If You Don’t Care About the Babies Murdered by Abortion but You Claim to Care About the 17 Teens Murdered in Parkland, FL - You Are a Hypocrite
Ever since the Parkland, FL massacre, I have been writing blogs exposing far left, gun-control advocate arguments that have been put forward to disarm the American people. In the past 3 weeks, I have exposed how to never let a gun-control advocate (GCA) take the moral high ground by saying you don’t care about dead kids, exposing how the government cannot protect you, and the outrageous hypocrisy of how the far left preaches diversity but doesn’t believe in the diversity of gun ownership. Today, I am going to explore the “dead kids” angle again but from a different perspective.
WARNING! If you are a GCA reading this, what I am about to write is highly likely to ruffle your feathers and might even “trigger” you. I am also going to be writing quite graphically and there is a heavy dose of truth coming up. This issue boils my blood and if you don’t want to read about it, turn away now.
Many GCA’s are still pounding the drum of “don’t you care about the dead kids?” They beat this drum tirelessly after every media-approved massacre with a gun. Here is another argument you can make and another question you can ask to totally demolish and expose their hypocrisy on this issue. The next time one of them asks, “don’t you care about the dead kids?” Ask them very calmly and straightforwardly, “Do you support abortion?”
If they answer yes, then it’s time to lay a little truth on them. Ask them how many people are murdered each year by ALL firearms. According the FBI, in 2015, there were 9,616 homicides committed by firearms. Of note, only 252 of those were committed with rifles. That is 0.026% of all firearm homicides. Handguns accounted for 6447 or 0.67%. But here is where the hypocrisy will be exposed…
According to the CDC, there were 652,639 abortions in 2014 alone. You should tell the GCA who supports abortion these facts and then ask them, “Why don’t you care about dead kids?”
To put that abortion number in perspective, the math comes out to 1,788 abortions PER DAY or 74.5 murdered babies PER HOUR in this country! All of this death and carnage occurs in one year! Can you imagine the GCA’s outrage if that many children were being murdered each day and hour with guns?
To put it in perspective, only 26 people are murdered every day with a gun but that includes all people, not just children. Abortions kill ONLY children, babies, infants. 1,762 MORE babies are murdered each day in abortion than are killed with firearms. Do GCA’s and far leftists really care about dead babies or do they only care about the method of their execution?
To give you more perspective, at our current gun homicide rate of 9,616 per year, it would take us 67.8 YEARS for guns to murder as many people as we murder via abortion EVERY SINGLE YEAR! In other words, if we stopped all abortions in this country from now and forevermore, it would take us nearly 68 years for gun homicides to equal as many people as we murdered via abortion in just 2014 alone. Math doesn’t lie and this math is damning for any GCA who also advocates for abortion.
DISCLAIMER: I of course would love to see our firearm homicide decrease. I am not saying that 26 homicides with firearms per day is meaningless or inconsequential - it is very consequential and horrible. However, one of my primary goals as a warrior and protector is to decrease unjust violence committed by all people with all weapons - I don’t discriminate. I want to save as many lives from unjust violence as possible. Period. This includes abortion forceps and suction tubes as well as firearms. It also includes vehicles, knives, poison, and natural disasters. Savings lives is my goal, irrespective of the tools or means used to murder them.
Why don’t you hear more GCA’s stand up for the pre-born? Why don’t more of them vigorously defend the most innocent and defenseless citizens of our nation? Especially since many GCA’s are far lefties who claim to love women, minorities, and other “oppressed” groups, I am shocked that so many of them are also voracious advocates for abortion which murders women and minorities in heinous numbers. Do they think that evil, white male babies are the only victims of abortion?
“Don’t you care about dead kids?” They ask you. Yes, you do. But they don’t. Not if they also support abortion. In my last blog about the dead kids, someone commented that I was “taking the moral high ground”. My reply to that is, of course I am. My worldview is logical and consistent and I abhor the murder of any human being - pre-born or 100 year old adult. The far left, GCA worldview treats abortion like a procedure and sees it as “healthcare” but then has the audacity to tell you that you don’t care about the dead kids in Parkland, FL? The arrogance and audacity is astounding.
I encourage you to firmly point out these facts to people who lob this personal attack against you. Point them out and inform them that their worldview is morally reprehensible. Inform them that if they support abortion in full knowledge of what it is and its consequences that they are an evil person - because they are. Aborting children is murder. Murder is evil. If murder is not evil, then why are GCA’s crying about the dead kids in Parkland?
