Broadly speaking, Republicans support the 2nd Amendment right to own firearms and Democrats do not; Democrats favour Universal Health Coverage and Republicans do not.
So let’s say you have two candidates: The Republican will work hard to guarantee that your RTKBA will not be infringed, but has stated that s/he absolutely will not support a ‘Socialist’ agenda by working toward UHC; and the Democrat will strive to ban certain types of firearms, but will do everything possible to secure UHC.
What’s more important to you?
Suppose one or the other candidate ‘gives’ on his or her opposition. For example, maybe the Republican concedes that health care benefits will be extended to the unemployed as an unemployment benefit; and the Democrat grandfathers in already-owned firearms so that people can keep them if they choose?
One is Constitutionally protected, one is not. One is maintenance of the status quo, one is not.
I’d support the Republican for the purposes of election, knowing that others would vote in politicians with conflicting views, thus maintaining the balance.
Good idea. I will vote for the Democrat, obtaining UHC and feeling secure that the present Supreme Court would overturn his anti Second Amendment legislation.
If those are the only two positions these candidates hold, I’d vote for the Republican. A single person can’t bring universal health care into being, but I think it’d be easier for one person to stop another gun grab.
Well, my retirement plan is to have a stroke and die at my desk. UHC might keep me clinging to life, and my health care decision-maker might find a gun handy.
Self defense is an inalienable right. Health care, by contrast, is a luxury. Everyone has a right to keep and bear arms, but no one has a right to health care.
Let’s see now, is it more likely that the average American is going to need a gun, or that they’ll need medical care? Oh, wait! We could just issue a carry permit along w/ every birth certificate and make marksmanship a required elementary school subject.
I’m sure it’s been done to death in GD, but why not?.
If one has the right to say what they want, meet up with other people who want to say the same things, own weapons, and not be discriminated against based on [the various protected classes] then why is the right to health (to not be sick or suffering) not a given right? If the alleviation/prevention of illness and injury can be done, shouldn’t it it done?
What makes it different?
As a Canadian, the choice in the OP was made a long time ago by our governments. In this example, I’d vote for the democrat, but the RTKBA isn’t really something I’ve had to think about much. I wouldn’t own a gun, and I have no particular interest in learning how to use one.
I don’t really want to debate this (I’m a terrible debater anyways!), but can someone perhaps give me a summary of the arguments as to why “no one has the right to health care”? I’m curious to hear that side of the argument.
I suspect it could be argued that it is not specified in the US Constitution, as one could argue that the right to own a firearm is.
On the other hand, one could argue that an enlightened society should provide health care for it’s citizens. “Right” vs. “right”, I suppose.
But we digress from the OP.
