Tag: gun control advocates

Should Doctors Stay In Their Lane? Physician Says Yes

By Dr. Kyle Varner | United States

The National Rifle Association ruffled a lot of feathers recently when it published a tweet that said doctors should “stay in their lane” on the subject of gun control.

As a practicing physician, you might be surprised to hear that I side with the NRA.

There’s something fundamentally different between diagnosing and treating a disease in a patient and recommending a new law because you treat people injured by guns.

While I can sympathize with how sad it is to see one shooting attack after another in the news, the fact remains that gun violence is currently at a historic low in the United States. The FBI reports that gun violence was actually at its all-time highest in the mid-1980s. The rate has gone from 6.2 shooting deaths per 100,000 people in the 80s down to 3.4 per 100,000 in 2016. That means shooting deaths actually went down almost 50% in the last 30 years!

But whether or not gun deaths are going up or down, the key issue is in presenting partisan political proposals as medical recommendations.

When you push for a medical recommendation to become law, you are essentially trying to make the entire nation your involuntary patient. When doctors put on their white coats in political discourse and recommend authoritarian policies, they’re acting outside the scope of their expertise–and trying to force their opinions on millions of unwilling subjects.

The idea of informed consent is paramount to medical practice. As doctors, we should never force our therapy on our patients. Not only is this immoral, but the results can be deadly.

For decades, medical professionals have advised low fat, high carb diets, which studies increasingly show is completely misguided. Had this been just advice from doctors to their patients, that would be one thing. Instead, with the government’s support, this advice was established as indisputable fact and taught to an entire generation. The result has been to kick off a diabetes epidemic that’s set to make my generation the first in American history to have shorter life expectancies than their parents.

This is also the same profession that refused the idea that stomach ulcers could be caused by H. Pylori for twenty years. This stubbornness prevented people from getting the appropriate treatment for easily curable stomach ulcers, leading hundreds of thousands of people to suffer or die unnecessarily.

Today, because of irresponsible medical prescription practices, the US is currently facing an opioid epidemic that claimed the lives of an estimated 72,000 people last year. This is roughly the same amount estimated to have been killed by guns in that same time period.

Clearly, “staying in our lane” and focusing on the problems being perpetrated by our own industry could have a much more significant impact on the country than getting involved with gun politics at a time when guns have never posed less of a safety threat.

While many of my colleagues think of laws as helpful rules that let people get along, the truth is that laws are enforced by governments with the use or threat of violence. This isn’t hyperbole–if people fail to comply, they will be arrested and locked in a cage.

Medicine and public policy have no legitimate relationship to each other. Medicine concerns itself with diagnosing and healing individuals. Public policy concerns itself with the use of state violence against peaceful people.

As healers, we should always reject the use of violence. Even if we think a law might make the world a safer place, it remains immoral to condone the use of violence to stop violence.

This article was originally published on KevinMD.com

71 Republic is the Third Voice in media. We pride ourselves on distinctively independent journalism and editorials. Every dollar you give helps us grow our mission of providing reliable coverage. Please consider donating to our Patreon, which you can find here. Thank you very much for your support!


Be on the Lookout for Gun Grabbers

By Josh Hughes | United States

The attack on the Tree of Life Synagogue in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, on October 27, marked another link in a long chain of American mass shootings. While the horrendous act of bigotry was one America will not soon forget, especially those of the Jewish community, it is imperative to not let the rhetoric of both the left and the right make the nation susceptible to giving up the rights that the people hold dear.

With the attack coming so close to the midterm elections, politicians and the media are sure to make a late push calling for “common sense” gun laws. Do not be tricked by their appeals, as this is simply code for “infringement of your rights.” You see, there is no such thing as a reasonable gun law. According to the Constitution, any law made that restricts your right to carry or own firearms in any form is an infringement. On top of that, most real patriots would agree that they don’t need a 230-year-old document to tell them that they can carry in opposition to their government. Rather, one carries because they know what is right and are aware of how best to defend themselves from their government.

It is likely that within the next few years, pressure from other countries and certain citizens will force the US government to heavily restrict or ban guns altogether. In some communities, total gun confiscation has already started. In others, it is nearly impossible to obtain a gun or a license. But this isn’t just a product of the left. The president, Donald Trump, along with the NRA, has called for a ban on bump-stocks for semi-automatic rifles. It is interesting that the alleged champion of the firearms-bearing right wing is now proposing that a law should be put in place that would regulate how gun owners would be able to carry. This is proof that government tyranny is not a partisan issue, and either side will jump at the chance to take away the freedoms of the people.

