Monday, August 31, 2009

A right vs. a Right?

I’ve been pondering this question about a healthcare “right” and how to better understand it. GOA and JPFO have done a good job of explaining the threat to gun rights if the government should run the healthcare industry. I’m sure I’m not the first guy to think of it this way: If healthcare is a “right” and the government is obligated to provide or enforce this “right”, then why is the government not providing for, or enforcing upon each of us the right to keep and bear arms? (An answer later)

If we have Miranda rights (right to an attorney and if you can’t afford one, one will be provided for you…), why can’t the same be said for the 2nd Amendment? That question is for another essay, but the point I’m trying to make is if a right is so important, then why isn’t the government busting the budget to make sure we have all of our rights? I turned of age 20 years ago and I’m still waiting for my battle rifle from Uncle Sam.

Going back to the Declaration of Independence: “…That to secure these Rights [Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness], Governments are instituted among Men…” is the key. “Secure” has been perverted to “provide”. But not for all rights, only the chosen rights. Should the government provide people with bullhorns and printing presses for free speech and the press? No. What about building houses of worship? Of course not. The enumerated Bill of Rights and those listed in the Declaration aren’t about the government making sure you practice your rights. It was for keeping government from interfering with our preexisting rights. We all know that, right? Unless you are a member of Congress. For a list of other rights, please see former Sen. Edwards.

So regarding the upcoming Obama-Care: If healthcare is such an important “right” that the federal government should provide access to healthcare, then why isn’t the government providing access to quality firearms matching those carried by our armed forces? If your representative is honest, then you should be receiving your M-16 soon. But if they are like mine, you will probably be labeled a terrorist and no further townhall meetings are allowed.

Truthfully, I haven’t posed that question to my representative. He doesn’t hold town-hall meetings, only conference calls that you must register for and they are limited. (Too bad they don’t enforce the “redress of grievances” right.) I did, however, ask that question to my sons. My 15 year-old answered - “Because healthcare is about control and firearms are about independence.”

This gives me hope that my sons will become better men than I.

7 comments:

Larry said...

"If healthcare is such an important “right” that the federal government should provide access to healthcare, then why isn’t the government providing access to quality firearms matching those carried by our armed forces?"

They are - to the Palestinians, the Mexicans, and anyone else that would threaten us.

Of course the only "right" the gov'ment is interested in is the right to take away your health care, your money, guns, etc.

Good luck with your blog.

Axeanda45 said...

Great article, will be back often to read more.

Brock Townsend said...

"My 15 year-old answered - “Because healthcare is about control and firearms are about independence.”

This gives me hope that my sons will become better men than I"

Hmmmm, maybe our two have something in common.:)
http://www.postimage.org/aV1LPTaS-72c6d86fef79312ff14a31bac9596126.jpg

straightarrow said...

I used to live between the tow rivers. I loved it all but the winter.

As for your son maybe being a better man than you. Apples don't fall far from the tree.

I am proud of you both.

Anonymous said...

1] Rights predate government. 2] Rights, akin to breathing, require neither permission nor acceptance to exist. They exist, and are often most evident, while being violated.
One way to diminish those rights which predate government, is to convince "We, the people" that government can just make up new ones whenever it wishes.

Wiley from GA said...

Another question is: If one has a Right, must the Government force everyone to exersize it?

It would seem in terms of the 'right to health care' the answer is yes, in terms of the Second Amendment the answer is no. Including not being incorporated under the 14th by the federal courts, leaving it up to the Several States to recognize the Right or not. Irrespective of the State's constitution.

strandediniowa said...

Brock - in some middle-eastern countries that might be considered a marriage proposal. But seriously, "raise a child as they should go and they will not depart from it." Back at ya, mate.

Straightarrow - thanks for stopping by. I look forward to your feedback.

Larry, Ax and Wiley, thanks to you as well.