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.