The Briefing Room
Exclusive Content => Editorials => Topic started by: ABX on October 03, 2017, 08:02:57 pm
-
Can someone please explain to this to me, why ownership of assault-type weapons, as used by this latest lunatic, is a "right" enshrined by the Constitution, but healthcare for his many victims is merely a "privilege"?
Undoubtedly you’ve seen this question come up on Facebook or other social media in the past few days after the shooting in Las Vegas. Your first reaction may be to just blow it off or ignore it as liberal hysterics in a way to politicize the latest tragedy. However, in doing so, you are missing a great teaching opportunity on the core foundation of Conservative and Libertarian philosophy and are allowing the discussion of the subject to be dominated by the left’s terms. So let’s discuss a better way to handle this question.
The initial reaction to this should jump out that the framing of this question is incorrect in its nature and is created to lead those trying to answer it down a rabbit hole of the questioner’s choosing. So let’s look a bit deeper into this.
----------------------------------
First, let’s reframe the question.
Does one have the right to defend their own life, liberty and property and does one have the right to take care of their own health? In both cases, the answer is absolutely yes. A right is something that you have ownership of as an individual. You have the right to your beliefs. You have the right to defend yourself and your liberty. You have the right to make the personal decisions you need to make to take care of your own health.
----------------------------------
Now let’s reframe the question again. Does one have the right to a free or subsidized AR-15 assault rifle or other firearm and does one have the right to free or subsidized health care or health insurance?. In both cases, based on the framing of this question, no you do not.
A right does not require the sacrifice, property, or service of another person. If something is provided or offered, such as a property or action, then that is not a right, but a commodity or service. If one were to demand that the property of service of another person is a right you must have, then you now own the services and property of that person. The person providing the service, be it a doctor or a taxpayer subsidizing it, is not owned by you or society. They can choose not to provide the service and you should not have the right to force them to provide that service. Instead, because it is a service, in a free market you can negotiate with that person what they are willing to exchange their service for you from. Some, may be more than happy to provide that service for you for free (subsidized by themselves), and in our healthcare market, we have those in the forms of services like St. Jude’s Hospitals for example. You may also freely choose to group together with other people and split the costs to pay for the service. However, that is a commercial choice you are making, it is not a right you can demand others take part in.
----------------------------------
So when faced with the initial question, let’s answer the initial, poorly framed question the best we can.
You have the absolute right to self-defense and to take actions to take care of your own health. You have neither the right to demand someone provide an assault rifle (or any other tool) to you or the right to demand a doctor provide a service to you or someone else pay for it for you. As soon as you involve another party, it is a service, not a right.
-
The more relevant question is do I deserve firearms at a below market price subsidized by the "wealthy"?
Another question would be if the answer to preventing violence committed by lunatics like Paddock is more gun laws then wouldn't the answer to preventing violence committed by fanatics like Syed Farook & Omar Lateen more laws regulating Mosques?
-
..and I will add in one more point to this. What about so-called 'assault rifles' and other weapons like this?
I would simply ask the question; Why would a free citizen of the United States not have the right to own the same weapons our own government provides to rebels, governments, and cartels all around the world? If our government provides these to countries and cartels that are an enemy of the citizens of this country, why shouldn't the citizens of this country have the same choice our government gives hostile nations?
As noted in the Federalist Papers, the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is that citizens not ever be forced as subjects by outside forces, they should have the right to be armed as any outside force or entity, especially those we arm as a nation. In the US, the citizen is the ultimate sovereign, not the state.
This doesn't mean the government have the right to make someone build and provide to you, but you should have that choice to engage in the commerce to allow you to access said means of defense.
-
@AbaraXas
Excellent. Thank you!
-
@AbaraXas
Excellent. Thank you!
Feel free to steal any and all of this if you see people ask this on social media.
-
@AbaraXas Well put, and thank you! :patriot:
-
@Hoodat had a great answer on another thread:
Quote from: Suppressed on Today at 01:39:18 PM
Just a heads-up... some of the lines the Left is starting to push with this:
"Conservatives say this murderer had a RIGHT to own a gun,
but the people he hit don't have a RIGHT to healthcare."
The murderer had a right TO OWN a gun.
The people have a right TO OWN healthcare.
-------------
The murderer did not have a right to a gun (i.e. supplied at the expense of someone else).
The people do not have a right to health care (i.e. supplied at the expense of someone else at the point of a gun)
Quote from: Suppressed on Today at 01:39:18 PM
"Some of the heroes who protected others and took bullets themselves might have to go bankrupt because of our healthcare system."
Only the ones stuck with Obamacare policies and their huge deductibles.
Quote from: Suppressed on Today at 01:39:18 PM
Be prepared to counter these.
Anyone with a functioning brain and a love for truth is adequately prepared to counter those.
http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,283881.msg1471404.html#msg1471404
-
Since SCOTUS decided that Big Giv can force us to purchase a product, healthcare, then using the title's argument all citizens should be forced to purchase a firearm.
-
People who believe this nonsense can never be talked out of believing it, in my experience.
Anyway, the guy had a right to own the guns, not use them on innocent people. People have a right to buy health insurance, not a right to force someone else to pay for it.
-
Thanks, @AbaraXas. I'm linking some friends to this page.
-
The more relevant question is do I deserve firearms at a below market price subsidized by the "wealthy"?
Actually it would be exciting to have my guns subsidized by Oprah, Martin Sheen and the Obama's.
-
Bumping this. Thank you.