Murder is either evil or it isn’t. If it isn’t, then murdering anyone is perfectly acceptable - at least morally. If murder is evil, then any murder is wrong. If you want to see who among the GCA’s really believes in protecting dead kids, ask them if they support abortion. If they are in favor of abortion, they are one of the worst hypocrites they can possibly be. You should point this out to them because none of their far-left GCA friends will. GCA’s claim to believe that murder is evil - at least when it is committed with a gun by a man. But when a woman allows “doctors” to dismember her baby with forceps or crush her baby’s skull and suck it’s brains out with a suction tube, that is perfectly acceptable and somehow does not rise to the level of murder. That is the height of hypocrisy.
You should feel every bit morally superior to someone who advocates for abortion and the disarming of American citizens. Both positions are evil. Abortion is murder and disarming American citizens will lead to murder, rape, and all kinds of property crimes such as theft and arson if the citizen does not have the means to protect themselves.
Crying about the 17 dead kids in Parkland, FL is noble - but if you don’t shed one tear for the 652,639 babies that are murdered EVERY YEAR in this country, then you’ll have to excuse me for calling you a hypocrite. It’s time to re-evaluate your worldview if this is you. It’s time to be a man or woman of virtue and stand up for the truth - defend and weep for all the murdered kids. The pre-born and the born. That is the only consistent position you can take on this issue.
Do not accept or tolerate the “Don’t you care about dead kids” argument from ANYONE who also supports abortion - i.e.: the murdering of pre-born babies by dismembering them with forceps, crushing their skulls and sucking their brains out with tubes or injecting scalding saline to burn the baby alive. If you think I am being unnecessarily graphic, read the actual names of abortion methods and how they are performed - it is infuriating and diabolical.
The time for passively accepting these far-left, GCA talking points is over. The time for “tolerating” these murderous positions and worldview is over. You and I must stand up for Truth and fight the evil in our time. All generations have had evil to fight, we have ours. Abortion and the disarming of our Nation are two evils that must be resisted. It begins by demolishing their claims and arguments. You have been called “evil” by the far left GCA’s for long enough, the time has come to lift up a mirror and reflect the truth of what they believe back to them - they are the evil ones advocating for murder. If that makes them uncomfortable, so be it. Perhaps it will shake some of them from their stupor and bring them to the light. That is all we can do - present the truth, demolish their bad arguments and then pray they see the Truth, repent of their error, and amend their ways.
Live with virtue my fellow warrior!
Are you sick and tired of the hypocrisy of those who are still clamoring for gun control? There is one particular piece of far left hypocrisy which is even more outrageous than usual. An insidious bit of hypocrisy that didn't dawn on me until today. What is this bit of hypocrisy? Let me explain. In order to do so however, I need to set the stage first - stay with me!
To start, I and many others who write on these issues believe that some people desire a total gun ban from the civilians of our great nation. Can we agree that there are SOME people in our country who desire this? I am not naming names, or making specific accusations. But it seems to me that only a complete liar or totally uninformed person could argue that there are zero people in this country who want a total gun ban for civilians.
This being true, that some are out to ban guns entirely, I want to submit the quote below for your consideration. This quote will set up the central premise behind the outrageous hypocrisy I mentioned. Here it is:
Firstly, I blurred the name of the person who said this and the Facebook site which promoted it because who said it and where it came from is irrelevant to the truth of the statement. If you really need to know who said it, I can tell you, but why does that matter?
Is the quote true? Yes, the quote is true. How would the government enforce a gun ban or any gun control legislation on non-compliant citizens? They would enforce it with … FORCE. enFORCE. The answer is in the word, almost as if words have meaning … but I digress. The point is, the government will have to use force to compel non-compliant individuals to comply with gun control legislation. A total gun ban would require the same – government use of guns and arms to force you and I to disarm. This is a fact. Because if the government completely disarmed first, they would have no way of compelling you or I to follow their laws. Therefore, gun-control advocates are all for guns, they love them, just the centralized ownership of guns though - not when you or I own guns.
Which brings us to our main point in exposing their hypocrisy: Diversity. The far left is violating their "sacred" principle of diversity by espousing a gun ban or gun control. How so?
If guns are centralized, this means that they are all located in one place. This centralization completely goes against diversity which means to have things spread out, to have many things interacting together in various places, times, locations, etc. The far left doesn't want this when it comes to gun ownership. In other words, they hate diversity. More specifically, they hate diversity of gun ownership.
But I thought diversity was our strength? I thought extreme diversity in all things was a moral imperative of our times? Oh, just not in this instance? I see. In this instance, gun ownership should be centralized and guns should only be in the hands of people who all believe and think the same – i.e.: that government should be the sole possessor of guns. Disagree on this, and you step outside the group-think. Disagree, and your diverse opinion will not be tolerated (another moral imperative of regressive leftism they contradict in this debate) and they will use force and guns (ironically) to take your guns from you.
