Share This Article with a Friend!

Assault on America, Day 240: Which would save more lives, new gun laws or banning abortion?

David Hogg Gun Control Plan
“If we can save one life with law x, it would be worth it!” said unnamed liberal politician y when confronted with a call to specify reasons why passing a bill severely restricting constitutional right z was essential. In this fictional scenario a teary-eyed audience applauds while cable news hosts commend the “brave” pol for standing up to the [insert conservative organization here] lobby that’s working overtime to generate grassroots support to oppose the legislation.

In the abstract it makes sense to pass laws bent on protecting lives, property and the pursuit of happiness. Thomas Jefferson wrote about these sacred principles in the Declaration of Independence all those years ago, and the do-gooders amongst us frequently cite his famous words when working to roll back otherwise unassailable rights to putatively save future victims from harm.

Naturally, anyone who points out that politician y’s proposal may not work as he or she intends and promises is branded as unfeeling, uncaring and probably racist by the politically correct, virtue-shaming reactionary sort. Forget the facts -- who needs those when talking about utopian dreams of a perfect socialistic society?

Gun control immediately comes to mind in this scenario. Every time there’s a mass shooting perpetrated by a manifesto-scribing nut on the fringe of humanity liberals and Democrats rush to the nearest microphone or camera to lecture conservatives and Republicans as to how valuable it would be to act immediately -- or sooner -- and preserve at least a single life from extinction.

Heck, Parkland Florida opportunist -- and anti-gun rights “advocate” -- David Hogg said another stupid thing this week in furtherance of his mission, which of course earned him prominent mention in establishment news circles. Douglas Ernst reported at The Washington Times, “Gun control activist David Hogg wants supporters to deliver his dead body to the National Rifle Association’s front doorstep if he is ever fatally shot.

“The Parkland shooting survivor who told ‘older’ Democrats to ‘move the f— off the plate’ in 2018 has new plans to forward his agenda: hashtag activism #MyLastShot and the macabre dumping of his body at the NRA’s Virginia headquarters.

“’If you want your photo published if you die from gun violence tweet about it so it’s on the record with #MyLastShot,’ he began a series of tweets Aug. 25. ‘I’ve said this before but I’m going to say it again for the record. If I die from gun violence I want my photo published, there will be those that say you are politicizing tragedy — They are wrong, not doing anything to stop it this violence is politicizing tragedy. #MyLastShot. In the event I am killed, organize, mobilize and get the Peace Plan passed and put my body on the NRAs doorstep in Fairfax, VA.’”

There’s been a ton of liberal chatter lately about President Trump being mentally ill, but if telling the world you want your lifeless corpse “dumped” at the NRA doesn’t qualify as insanity, what does?

Aside from the considerable practical problems associated with carrying out Hogg’s final wish -- if his end ever did come through a bullet (what if it’s self-inflicted?) -- would the authorities assent to creating a health hazard by allowing a dead body to remain exposed in a public place? What about all the kids who would see it? Doesn’t Hogg care about the mental damage he’d inflict on the innocent?

Such is the way of today’s radical left. Hogg is but one of perhaps millions of attention-seeking sensationalized idiots who make absurd public statements expecting to be taken earnestly. Ernst’s story included details of Hogg’s group’s latest legislative demands (for gun registration and licensing) and then noted how the Florida teen ultimately hopes to make change on the inside of the system by being elected to Congress (when he’s old enough, six years hence).

Conservatives -- and especially gun owners -- would welcome Hogg in the House because he’d make such an a-- of himself he’d likely raise millions of dollars for pro-Second Amendment causes just through prominently featuring his floor speeches in interest group ads. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (who’s ten years older than Hogg) fulfills the same function now on immigration and environmental issues (among others), so why not have a snotty anti-firearm kook like Hogg assist with future efforts?

Seriously, how would Hogg help save lives by having his bullet-riddled carcass appear on the evening news? Would the millions of responsible American gun owners see the images and immediately begin turning in their firearms so as to honor Hogg’s memory? Besides, wouldn’t having the “good guys” surrender their guns put even more people at risk? The “bad guys” wouldn’t give a lick what Hogg or any other liberal had to say about “gun violence”, and they’d hold onto their guns for their own sinister purposes.

