Consider the Second Amendment

Attempts to limit your Second Amendment rights have nothing to do with public safety. If they did, then there would surely be an effort to stop the killings on the streets of Chicago. Instead, there is an effort to hinder your right to protect your family. They have done so by trying to criminalize your actions by deciding when and what type of protection you choose. These same folks support control stunts of ammunition production to make your weapons worthless. Ask yourself, if the goal is not to protect those in the streets of our cities, what is the reason?  If the government controls your ability to protect your family, then you will be subservient to government to receive protection for your family, and it limits your ability to defend against a corrupt government.

Consider health care

It’s “Affordable Care Act,” implying that you will be able to get medical care at a reasonable price. However, that legislation did not deal with the availability of care but rather with buying health insurance. There was nothing that increased access. President Obama recently said “Obamacare” is accomplishing exactly what it was to do.

This explains the design of “Obamacare”. It provides health insurance for some that could not afford it. In turn, it shifted much of the cost of those policies to taxpayers through fines and fees on insurance companies. In addition, private insurance policies were required to add services that previously were not required, such as maternity coverage for those in their fifties and sixties. The underlying goal was to drive the cost of health insurance higher and higher until a majority of the public demanded the federal government take over all of our medical needs. What purpose would that serve?  It would control you by making you subservient to government if you want or need medical care.
     If providing medical care was the goal, it would have been cheaper and less disruptive by simply employing providers or contracting with clinics to serve the unserved.
Climate change
     If the government can convince you that climate change is caused by controllable man-made activities, then they can control us by driving up the cost of energy. If they can drive that cost high enough, many will demand that energy is a right, and demand that the private sector turn power production and distribution over to the government. Some in government have convinced many that the problem is us and that we must give up our lifestyle to protect the environment. If their goal was truly to protect our health, then why would President Obama sign an agreement that requires the United States to abide by tough standards while China and other major polluters will not even consider reductions for years to come?  Even worse, they would be allowed to create even more pollution than today with only a promise to meet yet undefined standards. If the issue is truly worldwide air pollution, would it not be better for our environment to demand that all nations meet the same rigid standards now?
     Next Tuesday, you will have to decide if you believe that the aforementioned issues are important to you. If you believe them positive, you should vote to continue our course, if not, you should consider voting for real change.

Frank Ruff, a Republican, represents Lunenburg County in the Virginia senate. His email address is Sen.Ruff@verizon.net.