Legal Gun Owners or Muslims?

Walmart’s and Dick’s Sporting Goods plan to raise the age for the purchase of firearms and ammunition to 21-years old. In addition, Walmart plans to remove any items that resemble assault rifles from its shelves. However, I’ll bet dollars to donuts that Walmart doesn’t remove the wide array of violent video games.

Dick’s Sporting Goods also announced it would stop selling assault rifles, high-capacity magazines, and raise the minimum age to purchase even a toy gun to 21-years old.

I’ve got news for the MOW-RONS, i.e., “morons” for those familiar with grammatically correct English; Dick’s Sporting Goods, has never sold “assault rifles” nor could they by law. In order to sell assault weapons a business must have what is commonly referenced as a Class Three License. A Class Three License is somewhat of a misnomer if you are listening to a lawyer tell it. However, the end result and federal statutes are the same whether you reference it Class Three License or Standard Occupational Taxpayer, which allows the entity to participate in the very narrowly defined and strictly regulated NFA Firearms/Title II firearms category.

But here is what you should know. Dick’s Sporting Goods is conning the public by trying to cash in on the tragedy in Parkland, Florida. Dick’s Sporting Good’s has figured out if they made a well publicized display of announcing they would no longer carry assault weapons, which as I have already explained, they could by law never carried to begin with, and discontinue the sale of assault style models was good for business. Then after the public was no longer paying attention they would go back to selling same. That’s exactly what they have did in the aftermath of the Sandy Hook Elementary School Shooting, in 2012. And I am told by a respected authority that they’re aware Walmart hasn’t sold the imitation style assault rifles for years either.

Politicians and the media as a whole are engaging in homiletic jeremiads and theatrical displays of pontification during which they cry “we must do something.” The plaintive cry that “something must be done” is a draconian sobriquet for “do away with the Second Amendment and take the weapons of the law abiding.”

The idea that “something must be done” falls under the misguided notion that morality can be legislated and the dismissal of the fact that evil exists and that evil people do evil things.

The most obvious things to do to at least balance the field regarding the threat evil people pose are ignored. The ending of gun free zones and the unencumbered ability to fully exercise our Constitutional right to own and bear arms would go a long way toward protecting the public. Two-parent homes where love, instruction, and discipline are dispensed more freely than psychotropic drugs are also a good first step.

Anti-gun zealots engage in a pernicious duplicitous and selective moral outrage. September 11, 2001, Muslims commandeered commercial aircrafts and used them to murder over three thousand innocent and unsuspecting Americans. None of these Erebusic anti-gun marplots in the media nor politicians have ever been heard expressing invidious oratories about Muslims as they are about legal American citizens who choose to own firearms.

There have reportedly been 32,617 Islamic terrorist attacks since September 11, 2001. Wouldn’t it make sense to show more concern about the threat that Muslim Terrorists present than the concerted effort to deprive Americans of their Second Amendment right?

Muslims are lauded and their mosques are welcomed and revered, even though it is a proven fact that many Muslim mosques are repositories for illegal weapons and contraband.

Without exception, after every terrorist mass killing on American soil the media and politicians have reminded the public that Islam is a religion of peace. The public is reminded that one or two crazed “radical” Islamists should not reflect adversely upon the true peaceful tradition of Islam, despite the bloody history of the pagan cult from its inception. But the very same mainstream media and politicians deem it their fundamental duty to equate one drug crazed young person to indict over 100 million legal firearms enthusiasts.

The mass murders in Benghazi on September 11, 2011, which included the murders of Sean Smith, Tyrone Woods, Glen Doherty, and Ambassador Christopher Stevens brought no such outrage by Congress as a whole. Trey Gowdy’s theater production laughably pedaled as congressional hearings cost taxpayers $7.1 million. The so-called hearings produced talking points but little more. Obama, who was singularly responsible for allowing Woods, Smith, Doherty, and Stevens to be murdered, has never been so much as questioned for refusing to send available air resources to aid the Benghazi Four. Yet he still wants to take away our firearms and refuses to find fault with murderous Muslims who practice the most reprobate form of cultism, slavery, and barbarism in known history.

From Obama to the media as a whole to politicians they want it believed that one lone psychotropic crazed liberal worshipping killer is an indictment against all firearms owners. Am I the only one who sees something wrong with this reasoning?