In case you missed it, several days ago, The Baltimore Sun published an opinion piece by reporter Tricia Bishop with the title, “Do You Know the Gun Owners in Your Circle?” Looking at the title, it is a bit obtuse about the subject matter as it could mean almost anything. In her opening paragraph, Bishop talks about going to visit her parents in Georgia, seeing billboards and signs advertising firearms as gifts for Christmas, and the inevitable discussion about violence in Baltimore, which she usually starts. Bishop decided to “get her back up” on this discussion during her visit, taking an interesting stance.
In summation, Bishop supports the unconstitutional, illegal, unlawful actions by Hussein Soetoro on gun control. But, Soetoro isn’t doing enough. She writes, “…but how about adding something immediately useful: a gun owner registry available to the public online — something like those for sex offenders. I’m not equating gun owners with predatory perverts, but the model is helpful here; I want a searchable database I can consult to find out whether my kid can have a play date at your house.”
The rest of her op-ed contains paragraphs on gun statistics, anecdotal stories of her childhood with gun-owning parents who engaged in hunting, two teenage male friends who fired guns in their backyard occasionally pointing the guns at each other, and her experience with firing a gun while covering handgun-carry regulations in Maryland when covering the story. Evidently, the experience gained from covering the handgun-carry regulations was an exhilarating one. She admitted her only exposure to firearms was to those obtained legally. Her basic attitude and frame of mind is clear in a few paragraphs.
“I’m less afraid of the criminals wielding guns in Baltimore, I declared, as we discussed the issue, than I am by those permitted gun owners,” she wrote. “I know how to stay out of the line of Baltimore’s illegal gunfire; I have the luxury of being white and middle class in a largely segregated city that reserves most of its shootings for poor, black neighborhoods overtaken by ‘the game’.”
The closest I typically get to the action is feeling the chest-thumping vibrations of the Foxtrot police helicopter flying overhead in pursuit of someone who might be a few streets over, but might as well be a world away. But I don’t know where the legal gun owners are or how to ensure that their children, no matter how well versed in respecting firearms, won’t one day introduce that weapon to my daughter.
And, people above the Mason-Dixon line complain about those below.
Writing about her firearm experience covering the handgun-carry regulations, Bishop indicated, “I fired a .22 caliber pistol several years ago as a reporter covering handgun-carry regulations in Maryland; I still have the paper target practice sheet taped to my cubicle to flaunt my bullseye. There was a definite rush to handling the weapon, and I could see the attraction of target practice as a hobby. But the risk to owning the gun isn’t worth it to me.”
One can describe this one as educated but dumb. She needs an elementary lesson.
Ms. Bishop, as delicately as can be done through written medium, you are an idiot. Your “right” to know if someone owns a firearm and has one in their home is about as much of a “right” as sodomite marriage. In case you didn’t get that, your “right” and sodomite marriage are contrived, invented “rights” based on disconnected thinking. You have zilch right to know what is in anyone’s home.
Your idiotic, dumb-bum suggestion violates the right to privacy — an inherent right that is covered under the Fourth and Ninth Amendments. Unlike your “right” to know and sodomite marriage, the right to privacy is inherent, not invented or contrived through usurpation. Going further, you need to read the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, Ms. Bishop, before you engage in diarrhea of the keyboard.
Succinctly, Ms. Bishop, this issue is very simple. The Second Amendment of the Constitution of the united States of America states, “A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” This one amendment, with its skillful wording, limits all government – federal, state and local. How that is known, Ms. Bishop, is the Constitution limits government, not the people. Read it and become enlightened.
Ms. Bishop, when the government refuses to obey the law, the Constitution, and begins to eradicate or trample upon inherent, God-given rights from the people, the government has morphed into a tyrannical, despotic one ruled by the whim of man. One could call it a dictatorship, a democracy, oligarchy, or one of communism or socialism. You see, our government is a republic as established in the Constitution. The definition of a republic is best defined by using an old analogy. “A democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to eat for dinner; a republic is a sheep with a gun contesting the decision.”
Whether you realize it or not, the purpose of government is to secure individual God-given rights or inherent rights, meaning you are born with them. Yes, you are educated but that doesn’t mean educated individuals can’t be idiotic or dumb. What inherent rights mean, Ms. Bishop, is that it doesn’t matter if 99.99% of citizens of this nation want soda-pop banned, government protects the 0.01% who like soda pop, drinking it as often as they want.
Ms. Bishop, you need to review the first two paragraphs of the Declaration of Independence and the preamble to the Constitution very carefully. Be sure you can comprehend and understand the words.
From your own words, one could theorize you have an irrational fear of inanimate objects — hoplophobia. It’s a shame really. But, you have the responsibility and duty to obey the law, not encourage government to violate the very document (law) it is bound to uphold.
It’s nice to see plenty of idiots and dumb-bums willing to put their stupidity on display. Say what you will, Ms. Bishop; but, your willingness to trample on the rights of others for a “cause” would definitely do a one-eighty should someone dare to deny you your rights or your children’s rights — especially the right to freedom of speech and of the press you enjoy so. You seem to suffer the delusion that government is the giver of rights. Remember one thing — government that gives you something is a government that can also take it away.