Home | Classifieds | Place Ad | Public Notices | Galleries | Kudos | Obits | Real Estate | Subscriber Services | Villager | Amazing Grapes | Yellow Pages | Contact Us
The Verde Independent | Cottonwood, Arizona

home : opinions : opinions July 9, 2014


1/29/2013 1:05:00 PM
Letter: It’s the Constitution that needs to be followed

Editor:

Wake up, Americans! Our Constitution is under attack. The elected officials who swore to uphold and protect it, lied: they are now attacking it.

Currently these officials are chipping away at the Second Amendment, the right to bear arms. This amendment was expressly included in the Constitution to protect citizens from a potential tyrannical government. Disarming the public removes that protection. Thomas Jefferson spoke this warning to us many years ago: “When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.”

You’ve probably noticed that when officials grab more power, they always do so in the claim of doing good. How else could they get a huge body of naive, uninformed people to follow them? Currently, officials are claiming that disarming law-abiding Americans would protect children. They think that the American people are so dumb that they’d believe that.

Anyone with common sense knows that if law-abiding citizens are disarmed, only criminals and those on psychiatric or other drugs would have guns. Are those the only ones we want to be armed?

American citizens own this country, not the officials. Yet these officials (employees) are demanding that law-abiding citizens have background checks before they can own guns. These officials have set themselves above the Constitution. What arrogance!

The officials who advocate shredding the Constitution are the ones who should have their backgrounds checked, not law-abiding Americans.

Officials who want to personally replace the Constitution with themselves are highly suspect. They are unashamedly unconstitutional and are determined to force other people to become mere subjects under themselves.

What hypocrites! Aren’t these liars and unconstitutionalists who are trying to take our guns away surrounded by gun protection?

These officials should be first in line to prove their theories. They can begin by declaring Washington D.C. a gun free city. No guns should be allowed even by guards or police. That includes at the Capitol, the White House, and the Pentagon, etc. Criminals and those on psychiatric or other drugs would know there would be no resistance. Let’s find out how that would work for the officials.

It’s the Constitution that needs to be followed, not the officials who are intent on destroying the Constitution. If men, not the rule of law (the Constitution), are in control, we’re in deep trouble.

The Constitution is cause and freedom is its effect. The rule of men is also cause, but its effect is slavery.

“Let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.” Thomas Jefferson

Arden Druce

Camp Verde





    Recently Commented     Most Viewed
This is Cottonwood! Arizona Culture Challenge takes flight (with videos) (1 comment)
Court blocks state plan to deny driver's licenses to some immigrants (10 comments)
Longtime Jerome resident, councilwoman Anne Bassett seeks another term (2 comments)
County jail tax increase goes to voters (2 comments)
Violation equals more probation time (2 comments)


Reader Comments

Posted: Monday, February 4, 2013
Article comment by: itsy bitsy Spider

I don't remember you supporting Arizona legislators when they fielded an intent to challenge federal enforcement back in 2011, Ms. Jane--just after voters approved the Medical Marijuana Act. Since this time no one's laughing, they probably won't drag their heels and drag their heels and drag their heels mounting a case to protect citizens that, this time, GOP right wingers don't think are idiots.


Posted: Saturday, February 2, 2013
Article comment by: RE: Mary Jane

Mary Jane, Unconstitutional, draconian drugs laws? What have you been smoking? If you enjoy it as it seems you will pay the price when you get busted. It's still the law here in Arizona unless you’re a card holder! Oh, by the way, stats show over half the card holders are phony and have no need for it other than getting high legally. Who selectively choose which rights under our constitution deserve to be upheld? Hmm, maybe the same ones who will not sign a budget these past years and signed off on Obummercare without letting anyone read it. Your right,
Maybe it will turn out to be similar to what happened in Germany, our leader is trying his hardest to change America into a socialist country, but NOT without a fight!


Posted: Friday, February 1, 2013
Article comment by: M J

Re: Mary Jane
Funny, I don't remember "the right to smoke pot" in the Bill of Rights.
Wow .... you REALLY like to get stoned. You don't drive that way do you?????

And what does ANY of this have to do with nazis???????

Liberals ..... there really is something wrong with them.



Posted: Friday, February 1, 2013
Article comment by: Phil Falbo

@ Brian

With your response, I see I underestimate the degree of paranoia infecting and infesting the far right.

For one to fear that every mother's son or daughter currently serving in the sanctified Military would suddenly turn on the United States citizenry to support tyranny takes a degree of anxiety that requires medication.

