Home | Classifieds | Place Ad | Public Notices | Galleries | Kudos | Obits | Real Estate | Subscriber Services | Villager | Health Directory | Contact Us
The Verde Independent | Cottonwood, Arizona

home : opinions : opinions May 25, 2016


1/31/2013 1:09:00 PM
Letter: Proliferation of guns only enhances and magnifies fear

Editor:

In a letter of January 17,2013, Gari Basham sets forth an argument in opposition to President Obama’s recent decision to issue executive orders concerning gun violence in America.

There is a debate raging in America, over the meaning of the 2nd amendment to the US Constitution. Not too surprisingly, the primary focus of the debate concerns the meaning of the 2nd Amendment in a modern industrialized society with a population of over 330 million people never envisioned by the Founding Fathers.

An historical examination of the circumstances that existed in 1787, when the second amendment was adopted for inclusion into the US Constitution, is revelatory of the awareness by the Founding Fathers that the newly formed United States of America had no permanent standing army.

The Founding Fathers relied primarily upon citizen militias that could be called up at a moments notice in the event of an existential threat to America.

It is noteworthy to reflect upon the nature of those so-called “citizen militias”. For example, throughout the south, the militias were commonly referred to as “slave patrols”.

By 1787, there had been over 100 slave insurrections wherein Africans enslaved on southern plantations rebelled against their racist slave owners to seek their freedom.

The citizen militias, were in fact, slave patrols created to prevent such rebellions, capture rebellious slaves to return them to their plantation slave owners, and to perpetuate the practice of slavery.

With the foundation of the United States of America, slave owners feared the federal government would outlaw such citizen militias thus undermining their ability to continue the practice of slavery.

They lived in existential fear of the human beings they enslaved and were fully aware that without armed patrols to enforce the practice of slavery, slavery would be undermined and eventually cease to exist.

Therefore, the language set forth in the 2nd Amendment regarding “a well regulated militia” clearly references the citizen militias in existence at the time of the adoption of the US Constitution.

At that point in American history, citizens relied upon their weapons [arms] for hunting and self-protection in an environment wherein indigenous peoples [characterized as savages], reacting to the assault upon them by an ever increasing white population, represented an existential threat to the newly formed nation.

It made sense in context to the reality of the times, for every citizen to retain the right to bear arms as set forth in the US Constitution.

However, in order to properly apply the 2nd amendment to our modern society several factors must be taken into account that did not exist at the drafting and adoption of the 2nd amendment.

For example, in 2013, America has a large standing army to protect the citizenry from any potential threat from a foreign enemy. America has hundreds [over 8 hundred] of military bases all over the world in foreign lands that represent an ever-expanding American military empire.

Furthermore, America now has a “formal” well regulated militia, the National Guard, which can be called up at a moments notice to deal with any domestic threat to the citizenry/nation by the governor of the state so threatened. There are civilian police forces in every state, county and municipality in America.

Therefore, the only legitimate reason for citizens to retain their “right to bear arms” is for hunting and self-defense [home invasion]. Anything beyond that would seem unnecessary and contextually beyond the scope of the 2nd Amendment.

It should be possible for reasonable people to come to some accommodation wherein the right to bear arms is retained by the people with sensible proscriptions being placed upon that right in the context of a modern society in a nation with a standing army and well regulated militias controlled by state governors elected by the people.

For example, limiting the type of weapons that can be purchased by citizens for hunting/self-defense seems reasonable. The idea that the 2nd Amendment is inviolable and cannot have reasonable proscriptions placed upon it seems extreme given the massive carnage that modern weaponry can inflict upon people. The most recent example of such carnage occurred in Newtown, Connecticut.

The American people have generally accepted the proscription upon the ownership of weapons by people who are felons, who demonstrate mental instability and who exhibit a propensity to engage in overt violent actions or make overtly violent statements towards others.

The idea is accepted by the American people that requiring background checks for persons seeking to purchase weapons is a reasonable and necessary deterrent to gun violence.

There is a general agreement, too, that allowing individuals to purchase guns at “gun shows” without any background checks represents a huge loophole in existing laws that needs to be closed.

The idea that individual citizens need weapons equivalent to those weapons used by the US Military and the National Guard does not have wide spread acceptance, either.

The whole idea of a “well regulated militia” [consisting of an armed citizenry] who were essentially “on call” for emergency service during an existential external threat to the nation, is no longer valid.

