I had a conversation with a female friend the other day regarding abortion. Specifically, we were discussing the dilemma of Ohio Governor John Kasich. He was tasked with either signing or vetoing two abortion laws passed by the state legislature, both of which would reduce a woman’s access to abortion. One was much more severe than the other, but both resulted in a restriction of the time allowed for a woman to abort a fetus (Kasich signed the least restrictive one and vetoed the other). In any event, I asked my friend whether or not it was reasonable to establish a time limit for receiving an abortion. After all, should a baby be abort-able right up until birth? Bear in mind that at this point we were not discussing any special circumstances such as pregnancy due to rape or incest, detection of a serious birth defect, or concerns for the life of the mother. What she said was yes, a time limit was reasonable, but she would never support or vote for such a limit. When I asked why, she advised me that she saw it as an incremental restriction of her rights that would eventually lead to a complete loss of said right.
What’s interesting about her response is that it mirrors how many feel about guns. Is it reasonable to require that gun sales or transfers involve a background check for the recipient? Yes; however, many (including myself) see it as an incremental step towards a complete ban. As a result, I find it very difficult to support such a requirement. Which brings me to another “friendly” conversation…
I overheard some family members stating that “sensible” gun control measures, such as those implemented in California, do not endanger the private ownership of firearms. Their argument was that the 2nd amendment protects this right and that it would be virtually impossible to muster the necessary state ratification to change or repeal the 2nd amendment. They offered this as proof that “…no one wants to take your guns…” (paraphrased). I politely stated someone should explain that to California gun owners, who just lost the right to own AR-15 sporting rifles. Their response: “Well, no one needs one of those, anyway.”
See where I’m going here? They actually do want to take your guns – or at least the ones they don’t like. Never mind that – according to FBI statistics for the years 2006 through 2010 – rifles of any kind including single-shot, repeater, semi-automatic and so-called “assault rifles” kill less than 1/4 as many people as knives or other cutting instruments. Hell, almost 10 times as many people die in non-boating related drowning accidents each year as are killed by all rifles combined. The fact that some want to ban these firearms in spite of their low crime rate involvement, and the success in California with passing incremental gun control laws that have actually resulted in people losing their right to own certain firearms, is proof to gun owners everywhere that the goal is to eventually strip then of their 2nd amendment rights. As with the argument against abortion limitations, gun owners see such laws as an incremental means to a complete ban. This is why many agree that mandatory background checks are good, but fail to support such laws at the ballot box.
It seems strange that guns and abortion would have a common thread, but there it is. Both sides are afraid that any new restrictions represent an incremental attack on their rights. And, unfortunately, I believe that they are right.
Expect more tomorrow on this subject.