One day in the next few years, when the police come knocking on your door demanding that you turn over your guns to them, you will have a choice. By this time it is fairly obvious that you will no longer be able to cite your constitutional right to carry. While the piece of paper from the 18th century will not be able to help you here, this is a scenario the founders were wary of and wanted to make sure the people were prepared for it.

When they come, and they will, it will be your duty to resist. You will have to resist for the protection of your nation. You will have to resist for the protection of your community. You will have to resist for the protection of your family. You will have to resist for the protection of yourself. To give in is to submit to tyranny, and that is a hole that is impossible to crawl out of. Will there be bloodshed? Almost undoubtedly. Would there be a potential for a total war? Definitely. The future of the country is coming to a polarizing fork. Soon, “Republican versus Democrat” won’t matter. It will become “free individuals versus the government.” The fight won’t be an easy one, but it’s of utmost importance to not give in. As Patrick Henry famously said, “Give me liberty or give me death.” As Frederick Douglass said, “It is better to die a free man than to live as a slave.”

Get awesome merchandise. Help 71 Republic end the media oligarchy. Donate today to our Patreon, which you can find here. Thank you very much for your support!

Featured Image Source

An Open Letter to Young Advocates of Gun Control

By James Sweet | United States

Dear Young Gun Control “Activists”,

Congratulations! You have successfully re-ignited a debate over guns, declaring yourselves the leaders of this debate! While I strongly disagree with your policies, it is nice to see a change in the political climate. You are being hailed as warriors by the mainstream media, with politicians and Hollywood elitists supporting you with strong words, as well as with Federal Reserve Notes. What a wonderful time to be alive, right?

No. You’re not special, and you have shown that you have no idea what you believe in, nor do you know what you’re talking about.

“Stop complaining, they don’t want to take our guns!” Uh, yes, they do, you’re just ignorant enough to ignore the consequences of the actions that many want to be enacted. Let’s look at Cameron Kasky, the founder of March For Our Lives (which should have been called March Against Our Rights). Cameron has a Twitter, like many activists do. Now, for someone who supposedly doesn’t want to take our guns away, he has a blatant disregard for the Second Amendment.

The second amendment was written when African Americans were still considered 3/5ths of a person…

As a matter of fact, if you read it, it didn’t even call them African Americans; it called them “Other Persons”

I really don’t want to listen to 200 years ago for EVERYTHING

Here is the link to his tweet.

There’s one large problem in the logic of this tweet: if we shouldn’t listen to the government that saw African Americans as 3/5ths of a person, why should we allow them to restrict our God-given right to bear arms? The best way to resist unjust treatment that sees certain humans as a fraction of another is through the armed resistance by the people, for the people.

By calling the right to bear arms a God-given right, I am not specifically referencing to the Christian God, but merely the supreme creator of the human race, allowing this to be applied to any religion. One can even say it’s a right from the Gods for the polytheistic religions, or a higher power for an atheistic religion or lack of religion. The United States Constitution is based on the idea of Natural Rights, championed by men like John Locke. The United States Constitution is the legal support for the right to bear arms, but not the moral justification. Morally, whether the constitution had the Second Amendment or not, it would be justified for one to own a firearm for the purpose of defense of one’s life, liberty, and property.

There are some in the nation that would base their justification merely on the Constitution, meaning they would hand over their guns in a heartbeat if Big Brother told them to. The ideas of the people that you (the gun control advocates) follow are based merely that all will hand over their guns, as the law is the final say. To some, including me, my morals are separate from the law, and the principles that I stand upon shall be the final say.

You may believe in the gun control argument based around Australia, except the facts are twisted up by the mainstream narrative.

Also, to those of you that participated in the walkouts, but stayed where your school told you to stay: you did nothing. The walkouts were a protests AGAINST the government’s inaction towards gun violence. So, by following the government’s orders, you did the exact opposite, and showed that you are just kids trying to get on your local news in an attempt to be part of a “movement”. To those students that actually went against what their school’s said: while I disagree with gun control (but also dislike gun violence), I applaud you actually going against what the government said.

The flaws of your little “movement” are evident. Gun control advocates at the March for our Lives were protected by cops and guards.

ARMED cops and guards.

They were protected by guns.

I hope the hypocrisy is evident.

Your “movement” is spoon fed by the media, and you are following what your peers are pressuring to do.

Focus on the facts, and think for yourself.


A Liberty Loving Teenager