For Governments, Protecting Children is relative

For governments, saving or protecting the lives of children appears to be relative.

When it’s convenient in terms of government policy, such as to promote and ultimately enforce gun control, then “children should be protected”.

Of course children should always be protected.

But protecting the right to life of unborn children is not important to government.

These contrasts point to governments compulsion to control the population – through disarming the population on the one hand, and slowing population growth (if that’s the reason) on the other hand.  Both seemingly to ensure government retains its monopoly on power.

I am against disarming law abiding citizens and disposing of their right to self defense, especially in a society where government does not exercise its duty, authority or will to protect its citizens. But even IF and when it does, citizens should always retain the right to armed self defense.  I am also against the wholesale slaughter of innocent defenseless unborn children, whose right to life is ignored.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s