Continuing from Karen Handel and Liberty, Part 2:Water, Health, Budget, and Government, we now move on to ‘Sanctity of Life’ on the Issues page of KarenHandel.com
‘Sanctity of Life’
Today, with scientific advances that are now a reality and others that are on the horizon, society faces serious new moral and ethical issues. In dealing with these issues, Karen believes the sanctity of human life must be the priority and the fundamental premise upon which policies are based.
I completely agree with this statement. Government should stay out of the moral issues and allow a legal framework for adjudicating the ethical issues.
Karen is pro-life. As a matter of law she believes society may allow for exceptions in cases of rape, incest or when there is a real threat to the mother’s life.
While my personal feelings decently mirror Ms. Handel’s, the science has not yet proven conclusive on many topics in this area, particularly sentience and human life, and therefore I support the Libertarian Party official position that until conclusive scientific proof is offered one way or the other on these issues, government should stay completely neutral and the matter should be decided by the individuals involved.
Karen believes that science has shown that adult stem cells have greater scientific and medicinal value than embryonic stem cells. Creating life only to end it and use it for research is wrong.
Once again, I personally agree with Ms. Handel here. That said, I stand by my last statement that until the science of sentience and what constitutes human life and when that life begins is conclusive, government should stay completely neutral on the issue. In other words, government should neither ban nor regulate private businesses involved in this research, and neither should government support them.
Further note here that as I alluded to in the introduction, there is a trace of theocracy here, as Ms. Handel would use government to support her own essentially religious belief, though she does not mention a particular religion.
‘Marraige’
As with ‘Government’, here we have just a brief statement with Ms. Handel’s campaign slogan:
For anyone who wants to say that marriage is something other than between a man and a woman, I say, “Bring it on.”
As I’ve said multiple times on my personal site, and via Twitter and Facebook (among other places where this discussion has come up), government should be out of the relationship business completely. Marriage is a religious institution, and government has no right interfering. I’ve seen some ideas of late revolving around ‘domestic partnerships’ – an even broader term than ‘civil unions’ – that I could possibly acquiesce to, but even then the idea is that it is a legal contract open to any two or more adults who wish to enter into it.
‘Governor’
Once again, as with ‘Marriage’ and ‘Government’, this one just has a short statement with Ms. Handel’s campaign slogan:
And, for those who think a woman can’t get elected governor of the great state of Georgia, I say, “Bring it on.”
What I find interesting here is that Ms. Handel didn’t choose to address anything about the actual office she seeks in this brief statement, but instead she took issue with people essentially calling her names. Not exactly the tactic I would have employed, and not one that I think serves her well, but hey, this is her campaign to run. Instead, I probably would have mentioned some kind of broad overview of a challenge I want to tackle or a general direction I plan to take my administration. But she takes issue with people calling her names. OK. Maybe we’ll get a better statement once more text is put up in this area.
’2nd Amendment’
Karen is a strong supporter of individual citizens’ right to keep and bear arms.
Thank you for that, Ms. Handel.
Karen opposes the re-imposition of the so-called “assault weapons ban,” which essentially seeks to ban rifles used for hunting and sport shooting as well as handguns used recreationally or for legitimate self defense. Karen understands that actual assault weapons are already banned by the 1968 Gun Control Act and that new bans are an attempt to deceive voters into believing that automatic weapons are currently legal.
Here, Ms. Handel is showing that she has clearly done some research on the issue and isn’t simply saying ‘I support the 2nd Amendment because I happen to own a firearm.’ Kudos to Ms. Handel for this.
She supports the right of law abiding citizens to carry a concealed weapon and believes that obtaining a carry permit should not be made so onerous as to become a de facto ban on such permits.
Notice here that Ms. Handel doesn’t say that permits for carrying a weapon shouldn’t be required, only that the requirements for obtaining this required permit shouldn’t be ‘onerous’. Personally, I think there shouldn’t be a requirement for a permit, period. I would also like to know where Ms. Handel thinks we should be allowed to carry a weapon concealed, and if she supports Tasers still being classified as a ‘firearm‘ even though they are actually ‘less than lethal’ directed energy weapons.
Karen Handle’s “understanding” that the Gun Control Act of 1968 banning actual assault rifles is an incorrect understanding. Instead, those weapons are restricted under the National Firearms Act of 1934, which is the law that requires machine gun purchasers to jump through all kinds of hoops.
The closest things to true assault weapon bans are the 1984 machine gun ban as well as the ban on importing weapons of a non-sporting variety. This catching most all of the assault rifles and the so-called assault rifles as well (so-called because they are semi-auto only).
As for permits, Georgia’s laws are pretty good, though minor drug offenses that aren’t disqualifying for anything else are disqualifying for a Georgia Firearms License. It’s important to note, in case Mrs. Handle doesn’t already know this, that the GFL is not a concealed carry permit, but an overall firearm permit. Mine allows me to carry open or concealed.
Like you, I’m interested in knowing if she plans on expanding the places I may legally carry my firearm like church or a bar. Churches are often prime targets for homicidal madmen, and personally I’d like to protect my family in the even something like that were to happen at MY church. There are also a lot of other laws, besides the issuance of permits, that need addressing like the vague “public gathering” law that requires people to go unarmed into areas where they could potentially be the target of crimes, or perhaps some clarification that one may have a firearm in their car regardless of their location. Case law in Georgia states that having a gun in the car while you’re at an “off limits” place is the same as having it on your person. Not cool.
I sincerely hope these can be addressed by whoever goes to the Governor’s Mansion.