Porn is not forced on any state, city, community, county, town and unicorporated rural area. Those areas are not required to provide porn, subsidize it or even allow its consumption in public. Rather, those entities are only required to not pass laws that would prevent consenting adults from viewing, producing or buying pornography.
and removing any legal option for such communities to prohibit the sale, distribution, manufacture or dissemination of pornography - is removing the power of government?
Yes. What is unclear to you? Since the government entities you mentioned above have less power to regulate what people read, view, produce or sell, that is a limitation of government power.
It is using the jack boot of government to limit the rights of individuals.
Individuals have every right not to produce, star in, buy, sell or view pornography. However, government does not have the power to tell consenting adults not to do these things. So, if you agree that this is the current status quo, please tell me what individual rights are limited?
Regarding comparing guns to porn - the right to protect oneself against enemies to the right to masturbate over pictures of whores prostituting themselves? These are not in the same category whatsoever, and it is laughable that you can compare them.
Rights are rights. The right to view or read what one wants is no less important than the right to bear arms. Just because you don't like what certain people view or read doesn't change this fact.
Rights are rights. What about the right of two men to marry each other? Maybe the founders were wrong about that one. What about the right of adults to have sex with children? Maybe they got that one wrong too. What about the right to have all schoolchildren screened for mental illness? Maybe that's a right they didn't know about.
And on and on and on.
If someone such as yourself refuses to admit the necessity of moral absolutes, you are on a very slippery slope, because there is always someone further along than yourself, such as Peter Singer (unless you agree with his natural conclusions to your philosophy) leading the way with his Pied Piper lies.
No moral absolutes - looks very good on paper. But it leads to cattle cars, gas chambers, and the Gulag. You don't see this because of your blinders - your blinders of hatred towards God and His laws. But He gives us all freedom of choice. We are free to make bad choices. But we are not free from the very serious consequences of our bad choices.
No one could ever call me a "fundamentalist Christian" - I read the Bible and the Vedas. All religions have the same basic moral absolutes. The problem is the tiny minority of atheists want to shove atheism down everyones' throats. You don't have that right.
You want the right to make up the rules to suit your proclivities. But you don't see that there are bigger dogs wanting to shove stuff down your throat that you don't like. But by rejecting moral absolutes, you have nothing to defend yourselve against their agenda.
Peter Singer thinks useless old people should be killed. What will you say when that is the law of the land, and you're a useless old person? With the rejection of moral absolutes, the biggest dog gets to make the rules.