Concealed weapon reasoning supports pro-choice stance

Dear Editor:

I would like to congratulate John Keisling ("Gun ownership is a fundamental right" Oct. 14) for not using the poorest excuse, the Constitution, to justify his opinion on the carrying of concealed weapons. The Constitution of the United States does not guarantee an individual's right to bear arms. The Constitution guarantees an individual's right to bear arms to establish and maintain a well-regulated militia. The last time I checked, organizations such as the National Guard and police organizations are well-established, maintained, regulated and have access to the weapons they need. This being the case, how can anybody really be against gun control? As a society, I believe that it is readily evident that we have a serious problem with the number of guns on the street and the senseless violence that accompanies it. However, gun control is only one of the many topics that needs to be addressed in order to make this country a better, safer place to live.

I would also like to say that I agree with John when he says,"It must be your choice, not the government's. In a free society, laws should exist only to stop the committing of crimes, where a crime is an act society has agreed it wrong." It is ironic, John uses those words to justify having a concealed weapon. I use those words to justify a women's right to seek abortion. As a society, (Roe v. Wade) we have decided that abortion is not wrong and therefore not a crime. This leaves me wondering, how can a person be allowed to make a choice about owning a gun and not be allowed to choose to have an abortion?

Eli L. Massey

Mechanical Engineering Senior

Read Next Article