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 : letters April 29, 2016


2/16/2013 1:03:00 PM
Letter: Don’t rewrite history

Editor:

The debate over the Second Amendment is welcomed and healthy.

However, I take issue with Mr. Bond and Mr. Nelson’s letters to the editor, who in an effort to defend their position attempt to rewrite and revise history. I have two Master Degrees in History, one is specifically in American History and Government.

I have read the early documents and discussions regarding the Second Amendment.

Nowhere can I find that the debate was about slaves or slave uprising. The West Indies slave rebellion that Mr. Bond refers to occurred four years after the Constitution was written and two years after it was ratified. The dates don’t work with his premise.

In order to not indulge the reader in lengthy quotes from the founding era, I will refer to just a couple. First, the United States Constitution included parts of several of the state Constitutions. For example, the Massachusetts Constitution read, “The people have a right to keep and bear arms for the common defense.” Note the right to arms was for the common defense.

Patrick Henry during Virginia’s state convention opposed the ratification of the new Constitution because it didn’t include the right of the people to bear arms. Said he, “My great objection to this government [Constitution] is, that it does not leave us the means of defending our rights or waging against tyrants.” This was before the Bill of Rights were added.

Henry was a Southerner; notice he did not say they needed arms to protect against slaves, but against the cruelty of tyrants.

Lastly, the best resource of all is the Federalist Papers. This is a collection of newspaper articles explaining and defending the new proposed Constitution, written by James Madison (Father of the Constitution), Alexander Hamilton (first Secretary of the Treasury} and John Jay (First Chief Justice of the United States).

Article 28 states that the original right of self-defense is paramount to all positive forms of government. “If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resources left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense.” Here, the purpose of the right to keep and bear arms is self-defense. Federalist 29 states, “Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped.” And finally, Federalist 46 points out that the governments of Europe kept the people living under tyranny, in part, by never allowing them to have arms. “… the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes.” The American colonist unlike their European counterparts had arms and were able to shake off the tyranny of England. The right to bear arms was to discourage tyrants.

In all that I have studied I have yet to come across any of the official discussions, or writings, that states that the Second Amendment was for the suppression of slaves. So to Mr. Bond and Mr. Nelson make your point and debate all you want, but don’t try to rewrite and revise history to defend your position.

Vicki Jo Anderson

Cottonwood


Related Stories:
• Letter: That’s what I like about this country


    Most Viewed     Recently Commented
•   Ordinance would make Cottonwood first in Arizona to raise legal age to light up (2670 views)

•   Blaze destroys RV and jeep Sunday; freeway traffic blocked (2527 views)

•   Mingus Union's Mike Westcott named 2016 Yavapai County Teacher of the Year (2172 views)

•   Ruth Gaver released on probation (1937 views)

•   New subdivision, 500 homes: Vineyards at Cottonwood coming soon (1883 views)



Reader Comments

Posted: Friday, February 22, 2013
Article comment by: The height of conceit and self-deception

is M J thinking anyone would seek his approval on anything.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha!



Posted: Thursday, February 21, 2013
Article comment by: Gray Grammarian

To T. Hearn:

Re: "...the current administration another chance of strict gun legislation at an influential U.S. Senator to obtain her support of administration policies with which she doesn't fully agree."

Did you mean ?


To P.F.:

Re: "W J, we all already have agreed to accept parts of the government 'tyranny' we supposedly fear by allowing-- no, demanding!-- limitations of our Constitutional right to freedom of speech and our right to protection from unusual search and seizure in return for illusionary government 'protection from terrorism.'
"Me? I'd prefer restrictions on mega-bullet clips and the availability of military type rifles to allowing some testosterone laden camouflage-garbed SWAT guys to bust down my door in a mistaken-address drug raid looking for a marijuana joint, or, to having my 9 year old daughter patted down by TSA."

Why is defense of the Second Amendment mutually exclusive from defense of the First, Forth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments?

Did you mean to imply defenders of the Second Amendment do not defend the First, Forth, Ninth, and Tenth, and vice versa? Or are you trying to communicate a belief the Second Amendment must be sacrificed to preserve what is left of the other four?


Posted: Thursday, February 21, 2013
Article comment by: David Gordon

@PF � There is a gulf of difference between unintended, and ��a very real push by some to guarantee��. An unintended consequence is just that, unintended, while ���a very real push by some to guarantee�� insinuates an intentional or focused purpose. Your argument is a formal logical fallacy (it actually represents a few different ones), in any case it�s a deceptive argument which proves nothing.

Had you simply stated that an unintended consequence of unrestricted gun ownership is the possibility of increased incidences of firearms finding their way into the hands of those who shouldn't have them, you would have been on firmer ground. That argument would not serve your purposes though would it? I may be wrong, but I infer from your choice in wording that your primary purpose is to demonize those in favor of defending a simpler interpretation of the Second Amendment, by trying to paint them as irresponsible and self-indulgent. Ultimately you fail to make any defensible argument based partly on your inability to effectively use the language, and you fail to advance the debate because you�re lost in the thinly veiled attempt to demonize your opposition rather than focusing on the ultimate problem and finding workable solutions.