There are sufficient well-regulated militias in place throughout the 50 states to meet any such need in case of emergency.

We no longer rely upon a citizen militia to provide protection from foreign invasion or domestic terrorism. We rely upon the National Guard and civilian police forces to effectuate such protection for us in our modern society in conjunction with the Office of Homeland Security.

If we are to accept the assertion by those who claim, “individual citizens must be able to match force with force”, and therefore there can be no proscription upon private ownership of weapons, we are to believe that citizens can purchase and own, military aircraft, tanks, ballistic missiles, military helicopters, anti-tank missiles, armed drones and the plethora of military-style weaponry currently part of the arsenal in America.

The absurdity of such a proposition is self-evident to anyone not fanatical about the 2nd amendment. The fear and paranoia endemic to such ideation is equally self-evident and could even be used as a reasonable justification for anyone who expresses such fanaticism to be deemed “mentally defective” and denied the right to possessive weapons.

The principle reason given by those who want unlimited access to modern weaponry under the auspices of the 2nd amendment stems from a disjointed and paranoid reliance upon the idea that the Founding Fathers provided for the right to bear arms because of their experience with an oppressive British occupation that relied upon the suppression of the right to bear arms.

The idea behind such ideation represents a belief that the citizens must be armed to prevent oppression by their own government and that the government that restricts the right to bear arms is by its very nature an oppressive government.

Of course, this is a narrow and limited interpretation of the 2nd Amendment not generally shared by the vast majority of Americans.

Most Americans do not believe that the government represents an existential threat to their freedom and they do not accept the idea that it is necessary for every citizen to keep and bear arms equivalent to those possessed by the US Military used to fight in foreign wars.

Even members of the NRA are willing to accept some reasonable restrictions upon the “right to bear arms” and recognize the need to impose restrictions upon certain types of military style weapons that serve no other purpose than warfare.

Clearly, the NRA, while professing fidelity to the 2nd amendment, is driven by greed. The principal benefactor to the NRA is not the membership through dues; it is monies provided to the NRA from gun manufacturers who have a vested interest in the proliferation of gun sales to enlarge their profit.

In other words, the NRA is driven by GREED, and that greed trumps any and all other considerations.

There has to be a better way. That way will require compromise.

It is compromise that fully recognizes that the meaning of the 2nd Amendment has changed over time and requires a modern interpretation of it that still allows for individual citizens to retain their right to bear arms. The right to bear arms with sensible limitations being placed on that right to preserve and protect the citizenry from unreasonable exposure to mass murders perpetrated upon them while merely going about the daily process of living in a constitutional republic.

The proliferation of guns only enhances and magnifies that fear. For some, the idea that requiring people to live in existential fear of each other is the most effective way to prevent gun violence.

This is invalidated by the reality that such fear leads to the emotional and psychological breakdown of citizens who then act out very violently using those very same weapons allegedly serving as a deterrent to such gun violence.

No democracy, no matter what form it manifests, can long endure in a country were the citizens live in existential fear of each other.

John A. Bond

Cottonwood



    Most Viewed     Recently Commented
•   Police soon will have one more reason to pull you over (4526 views)

•   What's hot in Verde Valley job market? (2837 views)

•   Cornville man charged with child molestation seeks plea (2761 views)

•   Motorcycle rider suffers head injuries in crash (2120 views)

•   Seasonal warning: never leave dog in parked car (2084 views)



Reader Comments

Posted: Saturday, February 16, 2013
Article comment by: itsy bitsy Spider

Oh, all right, Mr. Bond. If you and your gang of Socratic equivocators aren't up to discussing the probable authors of the current faux crisis, lets see if we can find a few pearls.

"An historical examination...through...adoption of the U.S. Constitution"

This distortion originated in British agitprop intended to dampen European sympathy for the rebels. Variations--aimed at encouraging Crown loyalists' resistance to the revolting rabble--fanned existing fear of slave uprisings and reduced the rebels' access to able-bodied recruits.

After the war, while our Founders were trying to bring the loyalists (especially large plantation owners) into the nation, some abolitionists reworked the British military strategy to suit their ends. Abolitionist agitprop petered out after the Emancipation Proclamation, which legally ended the free/unfree social divide that had been present in the colonies since the founding of Jamestown.