This blatant hypocrisy should be pointed out to anyone who espouses gun control at every opportunity. It should be exposed to all who are on the fence on this issue and don't yet have their mind made up. As always, ask the gun-control advocate questions and allow them to bury themselves with their own argument. Here is the question you ask them:
“Since you are for gun control, do you think all government officials, military, police, and agencies in the DOJ, should have to abide by your proposed gun control legislation? Yes or no?”
If they say “Yes” at least they are being consistent. I can respect the logical consistency of such a view. In theory, if the government also had to follow their gun laws like we do, we may be on equal footing with them (but we all know this theory would not play out in reality). However, if they answer “no” then I invite you to point out how ridiculously hypocritical this is. Show them this quote, ask them, “I thought diversity was our strength though? You want to centralize gun ownership which removes diversity? I thought you were a defender of diversity?” Ask them to justify this centralizing belief against their own dogma of diversity. Then get ready to hear the crickets...
All you have to do is ask the gun-control activist, "How would you go about enforcing your laws if certain individuals deliberately disobeyed your laws and refused to comply?" They can only answer two ways: They wouldn't enforce them or they would send government agents to visit those people and force them to comply.
Just to be clear - there is no argument against this quote or this line of questioning a far leftist can make without admitting defeat or throwing their sacred cow of diversity under the buss. Either they would choose to not enforce their gun laws (which means they wouldn't get their way on gun control) or they would choose to send in the government agents to use force against their fellow citizens (admitting that diversity is not a paramount principle or virtue they believe in). This is the fact and reality of the situation.
No one believes the government should disarm, that the police should put away their weapons, and that bodyguards and security teams at major corporations should patrol with nothing but their bare hands. They believe that gun ownership should be centralized in order to keep us all safe. Their solution to things like the Parkland, FL massacre is to centralize all guns into the hands of government. The only problem with this communist utopia is a pesky little thing called history. History bears witness to the horrors of centralized gun ownership - untold horror where millions of lives were and still are slaughtered without mercy. This is why arming the people and the right of the people to keep and bear arms should not be infringed - it is the best way to prevent genocide and mass slaughter.
If you think Parkland, FL was a massacre, imagine what a person like that could do if entire neighborhoods were completely disarmed? States? The nation? What could bad men do if the rest of us had no weapons? Bad men from foreign nations and bad men from within the bowels of our own nation. This is why the 2nd amendment is non-negotiable. All of your other rights and the peace we currently enjoy depends on it. It all hinges on whether or not we, the people, take responsibility to protect ourselves.
You have only two choices - take responsibility for yourself, your family and your own circle of influence, or trust someone else to do it for you. If that someone else is government, you may want to brush up on your history. Because you are not safer when gun ownership is centralized - you are at your greatest peril.
Why is this important - aside from trying to prevent mass genocide? Why not just leave gun-control advocates alone? Because there are young people out there who are watching. They are listening. They are trying to ascertain who has better ideas. If we do not give an answer and point out hypocrisy, we may lose more young people to the gun-control camp. We may lose more young people from the camp of liberty and personal responsibility into the camp of government regulation and hand-outs.
The bottom line for this argument is that if “diversity is our strength” and a moral imperative that is not to be violated in our day, then why do many of the people who preach this, simultaneously, hypocritically preach that gun ownership must be centralized (AKA – non-diversified)? It’s because they only want diversity where THEY want it. It isn’t a principle they believe in. They only want it where it helps them. If it was an inviolable principle, they would be arguing that gun ownership should be diversified - but they don't.
In closing, I’ll give you a simple analogy to make the point even more clear:
When we go to invest our money in the stock market, we all understand the importance of diversification. If we bet all our money on one stock, and the company goes out of business, we’ve lost everything. Hence why we spread our money out and “diversify” it. This “diversity” gives us security – it prevents us from losing our shirt in one fell swoop. Well, think the same way when it comes to gun ownership. If all the guns are bet on one “stock” (the government) and the government goes belly up, where does that leave you and I? Screwed. That’s where it leaves us.
This is why gun ownership should be “diversified” and spread out over the whole population – in case one “stock” (government, state, agency, person, etc.) goes bad, we are protected as a whole. The diversification of gun ownership brings us security and peace. When it comes to guns, diversity really is our strength.
Welcome to the Anatomy of a Warrior Blog!
National Speaker, author, blogger, and life-long student of warrior arts and science.