While it’s hypothetically true that lives would be saved if no one -- including the government authorities -- owned guns, wouldn’t many more souls be lost because there weren’t effective means to quickly stop criminals from murdering with other similarly dangerous weapons? Just this week a stabbing suspect stole a cop car and killed two kids and injured ten others while on a wild driving rampage. Should we outlaw knives and police cruisers too? Some unstable person might take one and ram it into other cars full of kids.

Philosophically speaking, how many innocents would be lost if there were no guns at all? Some organization must have compiled stats on the lives potentially saved through the legal and authoritative use of guns for personal protection. How many crimes were thwarted by a gun owner being in the right place at the right time to prevent a would-be perpetrator from killing or injuring someone (or more people)? If David Hogg wants his decomposing corpse dumped on the doorstep of the NRA, then shouldn’t there be signs indicating all the people who were preserved by guns at the same location?

If it saves one life, it’s worth it, right? Gun laws only theoretically preserve life. There’s documented proof that guns have saved lives. Why doesn’t the media ask Hogg about this logical discrepancy?

And what about abortion? Every procedure ends a life -- it’s not just speculation, it’s a fact. If abortion didn’t exist, wouldn’t lives be saved? Liberals have a tough time grappling with the truth. Just ask “Beto” O’Rourke. Tyler O’Neil reported at PJ Media, “On Monday night at the College of Charleston, S.C., a brave 29-year-old man asked 2020 Democratic candidate former Rep. Beto O'Rourke (D-Texas) an extremely revealing question. O'Rourke has long supported late-term abortion, saying that even in the third trimester, the decision whether or not to kill an unborn baby should be entirely between the mother and her doctor. The questioner took this position to its logical conclusion.

“’My question is this. I was born September 8, 1989, and I want to know if you think on September 7, 1989, my life had no value,’ the man said.

“Taken aback, O'Rourke replied, ‘Of course I don’t think that. And of course I’m glad that you’re here. But you referenced my answer in Ohio, and it remains the same. That’s a decision that neither you, nor I, nor the U.S. government should be making. That’s a decision for the woman to make,’ he said of late-term abortion.”

Seeing as it was an audience predisposed to liberal gobbledygook (they actually came to see “Beto” babble, right?), many applauded O’Rourke’s nervous answer. Disgusting.

Aside from the fact it’s always fun to watch a dolt like “Beto” squirm, the South Carolina man’s question captured the crux of the abortion debate and exposed the utter hypocrisy of the liberal side of the argument. Maybe some ardent pro-lifer should suggest leaving the “evidence” of abortions on the doorsteps of O’Rourke and every other Democrat (or pro-abortion entity like Planned Parenthood) who believes it’s a “woman’s right to choose” up until birth -- and beyond.

They’d be horrified and accuse the person of dramatizing a political issue while threatening to take away a constitutional right (which abortion is not. Roe v. Wade will eventually be overturned.). If liberals believe the public truly wants abortion, let them pass laws in the states (as they’ve done in places like New York) and at the federal level codifying the practice.

Besides, if abortion were outlawed by statute (and upheld by the courts), wouldn’t it save millions of lives? No doubt liberals would then resurrect the old “back alley abortions using coat hangers” fallacy, but there’s no disputing which laws would save more souls in the short and long run. For a political faction so concerned with saving folks where guns are concerned, why are they wary of explaining what the difference is here?

O’Neil’s article presents the public’s opinions as well. A significant majority would ban late-term abortions entirely, including over two-thirds of those who label themselves “pro-choice.” Clearly, even Americans who tolerate legal abortion don’t want it done near the time of birth.

It still doesn’t address the logical dilemma (for liberals) of when a “fetus” crosses the magic line to becoming a baby, but public attitudes are definitely moving in the right direction.

Regardless, it shows “Beto” and most of the other Democrat presidential candidates are not only on the wrong side of the issue, they’re hovering near the extremes. If they supposedly believe in life on one day, why should they accept the opposite the day before? Will any of them clarify when life is meant to be protected?

Liberals can’t have it both ways. They can’t advocate for gun laws that theoretically might save lives and in the next breath favor abortion policies that stop hundreds of beating hearts every day. If saving even one life is truly worth it to them -- they should at least concede the hypocrisy.

Share this

Gun Laws or Abortion

Abortion takes far more innocent lives than guns.