I don’t mean to derail the thread but:
I am moderately pro-choice (I think that the right to an abortion during the first trimester is absolute and would not mind the public financing of abortions for those who cannot afford them; I am much more conflicted about second trimester abortions unless there is some sort of problem with the child; and I am pretty set against third trimester abortions unless there is something seriously wrong with the child or the continued pregnancy jeopardizes the life or physical health of the mother). This makes me rabidly pro-choice to some of my pro-life friends and makes me rabidly pro-life to some of my pro-choice friends, I think of myself as leaning pro-choice.
I am moderately pro-gun (I support some additional gun control, specifically licensing and registration but I am very supportive of the law abiding citizen’s right to keep and bear arms). This makes me rabidly pro-gun among my anti-gun friends and a little traitorous to the cause to some of my more gun nutty buddies, I think of myself as pro-gun.
In abortion debates, I rarely hear people argue about the fact that the right to an abortion is not referred to in any way in the constitution. It is mostly about when life starts or the importance of procreative choice in the health and welfare of women in our society.
However, in gun control debates, people think that because the right to keep and bear arms is actually mentioned in the constitution somehow makes it more susceptible to restriction. The reference to militia is interpreted by gun control folks to weigh heavily in their favor.
Prior to Heller I also thought that the second amendment was largely a communal right given to the states over the federal government (kinda like the tenth amendment) and along with the federal power “to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia” gave both the states and the federal government the right to set a floor on gun rights. That is to say that if there was a federal AWB and the state of Virginia wanted to allow assault weapons (putting aside commerce clause concerns) then the residents of Virginia could have assault weapons under Virginia’s second amendment right. Conversely, if California said no assault weapons and the federal government wanted the people in the state of California to have assault weapons, then the people of California could have assault weapons under the federal authority. However, after Heller, it is clear that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right (there may still be a state right embedded in there somewhere).
How do you gainsay the supreme court in the interpretation of a right that is explicitly enumerated in the bill of rights (even if their interpretation is not how you would prefer) while maintaining the precedential sanctity of Roe v. Wade? You can be pro-choice and anti-gun but your arguments should not be “SCOTUS is a bunch of corrupt idiots when they disagree with me but they are the pope speaking from the chair of Peter when when they agree with me”.