Traditionally and historically, conservatives are against gay marriages, legalization of drugs and abortion. Even birth control, in many cases. Although, they are the flag bearers and champions of individual freedom and rights, at the same time. I have never heard from a conservative that he or she has any concern regarding the rights to terminate a pregnancy or the responsible, legal use of drugs or the rights of homosexual individuals to marry. For these flag bearers of individual freedom, restriction or denial of these rights by a government has no implications on their ideology of individual rights and freedom. For them these do not imply to the excessive control and interference, by government, in the lives of individuals. On the other hand, if government tries to provide healthcare to poor individual citizens (in other words, tries to accept and enforce their right to healthcare), by reducing the control of insurance companies over their lives, or ban or restrict the ownership of guns, it immediately becomes an issue of individual freedom and excessive government control and interference in the lives of citizens. What is this? Simple contradiction? hypocrisy? stupidity? or something else? I mean, if they are so concerned about individual freedom and excessive government, then, why not stop government from interfering into individual rights like abortion, drug use and gay marriages. And , if it is okay to have an excessive government that may limit individual rights and freedom, under certain circumstances, then, why not allow it to provide healthcare for suffering individuals and why not let it stop people from owning and carrying killing machines? I have made this point in personal face to face discussions. Guess what they say? You probably already know! Healthcare, abortion, homosexuality and drug use are not rights at all! Unbelievable! Can you believe? Owning and carrying something that was invented and is manufactured to kill, is a right but, life saving healthcare is not ? If drug use is not a right then, what about alcohol, caffeine and nicotine? If sex is not a right then, what about heterosexual sex and sex between spouses and married couple? And above all, a person can put thirty plus rounds in his guns and go out to kill thirty plus people by exercising his “right” but, cannot terminate her own pregnancy, out of need and under difficult circumstances? To me, this does not make any sense at all. It is beyond logic, reason and intelligible comprehension. My conclusion is that, such a contradictory points of view, cannot be born out of sincerity. They have nothing to do with ideology, beliefs, right and wrong, good and bad or honest principles. They are based on something else. I have tried very hard to find an answer and common factor behind these contradictions. What I discovered and believe, is that it is all about who’s pockets are deep and who is ready to make a bigger payment. Relating guns and private insurance to individual rights and finding no relationship between abortion, gay marriages and individual rights and freedom, and at the same time safeguarding the rights of drug mafia by opposing the legalization of drugs, are more then simple issues of individual freedom and rights. Instead of individual freedom and rights, I always find them where the money is, whether it is insurance companies, drug mafia or gun manufacturers. Hell with suffering sick people or single mothers raising unwanted kids in serious poverty or homosexuals not being able to marry the person they love and enjoy the benefits of a legal marriage or the people getting killed every day by guns. Who cares? Can they write us big pay checks? Of course not. Do they have high paying lobbies? No, no, no.
What amuse me even more is the logic and reasoning they use. For example, failure of gun control laws in New York, Chicago and Washington, D.C. Oh my gosh. Do they have any shame or conscience? Don’t go too far. If you have a relative or friend in law enforcement in D.C., New York or Chicago, ask that person. What is the problem? Is this because the law is ineffective or something else. Most law enforcing officers will tell you that it is not the law. It is more lenient laws in neighboring states. The infiltration of arms into these cities from the more lenient neighboring states are the real issue and problem. Even the most weapons, used in violent crimes in Canada and Mexico, come from United States, and you are talking about, D.C., Chicago and New York?
The philosophy of right to bear and carry arms is based on the assumption that most citizens are law abiding and therefore, they would use the arms only for defense or security. As a matter of facts, this is a very dangerous point pf view. Because, if accepted, then on a larger scale, it nullifies, all the arms control initiatives, throughout the world. This is the same argument that is being used by Iran and other countries, that are aggressively pursuing nuclear and other weapons of mass destructions. Their point of view is that they have right to defend themselves and the weapons are pursued only for deterrence. They say that like any other nation, the majority of their citizens is law abiding, too, so what is the point? Guns don’t kill, people kill. Since, our majority of law abiding citizens doesn’t want to kill, so don’t worry. We are not going to kill anyone. Yeah right! Isn’t it the same that we all say when we hear this argument from Iran and North Korea? This is exactly what I say when I hear the argument guns don’t kill, people kill. Yeah right!
By the way, this brings me to another aspect and reason for the failure of arms control talks, negotiations and efforts. It is when so called nuclear powers tell other countries that, since we already have nuclear weapons, it is our right to expand and improve our capacity to destroy this planet several times, over and over. But, you guys cannot have nuclear weapons. Since, most of our citizens are law abiding citizens, we will not use these weapons, although we have already used them, twice. But, it is doubtful that majority of your citizens are law abiding, so it is dangerous to let you have nuclear weapons. Put yourself in their shoes and tell me, how convincing do I sound?