It explains much about right wing 'thinking.' Can you not see that these reactions to this irrational fear are actually creating the potential for the anarchy you would fight?

After all, I keep hearing 'conservative' sheriffs boasting they will not support the law!

You have more to fear from your heavily armed neighbor.


Posted: Friday, February 1, 2013
Article comment by: Mary Jane

I too support the second amendment rights guaranteed in our 'Bill of Rights'. But it seems the GOP right wingers like to selectively choose which rights under our constitution deserve to be upheld.

I certainly don't remember any outrage as the government and courts implemented the unconstitutional, draconian drugs laws and began their latest version of 'Prohibition' and their 'War on the Poor and least able to fight back'!

Maybe it will turn out to be similar to what happened in Germany with the Nazis. "When the government came after the Jews, I didn't stand up for them because I'm not a Jew." "When they came after the Catholics, I didn't stand up for them either because I'm not a Catholic." "So when they came for me, there was no-one left to stand up for my rights!"

So, of course my point is that the ENTIRE 'Bill of Rights' needs to be respected, not just your favorite ones!!!


Posted: Friday, February 1, 2013
Article comment by: nutso fasst

@ COLD DEAD:

When the Constitution was adopted there were no political parties.

The Constitution doesn't mention specific guns, but from other documents it's clear that "arms" means the most effective arms that can be individually borne. (You obviously didn't bother to read previous comments.)

You claim "no one except law enforcement or the military, needs automatic or semi-automatic assault style rifles or handguns." Perhaps you don't. Others may. Do you want a government with the power to legislate what citizens can have based on an arbitrary opinion of what they need?

BTW, enforcement of firearms laws is the purview of the ATF. Have you read much about them lately? Here's an article about a recent sting operation in Milwaukee:
http://www.jsonline.com/watchdog/watchdogreports/atfs-milwaukee-sting-operation-marred-by-mistakes-failures-mu8akpj-188952581.html
A fully-auto M4 rifle and two semi-auto pistols were stolen from an ATF vehicle, and their phony business was burglarized and stripped bare.

Assuming you lived in a neighborhood where home invasion robberies were not uncommon, who would you rather have possession of an M4 rifle: a neighbor you know and trust or an ATF agent?


Posted: Friday, February 1, 2013
Article comment by: Slater Slater

Lets face it.We came out of the prisons to the
east coast and formed an attitude of freedom.
We fought a gorilla war and defeated our foe's.
The politicians will cater to us gorillas if we can
get them 51% of the vote.
Guns are staying even if we import them from russia.


Posted: Thursday, January 31, 2013
Article comment by: Ryan Jensen

I would looooooove to see someone source/substantiate Carlson's comment:

"65% of the military voted for Romney."

I know Carlson himself can't do it.


Posted: Thursday, January 31, 2013
Article comment by: Gaia Gurl

Where are you GETTING that number from Brian Carlson?

Did you just MAKE it UP?

"Outsiders tend to think the U.S. military is made up entirely of blood-and-gut conservatives, à la John Wayne, but there’s little real evidence to back that up."

“The officers by and large are more conservative,” says an Army sergeant just back from Afghanistan. “But the enlisted tend to be more liberal.” Of course, with fewer than 1 in 5 of those in uniform an officer, there’s a lot more enlisted voters."

http://nation.time.com/2012/11/05/the-military-vote/


Posted: Thursday, January 31, 2013
Article comment by: M J

Re: From my ....
You stated, "referring to single shot muzzle loaders", in reference to the Constitution.
What a DUMB argument .... if we used your twisted "logic", then the "press" would only be newspapers (pressed out by hand of course).



Posted: Thursday, January 31, 2013
Article comment by: FROM MY COLD DEAD HANDS

@ Arden Druce

I thought gun ownership, when the Constitution was adopted, was referring to single shot muzzle loaders that were more necessary for hunting wild game and protection from predators and Indians. The militia came later, by then every white man had their own muzzle loader, because it was a necessary part of everyday life.

In the days when the Constitution was adopted, there was only one political party,slavery was legal, people made their own booze and were encouraged to grow marijuana.

Those were different days, that is why we have so many amendments to our Constitution.

Our right to own guns isn't being challenged, but no one except law enforcement or the military, needs automatic or semi-automatic assault style rifles or handguns.

If the government does make it illegal to own certain types of weapons it will be interesting to see how many idiots out there go " postal" with their pop-guns end up dying in their homemade bunkers and have to have their pop-guns pried from " their cold dead hands?" Are your machine guns really worth dying for? Think about it, paranoia is its own worst enemy.


