So with the recent DC handgun ban ruling by the Supreme Court and the resulting glee on the right (despite the court continuing to allow “reasonable restrictions”), I began thinking.

Why is it that the right is so solid on this right and so absolutely opposed to a city or municipality with unique crime and violence problems banning handguns, while turning around and displaying the exact OPPOSITE behavior when it comes to a woman getting pregnant and deciding whether or not they want to have that child?

On one hand (guns) it is government hands off!

On the other hand (abortion) it is government please step in and BAN something we don’t like!

Anyone else see a consistency problem here? How about intellectual honesty? There is none.

The same could probably be said with gay marriage. We don’t like it? BAN! We do like it? CONSTITUTION!

While they want people to have the free will to protect themselves and their property by being able to “bear arms” and trust that they’ll do the right thing, they don’t want such free will when it comes to a person’s sexual partner or baby.

Where are the freedom lovers and Constitutional scholars when it comes to these other two things?

Personally, I think people should be allowed to have guns given certain reasonable restrictions and I’m glad the court ruled in precisely this way. I think hunting and self defense are quite reasonable given the person is willing and able to get trained to a certain point and becomes proficient in the course of having a weapon. I do side more with the dissenting view that the decision should be forced more locally when it comes to attempting to provide for the common good. In no way should that be framed as liberals “wanting to take away your guns”. That’s pure fiction only pushed by the wingiest of wingnut attempting to use fear again as a political tool. Cold dead fingers and clinging and all. Bunch of BS.

But it does leave me wondering where these types are when other individual rights (like picking your mate and marrying them and deciding whether or not you want to carry a baby to term)? Where are they then? I’d argue one reason for a complete meltdown on the right is the absence of this consistency. The left has been guilty of the same. Maybe this is a point around which we can come together.

I’ll protect the rights you hold dear if you’ll agree to protect those I value as well.

Deal?

Evangelize!
  • Print
  • email
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
Tagged with:
 
  • http://www.bloggerinterrupted.com tim russo

    the conservative right is obsessed with genitalia. that’s the reason for the inconsistency. end of story.

  • http://snowe.livejournal.com Snowe

    Several feminist blogs have made the point that it’s not about babies (because they don’t really give a shit about born children) it’s about controlling women’s sexuality and limiting their freedom. That’s why no national pro-life groups promote contraception, comprehensive sex education, or a social safety net…all things that can lower the rate of unwanted pregnancies. The only thing they are consistent about is wanting the sluts to keep their legs closed unless it’s time to breed Jesus’ new army.

  • http://www.buckeyestateblog.com Nick D

    Eric, IMO anyone who is really truly pro-life would oppose guns and gun violence, along with poverty, war, the death penalty, euthanasia, etc. etc. One thing I’d like to start doing is challenging these people and letting them know that it takes 5 criteria to be pro-life and they’re only meeting one or maybe two.

  • J-Dog

    I was listening to Nina Totenberg on NPR this morning and thought of this thread. The NPR commentators were discussing the end of the US Supreme Court’s term, and the number of 5-4 and 6-3 votes on several issues. Among them were the overturn of the DC handgun law, the overturn of a federal campaign finance law, the overturn of the President’s and Congress’s position on Gitmo detainee rights, overturned a state’s law on executing child rapists, and rejected a judge and jury’s position on punitive damages in the Exxon Valdez case. So, the United States Supreme Court, has attacked and overturned the judgment of:

    1. The President
    2. Congress
    3. A municipality (DC)
    4. A state (the child rape issue)

    in the last two weeks alone.

    So, is the conservative concept of judicial restraint completely dead? The justices in the majority in these cases are the same ones who routinely criticize FDR/New Deal and the Warren Court for Big Government and Judicial Activism. However, is this not a case of the pot calling the kettle black? Aren’t Roberts, Scalia, Thomas & Alito being judicial activists now? What a bunch of hypocrites!

    Here is the NPR link to the Totenberg stream:
    http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=92278859

  • http://plunderbund.com Joseph

    You are totally correct, J-Dog.

    Except it’s only considered judicial activism when judges overturn gay marriage bans and remove big statues carved with bible passages from court rooms.

  • J-Dog

    Ah, so it really IS a hypocrisy thing with these guys! (Note my sarcasm for the record, counselor!)

Looking for something?

Use the form below to search the site:


Still not finding what you're looking for? Drop a comment on a post or contact us so we can take care of it!