By Martin Fey, For The Bulletin, Posted Feb 01, 2013

A liberal simply can’t accept anything that runs counter to his or her personal vision of a proper world order.

That explains why these people, including our supposed constitutional-scholar president, can’t get it through their heads that the Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting

Here’s a frank explanation of the right to bear arms, offered by George Washington: “A free people…should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, including their own government.”

Get it?

The Second Amendment, muddled by some because it references militias, is unequivocally echoed in our own Connecticut Constitution: “Every citizen has a right to bare arms in defense of himself and the state.”

Yet Sen. Feinstein and President Obama cover their gun-control agendas by professing, as Obama recently put it, their “profound respect for the traditions of hunting that trace back in this country for generations.”

Self-defense is not a “tradition,” Mr. President. It’s a “natural” (God-given) right enshrined in the Constitution.

If you don’t like it, or you think it’s out of date, start the legal process to change it. And good luck with that.

Why the constant reference to hunting?

Because if people are willing to accept hunting as the “protected right,” they’ll submit to all sorts of “reasonable” regulations, restrictions, taxes and fees. Why even allow a 10-round magazine, as Feinstein’s bill proposes, when a good hunter needs only a single shot to take his quarry?

And why not restrict guns to muzzleloaders, since they were they only arms in existence when the Constitution was approved?.

My personal favorite is the proposed post-Sandy Hook law to impose a 50 percent Connecticut tax on ammunition. That would certainly give pause to a would-be shooter planning to wipe out a school and kill himself. Don’t forget, state law already makes all school zones “gun free” under penalty of law.

With some of the strictest gun laws in the nation already, Connecticut has shown how such laws succeed only in making it more difficult for law-abiding citizens to defend themselves.

And though today it may seem crazy to think that personal arms might be needed to check a repressive government, we cannot predict the future.

It’s our civic duty to make sure that both we and our progeny have the means to resist any future government that gets out of hand.