Except there is a Constitutional right to bear arms and no right to kill babies in the plain words of the Constitution.
Bingo...Constitutional law doesn’t seem to be Gavey’s strong point.
“Constitutional right to bear arms”
I know that it seems pedantic, but it’s very important to remember that the constitution Grants No Rights.
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
The constitution rather prohibits the federal government from infringing on what is inferred as a Natural Right. Those rights are granted by the creator which only a despotic tyrant would interfere with. I understand that it’s convenient shorthand to say “Constitutional Right” But it’s important that we understand and communicate it in this manner. Because the left is the ‘Grant Rights’ party. they do not read the constitution in the same language as everyone else. They presume there are no Natural Rights. All Rights and Privilege’s are granted by the federal government at their direction and discretion. When we use the constitutional right point of view then we are fighting on their ground which is subject then to their discretion.
We should rather say that “The constitution prohibits the federal government from infringing on the right to bear arms.” We simply cannot concede that ground.
Apologies again for the pedantics. I don’t mean to single anyone out for this comment.
“Except there is a Constitutional right to bear arms and no right to kill babies in the plain words of the Constitution.”
You’re right, of course. But logic has left our society, and only emotions matter these days. All that’s needed to defeat logic is a compelling emotional case.