This "Yahoo" Responds to an Elitist

After reading this post on War on Guns, I wrote to the "representative" in question. I told him that as one of the "yahoos" he hated so much, I thought he should get a real job.

Here is the response I got from his office:

Good Afternoon Kent:

I am sorry that you were offended by the
“yahoo” comment; it actually referred to persons who shouted “yahoo” after
common sense gun legislation was defeated within the judiciary committee.
We are a Commonwealth state and surely we will differ on opinions and
policies.

I am a strong supporter of the right to bear arms.
As a former police officer and chief within the Philadelphia County Sherriff’s
office, we need such legislation to protect the lives of law enforcement
officers across this state and the lives of Pennsylvanians like
you.

Thank you for sharing your views.

Jewell
Rep.
Jewell Williams

Not content to leave well enough alone, I replied:

I am more offended by the elitist mindset you have demonstrated by pushing
these slavery-enhancing "laws", than by your name-calling. The only
"common sense" gun legislation necessary or desirable is to honor the highest
law of the land: The Constitution, as it is written, not as socialists would
prefer to reinterpret it. The Second Amendment protects from
government infringement two separate rights "of the people" (look up
"infringe" if you have difficulty with the word): the right to form a militia,
("well regulated" meant "well practiced" at the time it was written, not
"government controlled" as you would prefer to think), and the right to own and
to carry any type of weapon they desired, wherever they went, in any manner they
saw fit, without asking anyone's permission, ever. If you do not abide by
this, you are not even a weak "supporter" of the right to keep and bear arms,
but a believer in the limited privilege to keep and bear arms at the whim of the
government. Victim disarmament ("gun control" to you) has failed everywhere
and every time it has been tried, IF the goal is to reduce crime. If the
goal is to reduce the population to a state of slavery and fear, then it is
effective. Philadelphia has the most draconian gun "laws" in the state;
shouldn't it therefore have the least crime if victim disarmament prevents
crime? Police would not need laws "for their protection" if they were not
on the streets and in the neighborhoods violating the rights of peaceful people
by enforcing counterfeit "laws" (laws that have no real individual
victim). If they were acting honorably they would be rallied behind and
protected by the people all around them. Sadly, this is no longer the case
in America, and will not be again unless the absolute rights of the people are
once again respected by those in government and their enforcers.

I guess I will wait to have my door kicked in now.