At the turn of the 20th century, the Progressive Movement revived some elements of the British slurs. But its most prominent colonial historian, Dr. Charles Beard, presented the political divide as being between farmers, tradesmen, and working-class professionals (Anti-federalists) and lawyers & merchants (Federalists), with whom he lumped all the plantation owners. (Please don't argue the grouping with me--argue with Dr. Beard.) In this scenario, the merchant cabal's main concern was controlling disgruntled Revolutionary War veterans. The 2nd Amendment protected the proletariat's right to fight back if necessary. And no one was worrying about slave patrols. Subsequent rebuttals of Dr. Beard's economic theories don't dispute George Mason's stated reasons for drafting the 2nd Amendment or offer slave suppression as a motive for anything.

Thus, we could infer Mr. Bond is actually praising Mr. Mason's foresight in creating just enough ambiguity so that the proportion of the population covered by the Bill of Rights could grow with the nation's concept of what constituted "people" as opposed to "property." As such, slavery as an accepted social institution is quite relevant to any discussion of constitutionally guaranteed rights.

However, I think Mr. Bond misses gem status here by not mentioning that in less than 70 years from ratification of the Bill of Rights--in the North as well as the South--Blacks who could enter any trade, own property, marry at will, participate in civic and cultural activities, speak out, bear arms, serve in militias, petition for redress of grievances, and be secure in their personal effects (even vote and hold office in a few States, I think) totally lost their personhood.

How this happened is as tragic a story of GREED and CORRUPTION as is that of the slave trade. At its core, though: Blacks constituted a fraction of the free population (some 1-2%). They didn't pay enough attention to local politics. They didn't start fighting back until they'd lost ground. And due solely to the origin of their immediate ancestors, they got dehumanized by the propaganda war between abolitionists and slave owners.

Which demonstrates a constitution only works when the people administrating it actually enforce it, even in America.

"At that point in American history...through...municipality in America."

Not exactly an insight, but true. Because a majority of Americans decided they would rather pay for a standing army, National Guard, and local police forces (plus a host of federal enforcement agencies), a majority of Americans no longer strap-on side arms and grab a rifle or shotgun before leaving the house. And actually, Arizonans are better positioned than most US citizens to discuss why they decided--without any federal legislation--to put some of their arms in the hands of professionals. Unlike people on the eastern seaboard, some of us can remember what it was like before we did, or at least get it from our parents rather than Hollywood movies. However...

"Therefore, the only legitimate...through...beyond the scope of the 2nd Amendment."

Simply doesn't follow. Legitimate has nothing to do with this diamond-studded pseudo assault rifle, honey. Not if I like the way it looks on that wall. Per the 10th Amendment, the people retain their prerogatives, however misguided, until the people decide they want to pass them on. And...

"It should be possible for reasonable...through...serve no purpose than warfare."

The people also decide to which level of government they want to cede an inalienable right. One size does not fit all. Some communities require more protection than others. Some require more latitude than others. Some, more oversight. Every study I've found indicates some local enforcement agencies are better than others, but all provide better day to day service than the National Guard or the FBI. State-conducted background checks are more thorough and more accurate than federal. There are restrictions that are reasonable on a neighborhood or city or county level that are not reasonable statewide. And aside from Mr. Bond's list of heavy artillery and vehicles, which are already exclusive to the military, I can't think of any reasonable measure that could be better handled by the feds. The ATF is hardly a sterling example of reasonable, efficient, effective gun control.

"Clearly, the NRA...through...all other considerations."

I've already addressed this, and the Bond gang doesn't want to discuss it.

"It is compromise that fully...through...living in a constitutional republic."

No. The federal government needs to acknowledge there are some things people, cities, counties, and states can do better than it can. The people need to accept there are some things neither legislation nor government in general can fix.

"The proliferation of guns...through...No democracy, no matter what form it manifests, can long endure in a country where the citizens live in fear of each other."

Now herein, I think, lies a pearl. It should be a crime to yell "Guns!" in a crowded nation. And it should be a felony, life with no parole, to deliberately, with malice and aforethought, use fear tactics to set one group of law-abiding citizens against another, or to pass legislation, or to sell a product, or to obtain a contract, or to force compliance, or to be elected to public office...or for any reason whatsoever.

Anyone want to help Mr. Bond get a Freedom from Unwarranted Fear amendment passed in Congress and ratified by 38 States?

Don't laugh. These days, a FUF Amendment could be a shoo-in and a REAL feather in Barack Obama's legacy. Provided, of course, that it's main premise can be quoted in one breath and the rest doesn't go on for a thousand pages.


