By John Velisek USN (Ret), staff writer
Why is it that those who demand tolerance for every sexual perversion and every abomination inspired by a “religion” have an hysterical reaction to firearms? I would bet most individuals hyper-critical of guns have never fired one and wouldn’t wish to if given the chance. Their aversion to even rationally discussing the subject of firearms borders on the pathological.
A true standout of the hoplophobe community is sfgate blogger, Mark Morford. Mr. Morford has gun owners all figured out and is eager to share his insights with the rest of the world.
I laughed loudly after reading what this smug, self-important, anti-gun zealot said about gun owners. See how many of Morford’s descriptions of the average gun owner apply to you. Be honest now:
You are a scared white male; you don’t live near a university or large city; you have never traveled, you don’t read books, you don’t like change; you think Obama is a “scary black president,” (scary because he’s Black, not because he is a power-hungry, America-hating Marxist).
This is how Morford views gun owners. I assume that he will be highly disappointed when he discovers the fastest growing segment of the gun owning public is young, urban females. Equally crushing will be the results of a 2014 Gallup Poll revealing 54% of gun owners to be Black or otherwise non-White. Back to the drawing board for Mr. Morford.
Although gun rights are expanding in a majority of the 50 states, the administration is still working to implement gun control legislation incrementally. Obama, along with hoplophobe alarmists like Bloomberg, Blumenthal and Feinstein, to name a few, is attempting to have the State Department implement new rules Published in the June 3rd Federal Register, making it a crime to discuss firearms or ammo on the internet. My first question is, what does this have to do with the State Department? And secondly, what makes this administration think that the patriots who own guns in this country will allow them to so blithely trample our First Amendment rights?
The intent of the Second Amendment and the Bill of Rights is to protect the citizenry from the government. When the Constitution was ratified, it was assumed that a militia involved all those who were able to bear arms. In addition to defending towns and the nation, the duty of a militia was to help defend citizens from a tyrant. If the government became tyrannical, it was up to the militia to make things right.
This is why progressives want a “living” Constitution and Bill of Rights. For “living” means changeable and NOT according to the methods set down in the Constitution. The left prefer to make uncomplicated, wholesale changes to any portion of our liberties as enumerated. They don’t want the American people to know that the right to keep and bear arms is a God given right of the people, not of the states and certainly not of the federal government.