guns to ensure their safety and protection during the January 20th Presidential Inauguration. This of course is on top of the already thousands of people stationed/living in the DC area who provide armed security on a daily basis. To be fair though, I am not privy to the intelligence or credibility of threats they may have to justify this show of force. There could be legitimate concerns of violence there at the Capitol or in the D.C. area. I also acknowledge and understand the level of security needed to protect high profile people. This is even more exaggerated with the level of security needed when pertaining to the President of the United States. Having said that, a lot of politicians who have supported and encouraged this escalation of force in D.C. are at the same time actively working to limit, restrict, or prevent the American people from owning guns for their own protection. That me say this again, but word it a little differently. They (politicians) are calling for more guns for their protection at the same time they (politicians) are calling for less guns for our (American people) protection. Is our right to protection not the same as theirs (politicians)? The American people do not have the ability to call in thousands of military or federal law-enforcement personnel any time we are faced with a threat(s). For instance, if the crime rate goes up in my neighborhood or there is the potential for it to go up, I cannot call in 15,000 troops as a show of force. Instead, the option I’m left with, just like most Americans, is the ability to call local law enforcement during or after the incident (assuming I’m not dead). Unfortunately, many politicians have recently supported the idea of defunding the police which in turn, can reduce their ability to prevent crime, along with their reaction times when crime is present. Without question, this negatively impacts the American people. My last line of defense, along with millions of other Americans is the right to bear arms (for now anyway). I rely on this right (not privilege) of gun ownership (handgun, shotgun, and/or rifle) as an effective method of protection for me, my family, and others in the event of a threat or the possibility of it. Before going any further, allow me to clarify. I am not in support of or condone the violence used at the Capitol where people got hurt or killed. Similarly, I did not support or condone the violence used for many months in American cities/towns/neighborhoods where rioters hurt and killed people, along with damaged or destroyed businesses, homes, and government property. In some cases, burnt them to the ground and deprive people of their ability to earn a living. What I do support is the ability for all American people, elected or not, to have the same right to protection. If you, a politician, have the means to call in the military because of a potential threat, then I, not a politician, should have the means of gun ownership (handgun, shotgun, and/or rifle) because of a potential threat. Oddly enough, the American people’s last line of defense (individual gun ownership) is the politicians first line of defense (other people with guns). I know that these situations are not the same, but they are similar as the end result is protection. Whether it is protection at the Capitol or protection at my home, the purpose is the same regardless of location. If the politicians have the means of protection through the action of others using guns, then why are Americans who have the means of protection through their own guns looked down upon? In some instances, these same gun owning Americans are verbally belittled and told by politicians that they cannot be trusted to own a gun. In other words, these same Americans are told by their representatives that they cannot be trusted with their Second Amendment right. I hope that pattern does not continue with other rights... In closing, the elected official is being protected by a person with a gun, just as I am protecting myself with a gun. At the end of the day, the means of protection through the use of a gun is the same. The only difference is the person holding the gun. Again, I ask, is our right to protection not the same as theirs (politicians)? It seems when something affects the politicians, their actions (the politicians) are quick and justified and tend to be for the betterment of themselves. On the flip side, when something affects the American people, their actions (the politicians) are slow and questionable and tend to be against the betterment of the people. Case in point, further restriction of our right and ability for protection. It’s pretty obvious to see which group thinks is more important the other.  Image curtsy of Star Tribune Thank you for reading this article. We hope it was informative. If so, please share it with others and don't forget to leave a comment below!
- Intuitive Defense -
"TRAIN. ACT. LIVE." Related Articles
H.R. 127 is a bill introduced by Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX-18) on January 4, 2021 which seeks to further restrict the Second Amendment right of the America people. Some people might be familiar with Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee from past statements where she showed her ignorance about firearms when she made absurd correlations. It is also imperative to mention that she is not a subject matter expert in this area, but yet, she is spearheading this bill. This bill does not necessarily prevent people from owning firearms, but it makes the whole process more difficult, time consuming, costly, and less private. In my opinion, this will not make anyone safer. In fact, I think it will hurt people because criminals tend to prey on people who do not have the means or ability to effectively protect themselves or their family. A gun is that means, especially in the uncertain times we are in now with crime rates continuing to rise across the country, mostly due to failed policies and practices of elected officials. Here are some of the objectives this bill seeks to accomplish:
This bill will only negatively affect gun owners who use their gun, magazines, and ammunition for sport shooting, hunting, target shooting, and defensive applications. For instance, requiring a license for gun ownership is infringement of a right. Licenses are used for privileges like driving and therefore can be revoked at any point in time for any reason. A right is a right, not a privilege. Another way this negatively affects gun owners is banning magazines over 10 rounds. Almost all semi-automatic handguns and rifles come from the factory with magazines that hold more than 10 rounds. So current gun owners who have magazines that fall within this ban will be forced to discard their own property which was legally bought before implementation of this bill. They would be expected to do this without compensation or due process of assets forfeiture. I think it is good advice for gun owners to seek additional training, but it should be voluntary, not mandatory. If people are ok with mandatory training to use this right, then I guess they’d be ok with the government making training mandatory to use other rights, as in, you can only use your freedom of religion after going through government training. Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, along with other politicians seek to make it a requirement that the American people who choose to exercise their Second Amendment right undergo psychological examinations and apply for a license, along with providing additional information in order to use one of their rights. If this bill passes, hang onto your butts because it will only be a matter of time until politicians attempt to apply these same requirements to our other rights. Imagine being forced by the government to undergo mandatory training to use your First Amendment right. Imagine being forced by the government to apply for a license before you can use your Fourth Amendment (protection against unreasonable search and seizure) right. Imagine being forced by the government to undergo a mental evaluation before you could use your Ninth Amendment (the rights that are enumerated cannot infringe upon rights that are not listed in the Constitution) right. H.R. 127 is filled with “feel good” stuff that, at a quick glance, seems to be “common sense”, but when you break them down, it sets a dangerous precedent for our other rights and does nothing to “protect” people. If the objectives in this bill really work to provide “safety” to people, then cities with very strict gun laws would theoretically have the lowest amount of gun related injuries and/or deaths. It is reasonable to assume, if this bill passes, we will see crime rates continue to climb. Do not sacrifice your rights or the rights of others for the illusion of “safety”. Whether you use your Second Amendment right or not, it is yours to use or not us if you so choose. Do not let your ability to choose be taken from you. It is not the job of government to limit our rights, it is their job to protect them! Contact your representatives and let them know it is their job to protect our rights, not infringe on them. Let them know H.R. 127 is not good for the American people. It is important that we all do this, even if you are not actively using your Second Amendment right. Just because you’re not using it does not mean it is not yours. If one right falls, they all fall. - Link to the Bill -  Thank you for reading this article. We hope it was informative. If so, please share it with others and don't forget to leave a comment below
- Intuitive Defense -
"TRAIN. ACT. LIVE." Related Articles
Following January 6th, 2021, many people, groups, media outlets, and companies have classified the speech [source 1] given by President Trump at the Save America Rally as “hate speech” and/or labeled it as rhetoric or a “call to action” which incited violence that led to the breach of the Capitol. I have listened to and read the transcript (at the same time) of the President’s speech from that day. I have done this twice just to make sure I did not overlook anything the first time. There was nothing in that speech that I heard or read that would lead a rational person to assume the use of violence was the message. It is my opinion that if someone or a group of people were “compelled” to use violence or went there with the specific intent to create chaos, that idea or action was a forethought before the day or event even started. Something else to consider is, there is a probability that some or most of the people who used violence that day may not have been present during the speech as it was held near the White House, which is approximately 2 miles away (+/- depending on the route). The speech however did contain information with supporting figures on how President Trump believes the election, which was conducted on November 3rd, 2020, was filled with fraud and/or had fraudulent elements that ultimately lead to his victory being stolen from him. The election itself is a whole other topic, but President Trump, along with many millions of Americans believe there was an element of fraud present within the election process. Even though some media outlets and other people have stated “there is no evidence of widespread voter fraud that could change the outcome of the 2020 election” that statement in and of itself recognizes that there was some fraud, just not widespread or maybe not enough to change the outcome of the election. Therefore, the accusations of the President’s “baseless” claims of voter fraud are not necessarily baseless since there is recognition of some type of fraud (maybe not widespread) by media outlets, Department of Justice, and other people. Bottom line, him (President Trump) or anyone else are free to believe and discuss this openly or in private as it does not violate the 1st Amendment, just as those who do not believe this are free to do the same. I brought all that up because some people, along with some media outlets suggest that it was the “baseless” claims of voter fraud that fueled the violence there at the Capital. Since it is widely accepted by so many people that there was some voter fraud (maybe not widespread) associated with the 2020 elections, it is reasonable to assume that that information alone, whether on a large scale or a small scale, would not be enough to incite violence. I have heard or seen some people suggest that a “call to action” or “use of violence” was inferred or implied by the President. Based on his mannerisms, along with his vocal tones/inflections, and certain words that were or were not used, I simply do not see where, how, or why a levelheaded person would suggest that the use of violence was inferred or implied. Typically, when an individual or individuals are attempting to rile up a crowd or group for the specific purpose of carrying out certain tasks or actions, they use intentional verbiage with the hope of creating an emotional response. Commonly, that verbiage will have elements of the desired task or action within it. For instance, if I wanted to encourage a group of people to destroy something and I had their undivided attention, I would use words associated with or closely related to my desired actions, which would be destruction. If I wanted that group to successfully carry out the action of destruction, it would not be in my best interest to use words that would promote something opposite of that. For instance, peace or peacefully. Words like that would be counterproductive. Lastly, if I really wanted to sell this, I need to put on a show. I have to be very emotionally charged, I have to be loud, my actions need to be quick (possibly somewhat violent), they have to see that I am just as upset (or whatever other emotion) as they are. They need to know that I will be there with them leading the charge and taking part in the destruction. Of course, just like anything, that is not always the case. Sometimes people can get a crowd going with the energy of an old shoe, but even then, there is still specific verbiage used. Understanding that, I went through the transcript looking for specific verbiage that would be needed or at a very minimum, make sense to use that would help rile up a crowd or incite a riot. The list of words directly below this sentence were not mentioned and/or used in the President’s speech:
The following words were mentioned and/or used in the President’s speech, but they are used in such a way that the context is not applicable to “a call to action” or “a call for violence”:
The following word was mentioned and/or used in the President’s speech:
My ConclusionAgain, after going through this information repeatedly, I cannot see how a rational person could take such a negative connotation away from this, even if they do not like or support President Trump. In my opinion, specific to this speech, you do not have to like or support someone to be honest about a situation. I find it very difficult to believe this speech was the motivation for the violence at the Capitol. I also do not believe that this speech justified the actions of some organizations to sensor the President, but that too is another topic. My main focus here was the speech and whether or not the President should be held solely accountable for the actions of some based on the words here and in my opinion, no. I think linking cause-and-effect here is a stretch and a bias one at that. Thank you for reading this article. We hope it was informative. If so, please share it with others and don't forget to leave a comment below!
- Intuitive Defense -
"TRAIN. ACT. LIVE." Sources 1. President Trump's Save America Rally Speech: CLICK HERE FOR SOURCE
|
ArticlesOur goal is to provided accurate, informative content on current events, guns, training, and other topics. Categories
All
Archives
August 2024
|
RSS Feed