Posted: Thursday, February 7, 2013
Article comment by: Country Boy

Johnny, Johnny, Johnny oh Johnny!
I was wondering when you were gonna resurface.
Poof there you are again with your most ridiculousness post to date, you have truly outdone yourself with this one.
Johnny, you sir are a moron!
Were do I start.
Clearly in the past you have shown that you are a true left propagandist however this time you have shown how warm and fuzzy you get about big government and your desire for them to take care of you, think for you, and provide every need to you.
With that being said I will start to work through your craziness.

1)
"At that point in American history, citizens relied upon their weapons [arms] for hunting and self-protection in an environment wherein indigenous peoples [characterized as savages], reacting to the assault upon them by an ever increasing white population, represented an existential threat to the newly formed nation."
Really? were do you get this? I was always at history class, humanities and civics classes and yep I never read this to be part of historic fact!
I call it J.A.B. Propaganda and delusion!

2)
"The idea that individual citizens need weapons equivalent to those weapons used by the US Military and the National Guard does not have wide spread acceptance, either."
News Flash Johnny, US CITIZENS do not have the equivalent of those weapons used by the Military. Sorry but you are way wrong on this one as always.
Again, I call it J.A.B. Propaganda and delusion!

3)
"The whole idea of a “well regulated militia” [consisting of an armed citizenry] who were essentially “on call” for emergency service during an existential external threat to the nation, is no longer valid."
Johnny why would you say this???? Oh never mind thats right, That warm fuzzy fealing thing you get from being care for and provided for by you government instead of yourself! Sorry I forgot!

4)
"We no longer rely upon a citizen militia to provide protection from foreign invasion or domestic terrorism. We rely upon the National Guard and civilian police forces to effectuate such protection for us in our modern society in conjunction with the Office of Homeland Security."
Hum Johnny yep just go see reply to number 3 again. I will also add "WE" is you not me, I relay on ME for my security, safety and well being thank you! They cant be everywhere all the time on time, They are not FEDEX!
Also I remember something about sequestration????? Oh ya, now I remember, they want to downsize the military, cut its spending and sell off weapons to our enemies and threats to the US and its citizens.
Again, I call it J.A.B. Propaganda and delusion!

5)
"If we are to accept the assertion by those who claim, “individual citizens must be able to match force with force”, and therefore there can be no proscription upon private ownership of weapons, we are to believe that citizens can purchase and own, military aircraft, tanks, ballistic missiles, military helicopters, anti-tank missiles, armed drones and the plethora of military-style weaponry currently part of the arsenal in America."
Johnny, come on now silly liberal, this statement is way over used by the left and its agenda. I yet to here any of use in the US with to own such things. GET ORIGINAL!!!!
AGAIN, J.A.B. delusions


6)
"The absurdity of such a proposition is self-evident to anyone not fanatical about the 2nd amendment. The fear and paranoia endemic to such ideation is equally self-evident and could even be used as a reasonable justification for anyone who expresses such fanaticism to be deemed “mentally defective” and denied the right to possessive weapons."

Let me correct your ignorant liberal verbage,
"fanatical about the 2nd amendment."
I would say, True PASSION about the 2nd amendment, as a true patriot of the USA.!

And I can not pass these tyrannical words of yours.
"anyone who expresses such fanaticism to be deemed “mentally defective” and denied the right to possessive weapons."
So what your saying is anyone whom believes in our great county, the constitution, bill of rights, patriotism, freedom, is “mentally defective”!
JOHNNY WITH THAT STATEMENT ALONE YOU SHOULD BE STRIPPED OF YOUR CITIZENSHIP AND DEPORTED!!! or at least move to New York of California were you would be much more at home!!

In closing I leave you with this final thought,
John A. Bond, King of Propaganda and Delusion!


Posted: Thursday, February 7, 2013
Article comment by: Spin it as you wish

tomake the lie true.

But... "In 2008-2009, there were 39 fatal injuries from crimes involving firearms in England and Wales, with a population about one sixth the size of America’s. In America, there were 12,000 gun-related homicides in 2008." (The Economist)

Japan? Eleven, total.




Posted: Wednesday, February 6, 2013
Article comment by: the technology exists... .

to have 'owner only' firing weapons... but guess who does not like that idea? oddly both sides have found parts they don't like...

but short of that the next most reasonable idea is a combination of better training/licensing and fewer "extra" guns just floating around...

people will compare guns to forks...as they both require people to use them to either kill or overeat with, but only of the fork is the size of a front end loader bucket.

sorry for the loss of a child... hopeful for fewer or none in the future.


