An American’s constitutional gun rights are not about the right to own an object, a gun, or to go hunting. American’s Second Amendment rights are inextricably linked to your right to self-defense. That God-given right you can use if you find yourself on the wrong end of a criminal’s gun. People, like former Democrat presidential candidate and anti-gun rights luminary, Mike Bloomberg, either don’t think about that inextricable link or they just don’t care.

The way rabidly anti-gun rights former-mayor Bloomberg distorts the truth and facts to support his gun control efforts tells me he couldn’t care less about an American’s right to self-defense. After all, what person who believes in limiting another person’s consumption of salt, soda, and other bans and mandates can legitimately claim to care about Americans’ individual liberty?

Bloomberg is constantly pushing the truth envelope such as when he says he has no intention of infringing on the Second Amendment and only wants “reasonable” gun restrictions as, he notes, the Supreme Court has allowed. No. He intends to go much further. Just ask those Virginians who had to fight for their gun rights because of the elections Bloomberg admitted, in a recent Democrat debate, he bought.

MORE NEWS: Democrats file lawsuit to have Bernie Sanders kept off ballot in Florida

Among other intended infringements, there’s nothing reasonable about Bloomberg’s call for “assault weapons” bans, “high-capacity” magazine bans, or gun registration. All of these efforts are aimed primarily at law-abiding gun owners, not criminals. Well, except for Bloomberg creating a brand-new class of criminals out of law-abiding citizens.

And what about those so-called assault weapons and high-capacity magazines? Without the ability to acquire the most practical and efficient firearms and the quantity of ammunition you choose for your personal defense, handguns, rifles, and the magazine capacity that’s right for you, you don’t have a practical right to self-defense. And without a right to self-defense, there is no right to life.

Think about it. If the government will not allow you to effectively protect your life from an armed person who wishes to take it, then government has not only infringed on your Second Amendment rights but also on your Declaration of Independence-acknowledged, God-given right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. If the government decrees you may not effectively defend your life, you obviously cannot enjoy liberty or pursue your happiness if someone kills you.

At a recent Fox News Channel town hall, a Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) supporter asked Bloomberg, “How do you justify pushing for more gun control when you have an armed security detail that’s likely equipped with the same firearms and magazines that you seek to ban the common citizen from owning? Does your life matter more than mine or my families or these people’s?”

Bloomberg began to blather about getting so many death threats (“some real”) and that he’s so resplendently wealthy that he can pay for armed security. Then he justified his security detail, saying they are all well-trained former police officers. Translation: I’m more important than you are for a greater number of reasons than could fill a Big Gulp cup, so I have to protect myself—by hiring people with guns.

In other words, Bloomberg allows himself the ability to justify how he will deal with his self-defense, but you are not allowed to do the same. Unless, of course, you also can afford to hire former-police officer bodyguards. Or, could he believe the right to self-defense is one God gives only to elites like him?

Do you think Michael Bloomberg is out of his league?

By completing the poll, you agree to receive emails from LifeZette, occasional offers from our partners and that you've read and agree to our privacy policy and legal statement.

So, according to the patron saint of gun-grabbing hypocrites, the right to keep and bear arms belongs only to those people important and wealthy enough that some people want to kill them. Have I got that right? Seems to me folks living in an inner city, high-crime neighborhood are at greater risk than Bloomberg.

What happened to Americans’ natural right to defend themselves and their families? Is Bloomberg arguing that Americans don’t have the right to defend themselves or their families’ lives? If he’s not arguing that, then it is unclear what he is arguing…because that would be the result if Bloomberg had his way?

Is he acknowledging I have self-defense rights but only limited to a straw and spit wads to fend off criminals with guns? Does he want me to call the cops instead of taking my pistol out of the nightstand? You know, because criminals with guns who want to hurt you always give you time to call 911 and then wait for the cops to arrive.

MORE NEWS: The five best presidents in American history

Oh, wait…gun control advocates, who, last I heard were leftist, anti-cop folks, want me to believe that they believe I should count on the very cops they disrespect, criticize, and hate to arrive before the bad guy, with his gun already in my face, ready to put a bullet in me. Okay.

Oh, crap. I just thought of something awful. In California and Seattle, straws are illegal. Looks like those west- coasters are totally out of luck when it comes to their rights to self-defense. In those places, never mind guns, they don’t have the right to keep and bear straws.

Fortunately, Bloomberg the gun-grabber has withdrawn from the race, even after capturing the Democratic primary vote in American Samoa. However, does anyone think this liberty-hating gun-control radical, whose company generates some $8 billion in annual revenues and who collects over $1 billion per year in interest alone, is going to stop using that money to keep trying to eviscerate the Second Amendment? Not likely.