Sometimes it amazing what comes out of the mouths of Democrats, it's like they don't really listen to what they are saying.  Here's a couple of examples:

### On Abortion

A little background first.  On November 6, 2018, the citizens of Alabama passed a state constitutional amendment:

> to make it state policy to "recognize and support the sanctity of unborn life and the rights of unborn children, including the right to life" and to state that no provisions of the constitution provide a right to an abortion or require funding of abortions.

The amendment passed by a margin of 59% to 41%, obviously demonstrating a majority of the people of Alabama do not favor abortion.  Subsequent to this vote there are bills in the Alabama Congress making abortion a Class A felony (punishable by 10 years to live in prison) and attempted abortion a Class C felony (punishable by 1 to 10 years in prison).  The House version of the bill has already passed with the Senate version still in progress.  During arguments against the bill, Democratic State Representative John Rogers made the statement:

> Some kids are unwanted, so you kill them now or you kill them later. You bring them in the world unwanted, unloved, you send them to the electric chair. So, you kill them now or you kill them later.

Is Representative Rogers implying that every child that is aborted would have ended up a felon on death row?  If unwanted children are dangerous I have to wonder if Rep. Rogers would advocate executing children in orphanages as well.

But beyond the callus statement, a liberal finally describing abortion as killing a child.  Can you imagine how different a conversation on abortion would be if it centered around the concept of killing a child?  The current conversations talk about a fetus like it is some kind of growth or tumor to be removed.  When having this conversation, we should talk about it in terms of under what conditions are we as a society going to allow the killing a defenseless, innocent child.  

Personally I don't believe abortion is a yes or no question, the circumstances always have to be considered.  But when we talk about abortion, let's drop the sanitized tumor removal type of dialogue and talk about it for what it is.

### On Gun Control

Our news outlets have gotten to be political organizations, on both sides.  While we should be getting news in the way of facts we get our news shrouded in the political opinion of the news agency.  MSNBC is one of the more liberal news agencies currently on the air.  Recently on MSNBC, reporter Kerry Sanders made an amazing statement in support of the Second Amendment while talking about the crisis in Venezuela.   Sander's comment was:

> You have to understand, in Venezuela gun ownership is not something that’s open to everybody. So if the military have the guns, they have the power and as long as Nicolás Maduro controls the military, he controls the country.

I can imagine most of the executives of MSNBC failed to connect Sander's statement with supporting gun rights, but the few that did certainly would have cringed.  The crisis in Venezuela has gotten so bad that citizens have started throwing rocks at soldiers armed with rifles or shotguns.  This crisis would have never reached this stage if the average citizen were allowed to have guns.

The situation in Venezuela is exactly what the framers of the Constitution were concerned about when the Second Amendment was put in place.  The citizens that would be accepting the new Constitution feared an out of control Federal government and saw gun ownership as the last resort.  Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist 46, wrote:

> Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of.

In other words, an armed militia was a deterrent to an overly ambitious general government of a country.   In Hamilton's day, a militia was a group of individual citizens.  Giving them the right to bear arms was giving them a way to protect their freedoms.  The need to support the writings of over 200 years ago is evident in this crisis in Venezuela today.  The general citizenry of Venezuela have little means to fight off an oppressive government.

This is why in the name of making the nation safer, one of the first acts of a socialist government is to confiscate weapons.  The only difference in the U.S. is the socialist want to take the weapons away before they take power.