Posted: Wednesday, February 6, 2013
Article comment by: I Feel

That we the people should only be a well armed as the gangs and drug cartels that Osama and his AG have armed

Posted: Wednesday, February 6, 2013
Article comment by: ID ID

I can shoot an M-16, a 9 mm, a fifty cal., 45 revolver, a grease gun for those of you that understand, big bertha, in an expert fashion, I have even shot with an M60 tank, but a .22 cal dillinger made a very tragic change in my and my families life. It looked like a toy, it was not even mine my daughter would have been 23 years of age at the time she was only 14. I do not hate guns. I do not hate the people that make guns. I do not hate the people that carry guns. I just wish that with al of the advances in our technology we make a gun that will identify the rightful owner. The owner that the weapon was made for and registered to and only shoot then. With all of this said lets hope that the good owner will always be on the lawabiding side. In God we will Trust.

Posted: Wednesday, February 6, 2013
Article comment by: Carl Nye - Jerome

Ah, statistics. So many murders per 100,000 population. Honduras has 91.6 and the USA only has 4.2. But, considering that Honduras population is only 8,385.072 and the USA population is 315,271,000 - then the actual number of murders in Honduras is 7681 and in the USA 13,2441. One could simply say there have been twice as many murders in the USA as in Honduras but that wouldn't support the argument AzRockz is trying to make.

Well, in Jerome, we've had no murders, but back in 2003 there was 1 rape. That works out to 297.6 rapes per 100,000 population in Jerome. Whoa! Dangerous place, but wait a minute.... in 2003, Jerome's population was only about 336, so a per 100,000 calculation is truly misleading.

Just keep a skeptical eye on the statistics being quoted, and try to see what the reality is.


Posted: Tuesday, February 5, 2013
Article comment by: Mary Jane

Mr. Bond,

I wonder if you haven't missed your true calling, pulp fiction!


Posted: Tuesday, February 5, 2013
Article comment by: cherry picking at its finest... .

of course you left off any country that was below the US.. whose rate i found to be 4.8...not 4.2.

and there happens to be more countries with rates below the US than above. and how many of those have stricter gun laws?

folks no single number tells the whole story... beware anyone selling simple facts... the fact is this is far from simple...

and if you are going to post 'facts' they should not always point in favor of your side... after a while it gets obvious that you are going a certain direction regardless of the map you pretend to follow.

provide the 'rest of the story' and maybe your point will be validated...til' then its just another email from your crazy uncle sitting in his bunker polishing his rifle and counting his 'goldline' coins that he paid too much for.


Posted: Tuesday, February 5, 2013
Article comment by: AzRockz .

Murders per 100,000 citizens
>
> Honduras 91.6
> El Salvador 69.2
> Cote d'lvoire 56.9
> Jamaica 52.2
> Venezuela 45.1
> Belize 41.4
> US Virgin Islands 39.2
> Guatemala 38.5
> Saint Kits and Nevis 38.2
> Zambia 38.0
> Uganda 36.3
> Malawi 36.0
> Lesotho 35.2
> Trinidad and Tobago 35.2
> Colombia 33.4
> South Africa 31.8
> Congo 30.8
> Central African Republic 29.3
> Bahamas 27.4
> Puerto Rico 26.2
> Saint Lucia 25.2
> Dominican Republic 25.0
> Tanzania 24.5
> Sudan 24.2
> Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 22.9
> Ethiopia 22.5
> Guinea 22.5
> Dominica 22.1
> Burundi 21.7
> Democratic Republic of the Congo 21.7
> Panama 21.6
> Brazil 21.0
> Equatorial Guinea 20.7
> Guinea-Bissau 20.2
> Kenya 20.1
> Kyrgyzstan 20.1
> Cameroon 19.7
> Montserrat 19.7
> Greenland 19.2
> Angola 19.0
> Guyana 18.6
> Burkina Faso 18.0
> Eritrea 17.8
> Namibia 17.2
> Rwanda 17.1
> Mexico 16.9
> Chad 15.8
> Ghana 15.7
> Ecuador 15.2
> North Korea 15.2
> Benin 15.1
> Sierra Leone 14.9
> Mauritania 14.7
> Botswana 14.5
> Zimbabwe 14.3
> Gabon 13.8
> Nicaragua 13.6
> French Guiana 13.3
> Papua New Guinea 13.0
> Swaziland 12.9
> Bermuda 12.3
> Comoros 12.2
> Nigeria 12.2
> Cape Verde 11.6
> Grenada 11.5
> Paraguay 11.5
> Barbados 11.3
> Togo 10.9
> Gambia 10.8
> Peru 10.8
> Myanmar 10.2
> Russia 10.2
> Liberia 10.1
> Costa Rica 10.0
> Nauru 9.8
> Bolivia 8.9
> Mozambique 8.8
> Kazakhstan 8.8
> Senegal 8.7
> Turks and Caicos Islands 8.7
> Mongolia 8.7
> British Virgin Islands 8.6
> Cayman Islands 8.4
> Seychelles 8.3
> Madagascar 8.1
> Indonesia 8.1
> Mali 8.0
> Pakistan 7.8
> Moldova 7.5
> Kiribati 7.3
> Guadeloupe 7.0
> Haiti 6.9
> Timor-Leste 6.9
> Anguilla 6.8
> Antigua and Barbuda 6.8
> Lithuania 6.6
> Uruguay 5.9
> Philippines 5.4
> Ukraine 5.2
> Estonia 5.2
> Cuba 5.0
> Belarus 4.9
> Thailand 4.8
> Suriname 4.6
> Laos 4.6
> Georgia 4.3
> Martinique 4.2
>
And - The United States 4.2
ALL the countries above America have 100% gun bans !!!!!!!!

