Almost every sane person in America would agree that mass murder is tragic and that something must be done. So, it appears new leadership in Richmond finally is going to take on murder by restricting who can legally own certain firearms.

Let’s put aside for the moment expanded backgrounds and “red-flag” laws removing all guns from disturbed persons. Let’s just look at restricting firearms ownership because some guns are frightening, some are ARs (although it doesn’t mean “assault rifle”), are louder than smaller ones, shoot farther, or whatever the stated justifications.

Wherever one stands on the Second Amendment — interpreted incorrectly or a basic constitutional right — what’s being addressed in Richmond about firearms ownership, if one truly focuses, is not really about preventing mass murder, or even one murder. If that were the actual reason, wouldn’t we be regulating knives, swords and other sharp objects and be agitated about misuse of fists, all of which are weapons used to murder multitudes?

No, it’s not about gun mass murder. It’s about responding to outside-of-Virginia money buying our elections, more votes in densely populated jurisdictions, guns being scary, and other such agendas. And, I might as well say it, it’s about ultimate confiscation (if unconvinced, check recent world history). Especially look at the murderous results of gun restrictions — effectively confiscation — in D.C., Baltimore, Chicago, and various other cities. Long experience shows broad limits on firearms ownership by sane, law-abiding residents do not stop mass murder, or any murder.

Now, let’s address real mass murder. Isn’t it disturbing that gun-control promoters in Richmond are usually vocal, proud, and celebratory supporters of abortion? And some endorse killing children by neglect right after live birth — such an atrocity supported by Virginia’s chief executive, a pediatrician. It’s perplexing that those consumed with removing legal firearms, allegedly to stop gun murder, are most often those who support killing the unborn.

Many argue abortion is constitutionally guaranteed. Be careful there. Abortion is not in the Constitution and clearly not guaranteed by it. Abortion (to date) is permitted by a Supreme Court decision based primarily on privacy.

Think on that a bit. Is privacy important enough to legalize mass murder? And consider the co0urt’s history. A while ago it also declared most African Americans not full people. Here’s the point: The Supremes can be, and have been, dead wrong on moral as well as constitutional issues — deadly wrong. Legal doesn’t automatically equal righteous.

Complex emotions involved in terminating an unborn life are acknowledged, especially when current law and so many encourage it. But how would it be to have elected leadership that focused its energy on ending this gigantic, daily, and real mass murder? An actual crime against humanity by abortionists, overwhelmingly committed for premeditated reasons that, for other homicides, would bring serious consequences.

Truly moral government leadership would direct its enormous resources at stopping mass murder of the unborn. Sixty million since 1973 and counting.

C.R. Torpy is a resident of Lake Frederick.

(9) comments

Ping

Oh, oh. You've touched on the holy sacrament of the left! Killing babies is ok with them. Plastic straws, though....that's a true evil they must fight.

Rattler

Again the left picking and choosing their agenda. Bias?? TDS

Spock Here

If we want to make life for all "sacred" let's concern ourselves with living, breathing, walking human beings. Currently some of those have been separated from their parents at the border, have had food stamps cut, have medical conditions that are "pre existing" and so under threat of being deemed uncoverable by insurance. Oh, the kids in Flint, MI, still do not have clean water. We can't take care of those, but sure, let's make this a serious "moral" issue about the "left" and its depravity. Y'all are really sick.

gscottanderson

Sadly, the decay of our values and morals is causing all of us to lose. Standing up for what is right will never get old and we will never "give it up". The left is going to learn that is does not have a monopoly on resistance. For example, we can judge shop too and get nation wide injunctions!

Eredmon

Thank you so much, C R Torpy. Well-stated, and appreciated. To protect a life, any life, is what it is all about. To view it differently implies other intent. Hypocrisy is the first description that comes to mind. Abortion on demand is not constitutional. It is anathema to civilization.

slowe

Pro guns and anti abortion: You guys are stuck on a losing team. Relax, give it up. Trust the woman to make the right decision about her body. Worry more about preventing gun based mass murders of our school children (legal persons) and less about aborting a fetus (NOT a person). Gun rights, like free speech, can be restricted constitutionally.

Conservative

Why don't you just move to Thailand, where your lifestyle choices are more accepted by the moral turpitude that resides there.

Buttpoo

Shut up you racist ignorant hillbilly

Ping

When does a "fetus" become a "person"?

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.