Big Brother vs. The Common Man: No contest.

They are no sure things in life, except death and taxes so the saying goes. Just when you think you have something all figured out, a curve ball out of left field blows the lid off of your theory. Most of the time. But I think I have found another sure thing. Bring up the words "abortion" or "guns" in an election year, and it is a virtual certainty that the left and the right will put each others in their cross hairs and pull the metaphorical trigger.

Abortion is the one topic that really leaves me scratching my head going, huh? I mean, every election year, the same tired arguments are rehashed over and over. Does anyone really believe that that the supreme court is going to overturn the infamous Roe vs. Wade? Some actually do, but I don't. And when a politician uses RvW as a cornerstone of their platform, I am thinking, Is this all you got?

But today's real topic is the matter of guns and the Supreme Court case of McDonald vs. Chicago. Jesse Jackson, Mayor Daley, and Neil Steinberg all seem to think that we will all be better off if we leave well enough alone. That is, let the really nasty bad guys have all the fun while the rest of the city sit at home hoping that tonight isn't the night when some lunatic with no soul is going to bust through a back window and shoot us while we sleep as a favor to a friend. I am talking about the Darien murders and how today's headlines could read, "Hero Father Only Doing His Job: Protecting His Family", or "Slain Gunman's Motive Still Unknown". Yes, you can argue semantics, like Darien isn't Chicago, but I don't think I really need to pull out any instances of this happening within the city limits, do I? Jesse argues that the real meaning of the second amendment was to ensure that militia's would be adequately armed when called upon to fight for their country. But is there a big difference in fighting to protect a union or fighting to protect your family? Yesterdays Confederate soldiers are today's Latin Kings, both are/were trying to disrupt your very way of life.

I know the counter-argument. A gun in the home leads to accidents that we can avoid by not having a gun in the home. Which in turn leads me to the point of my morning rant, and is in effect the very thing that really puts gas in The Guitarman's tank. The dumbing down of the world to save us from ourselves. Just because some people are too ignorant or too stupid to take the precautionary measures of ensuring accidents will not happen, the rest of us are protected for our own good. Whether it's guns in the home, no turn on red signs at every intersection, warning labels on lawn mowers, or whatever, because of the stupid actions of a few, the majority has to suffer. Big brother is here to protect us from ourselves. Thanks for that, but I would prefer to make a few decisions for myself. Like whether or not I want to be at the mercy of some loser pointing a gun at me in my bedroom at 3am.

Look, I am sure the founding fathers could not have imagined the world we live in, nor the debate that still rages on today over the 2nd amendment. They didn't have to deal with gun-toting, soul-less gang bangers in 1776. There were no stop lights. There were no lawn mowers. And there certainly weren't lawsuits with punitive damages in the gazillions of dollars because someone burned their thighs on a cup of McDonald's coffee. But I can only guess here, that they probably leaned toward less government and giving people the benefit of the doubt. Something that seems impossible today, given the path on which our government walks. A path that will no doubt lead to helmets and body armour for all so that we won't hurt ourselves when we trip over a crack in the sidewalk and get a boo-boo on our chin.