Taking away your gun doesn't take it away from the criminal. This, above, is the proof. The numbers. The CRIMINALS will ALWAYS have guns. All you do by taking away guns from civilians is make them even more vulnerable. Look at the numbers above.


Posted: Monday, February 4, 2013
Article comment by: M J

This letter is a cry for help.
Won't one of you all caring liberals help?

♪ Help, I need somebody, ♫
♫ Help, not just anybody, ♪
♪ Help, you know I need someone ♫
♪ help ♫

♫ When I was younger, so much younger than today ♪
♪ I never needed anybody's help in any way ♫
♫ But now these days are gone, I'm not so self assured ♪
♪ Now I find I've changed my mind and opened up the doors ♫

♫ Help me if you can, I'm feeling down ♪
♪ And I do appreciate you being round ♫
♫ Help me, get my feet back on the ground ♪
♪ Won't you please, please help me ♫

♫ Hellppppp me .... Hellppppp me oooooo oooooooooo ♪
HaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHa
Now that song is stuck in your head


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

If I've deciphered this screed correctly, Mr. Bond, you contend weapons manufacturers are the opportunists trying to cash-in on the nation's initial response to isolated instances of gun violence. I won't argue that weapons manufacturers are cashing in on this administration's call for weapons bans. But I think it's highly unlikely the Obama Administration is in cahoots with weapons manufacturers. Do you have any evidence it is? If not, I think we need to dig a bit deeper for the opportunists who gave the NRA the opportunity to declare the Constitution under attack.


Posted: Saturday, February 2, 2013
Article comment by: Arizona Girl

WELL SAID, Mr. Bond. I agree 100%, and have expressed the exact same sentiments many times privately. Thank you for a well thought out and intelligent letter.

Posted: Friday, February 1, 2013
Article comment by: verde voter

Well Said Mr. Bond. Bravo. Now watch the facts and truth explode little tiny heads.

Posted: Friday, February 1, 2013
Article comment by: Big Sky Lady

Danny, I agree with you. Looks like John is using racist actor Danny Glover's interpretation of what a well regulated militia is. How pathetic. Show me where the proof is.
You're obviously one of the Progressive Revisionists who thinks the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is no longer applicable. Oh, we're way beyond that now! Let's rewrite it for today's world! No thanks. They were the smartest, most divine documents ever written in the history of governments of the world.
The bottom line is this - the Founding Fathers knew how dangerous a government can become - they lived it. They wanted to make sure it never happened again to the people of this country. They were very wise men. One of the first things a tyrranical leader does is take away the ability of the masses to protect themselves. Didn't you learn that from Soviet Russia? And John, what makes you think that can't happen here? We have an imperial president right now. We are not going to stand for it. If the people coming after me have an AK47, I have the right to own an AK47. Period.



  - 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. Rambling or nonsensical comments may not be posted. Comments are limited to Facebook character limits. In order for us to reasonably manage this feature we may limit excessive comment entries.
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 2016 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 © 1998-2016 1up! Software, All Rights Reserved