Posted: Thursday, January 31, 2013
Article comment by: Brian Carlson

Phil, Who is to say that the military would not be part of the coup to take out a tyrannical government. 65% of the military voted for Romney. I would not like to see a civil war.

Posted: Wednesday, January 30, 2013
Article comment by: nutso fasst

@ Yavapai Peter:

"...the Constitution's BIll of Rights is for white, male land owners.."

You really need to do your own research, Peter. John A. Bond is not a Constitutional scholar.

"...second amendment is the only right with a specific purpose: to form and arm a well regulated militia."

The purpose for enumerating a right does not equate to a purpose for the right. The founders could have easily worded the amendment to say what you claim. They did not. They wrote that "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

After the revolution began, the New York militia began the nation's first buy-back program. Militia officers were "authorized... to proceed from House to House thro' their respective districts and purchase at the cheapest Rate they can be obtained for ready money all such good musketts and firelocks fit for the use of Soldiers, as can be spared by the Inhabitants of the Townships--That those Gentlemen respectively be requested not only to purchase arms as cheap as they reasonably can, but in no case to exceed the price of four pounds for any one Gun Muskett or Firelock...And it is hearby recommended to the Inhabitants of the said Townships to sell such musketts or firelocks as they can spare retaining arms for their own use."[1]

Note that they were authorized to purchase spare arms--the citizens were encouraged retain arms for their own use.

[1] http://www.guncite.com/images/NY-15-104.gif


Posted: Wednesday, January 30, 2013
Article comment by: Peter, Yavapai County

Arden, the Constitution's BIll of Rights is for white, male land owners, not everyone (women, children, slaves, etc.).

The second amendment is the only right with a specific purpose: to form and arm a well regulated militia. Note that the founders could have easily worded the amendment without the stated purpose, but they did not.

So today, we do not indeed follow the Constitution because we allow non white men, non landowners, women, children, and the mentally ill to purchase guns, large magazines and ammo without background checks (unregulated).


Posted: Wednesday, January 30, 2013
Article comment by: Danny Smith

Article [II]

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The only ones ignoring the wording of the Constitution are the power grabbing liberals.
In the context this amendment was written "A well regulated Militia" were considered civilians called up for duty to protect common people from a tyranical government (The English) and they most often needed their own weapons. So one can and should assume that "well regulated was also meant to mean well armed. Several states, New York included, stated ahead of time that they would not ratify the Constitution without the wording of the second amendment included so it was added during one of the Constitutional conventions. The framers of the Constitution were very smart men who wrote it in a vague way purposely so that it would be in a sense a timeless document to cover any new inventions or population growths as a general rule for future Americans. Bang the drum is certainly a liberal trying to confuse the issue with his own interpretation. Precisely the problem in todays society.



  - Page 1 -  Page 2



Article Comment Submission Form
Comments are not posted immediately. Submissions must adhere to our Use of Service Terms of Use agreement. The email and phone info you provide will not be visible to the public. Rambling or nonsensical comments may not be posted. Comments are limited to 1700 characters or less. In order for us to reasonably manage this feature we may limit your comment entries to five(5) per day.
Submit an Article Comment
First Name:
Required
Last Name:
Required
Telephone:
Required
Email:
Required
Comment:
Required
Passcode:
Required
Anti-SPAM Passcode Click here to see a new mix of characters.
This is an anti-SPAM device. It is not case sensitive.
   


Advanced Search

HSE - We want to hear from you
Find more about Weather in Cottonwood, AZ
Click for weather forecast


Submission Links
 •  Submit your feedback about our site

Find It Features Blogs Celebrate Submit Extras Other Publications Local Listings
Classifieds | Place Ad | Galleries | Kudos | Real Estate | Subscriber Services | e-News | RSS | Site Map | Find Verde Jobs | Contact Us
© Copyright 2014 Western News&Info, Inc.® The Verde Independent is the information source for Cottonwood and Verde Valley area communities in Northern Arizona. Original content may not be reprinted or distributed without the written permission of Western News&Info, Inc.® Verde News Online is a service of WNI. By using the Site, verdenews.com ®, you agree to abide and be bound by the Site's terms of use and Privacy Policy, which prohibit commercial use of any information on the Site. Click here to submit your questions, comments or suggestions. Verde News Online is a proud publication of Western News&Info Inc.® All Rights Reserved.

Software © 1998-2014 1up! Software, All Rights Reserved