ABC News slams gun owners as the “black helicopter” crowd:
[…] Unfortunately, history is on the side of those “paranoid” civilians who don’t trust their own government. We don’t trust them to protect our Constitutional rights. We don’t trust them to make sure our 2nd Amendment rights are not infringed upon. They’re already infringing on all our Constitutional rights, and yet, even many conservatives trust them with the universal background check issue. The government’s ideal is for no civilian to have any gun or self-defense weapon except for maybe a pair of scissors or a Swingline stapler. Yet, people will trust our government to decide who shouldn’t be allowed to own a gun.
We shouldn’t trust them with background checks and defining mental illness. They are going to impose stricter and stricter rules and regulations on background checks that will continually expand the criteria for those that will not be allowed to purchase a firearm. Until no one owns a gun anymore. And even by that time, they will have convinced most people that no one’s rights were infringed upon; that they were just preventing crimes by making sure guns didn’t end up in the wrong hands. […]
America’s gun owners are under siege on virtually all fronts. Congress is after us, and so are governors such as New York’s Andrew Cuomo and Maryland’s Martin O’Malley. They must think that when they run for the Democratic presidential nomination, a strong anti-gun stance will help them with left-wing primary voters.
It doesn’t stop there, however, as the media, liberal legislators and both federal and state regulators are looking for new and often unique ways to please their liberal bosses by harassing gun owners, dealers and manufacturers.
One major national firearms retailer, for example, has been under fire for more than two years from the Obama administration’s Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. It seems the company won’t hire convicted felons, which the commission claims amounts to illegal racial discrimination. The federal government these days argues that policies that have what government lawyers call a “disparate impact” on racial minorities amount to impermissible discrimination – even when the policies themselves were not put in place for discriminatory reasons. Thus, the government argues that a higher percentage of minorities within the felony population than in the population at large means that any policy that discriminates against felons as a class is discriminatory because its impact falls disparately on minorities.
Company officials pointed out to commission investigators threatening to charge the company with discrimination that they couldn’t hire felons even if they wanted to, because federal law prohibits federal firearms licensees from hiring felons. The investigator’s response was, according to a company official I talked to: “That’s your problem, not ours.” These are investigators and regulators who can read between the lines, know their bosses are anti-gun and will do anything they can to please them. […]