Perhaps its a matter of choice...

Maybe I am "pro-choice" after all...

I recently read an article comparing the growing gun control debate in this country to the ongoing debate over abortion.  The author makes the case that the dissenting opinions in both Roe v Wade and District of Columbia v Heller, the Justices involved in the majority decision "created rights where none existed".

While I don't agree with this opinion, I can't deny that it seems to sum up my thoughts on the Roe decision rather nicely.  However, the Heller decision is one that I think falls squarely into my own opinion on the matter.  That being said, I can't say that that makes it right, either way.  Prior to Roe, the SCotUS had not made a sweeping decision regarding abortion and a woman's right to seek one out legally.  Rather, they had relied on the individual States to regulate the practice (or lack thereof) according to the will of the People.  Prior to Heller, no sweeping decision on the actual definition of the Second Amendment had been made in over two hundred years of Court findings.

If the SCotUS can determine that restrictive abortion laws established by due process at a State level somehow infringe on an "implicit" (emphasis mine) right to privacy, as they did in Roe, then the Court's ability to determine that the D.C. gun ban infringed on the very explicit right (emphasis mine) to keep and bear arms must also stand.

Add to this the fact that, while the SCotUS has only made ONE decision defining the Second Amendment... they have made at least FIVE (and I'd seen references to as many as 16) decisions on the responsibility of law enforcement and government to the "individual"... none more clear than Warren v District of Columbia in 1981.  In short, there is NO "obligation" for protection, or even of civil service, to the individual from the government.  Only an obligation to the "general welfare of society".

If the Government can guaranty the "right" of the individual woman to best determine the course of a pregnancy, over the objections and rights of the natural father and/or the natural rights of the child itself, then how can it deny the rights of each and every citizen to "choose" to take responsibility for the protection and well-being of their lives and property through the free exercise of their explicitly defined Second Amendment rights?  How can I support one choice over another, as an individual citizen?

I am adamantly opposed to abortion... and I do what I can when I can to bring the ignored rights of the unborn into the debate... but until such time as the "laws" of the land are changed, I cannot "deny" that choice to someone outside of my immediate and direct influence.  I "choose" to do nothing to support or participate in the realm of "abortion" and its adherents and supporters.

I am adamantly supportive of the Constitutional nature of our right to keep and bear arms as individual citizens.  It is "fundamentally" included in the founding documents of this nation, from start to finish... as a right and not as an obligation.  One can choose NOT to keep arms for personal protection, just as one can choose NOT to support the abortion industry in this nation.

As long as the national "average" of criminal forced entry into homes remains at one every 41 seconds... which translates as 2,107 break-ins a day... and that 40% of those occur in homes that are occupied by the families that live there... which translates to 843 times a day... and that 65% of the people breaking-in are armed themselves... which translates to 1,370 armed assailants every day... I am going to CHOOSE to exercise my RIGHT and fulfill my OBLIGATION as defined by the Supreme Court of the United States to "...keep and bear arms..." "...for the security of a free state".