Is The Government A Rights Supplier?

There have been some members of Congress that have had the guts to display their ignorance of our Constitution in this health care debate of late. Some of them have stood up and before their fellow members and the people have declared that health care is a right. (Please tell me what article this is in)

Let’s assume for a moment that the obvious mistake is not one at all, and follow the logic.

If health care is a right that must be afforded to the people, even though it isn’t stated in our Constitution, why must the government supply that health care? Keep in mind, that regardless of whether there is a single-payer system, exchanges, or other methods by which the government supplies health insurance or direct care by virtue of being alive on American soil, it is a matter of the people and that government providing the fruits of the created right.

Now, health care is not the only fairly expensive right that is guaranteed to the people. Let’s apply the same logic to the 2^nd Amendment.

If the Federal government is obligated to pay for our health care in any way, are they not as obligated to provide whatever it takes to fulfill our right to bear arms? I certainly think that it would then be only fair and right for the government to open and run firearms and ammunition stores. Also, it would be important for the government to do its best to provide for these things at a reduced cost.

To the contrary however, the Democrats have passed legislation intended to make gun and ammunition purchases more expensive.

Interesting that the Democrats are more interested in providing imaginary rights than protecting those that are actually enumerated in the Constitution.

This entry was posted on 2. March 2010 at 20:27 and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response or trackback from your own site.

| Print