And so it goes indeed.

@ Mr. Jensen � Paranoia is defined as a thought process influenced by anxiety or fear often to the point of irrationality and delusion, it�s most important feature is that it is not in response to input from anybody or anything in the paranoid individual's environment.

There is nothing paranoid about pointing out that your statement, �You Conservatives know that no one is proposing to take away your guns, right?� is patently false, and then providing the evidence which grinds your statement into dust.

Your dogged assertion that there isn�t anyone attempting to confiscate weapons in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary though, well now THAT is representative of possible mental issue which speak to your ability to deal with reality.

You can run with the �Big Lie� fallacy (look it up) all you want, but you�re failing miserably. Your grade school level sarcasm doesn't help advance your credibility either. Cheers.


Posted: Thursday, February 21, 2013
Article comment by: M J

Re: itsy bitsy Spider
Iffin' you want me to take anything you say in a serious light ..... then to reference anything mr. bond scribbles out is not the way to go about it.

Just sayin'


Posted: Thursday, February 21, 2013
Article comment by: Capra A. Hircus

Calm down. The matter is in the hands of the Congress. Nothing is going to happen.
Plenty of other important stuff to worry about seems to me.


Posted: Thursday, February 21, 2013
Article comment by: P F

@ W J

Oh yeah? You're ugly and your mother dresses you funny!

Oh, and I was merely commenting on your statement in response to Mr. Jensen.

That you argue here in support of the 2nd Amendment and make no comment on the mounting losses of our 1st or 4th Amendment rights, paints you, IMHO, as another, "selectively purist constitution-thumper."

No insult intended.

Poo-poo head, indeed.

Please, don't get me started on the police state.


Posted: Thursday, February 21, 2013
Article comment by: itsy bitsy Spider

Admonition accepted, Ms. Anderson. As one of the wisest men I've known used to say over and over and over, "You can't fight propaganda with propaganda. If the facts aren't enough, we don't have a case." Unfortunately, hyperbole and special pleading are so much more fun.

However, MJ, look who's calling whom black. Ad homonym attacks are just as propagandistic. If you were to pick a point of disagreement and refute it as Ms. Anderson just did, you might learn something you didn't realize you don't know. Try John Bond's "Proliferation of guns only enhances and magnifies fear." That utilizes every rhetorical tactic known to man. But you can't debunk it merely by calling names.


Posted: Wednesday, February 20, 2013
Article comment by: W J

Hey P F

The constitution is a flawed document written by lawyers. I agree 100% that there are many areas that our rights have been squandered away. However, I was addressing Mr Jensen's sarcastic name-calling with a rebuttal of fact.

Forgive me for upsetting you, but I am hardly paranoid since I can clearly see a rapidly forming police-state. Your comment indicates that you see it also therefore it is irrational for you to object to the statement that I made. You have no knowledge of my opinions about anything other than what I stated so to call me a "selectively purist constitution-thumper" is name-calling at it's best. You are a poo-poo head. Take that.


Posted: Wednesday, February 20, 2013
Article comment by: T. Hearn

Reply to W J

In my experience, Diane Feinstein has proved to be an unusually knowledgeable and effective legislator and political in-fighter. Without her usually calm, practical level-headedness, Barbara Boxer would have delivered a lot more political favors to powerful corporate backers, and California would have gone down the tubes twice as fast.

However, Senator Feinstein isn't calm and practical about gun control. She has been drafting unsupportable regulation ever since, on November 27, 1978, she found her friend and colleague, Harvey Milk , shot dead in his office on the same day her friend and colleague George Mascone was killed by the same deranged political opponent. I'm sure, intellectually, she realizes this colors her judgment, but obviously, any way she can, she wants to ban as many guns as possible--as do Bill and Sara Brady.

In my opinion, knowing this very public fact, the current administration waived another chance of strict gun legislation at an influential U.S. Senator to obtain her support of administration policies with which she doesn't fully agree.

Which speaks to a point Peter Nelson made more fully in his "Time to rewrite a right?" letter of February 5. No matter what record even great statesmen leave for posterity, they can't help but be influenced by their personal experiences and the generally held attitudes of their society at large. Succeeding generations shouldn't accept their legacy as gospel. Rather, they should examine it often for hidden biases and outdated imperatives.


Posted: Wednesday, February 20, 2013
Article comment by: P F

For David Gordon

Since many say there can be absolutely no infringement on a person's right to bear arms since the US citizenry is already among the world's most heavily armed since the NRA and others are suggesting more weapons be available with no restrictions as to type of weapon or amount of bullets in a magazine since legal weapons will inevitably fall into the hands of the mentally ill or criminally inclined who will then commit murder, one of the unintended consequences of maintaining current US gun Rights and gun policy could be construed as,"... a very real push by some to guarantee that weapons capable of killing hundreds are easily available for mentally ill and/or just plain mean people to use for murder.

And so it goes.

Evidence: that which tends to prove or disprove something ground for belief




Posted: Wednesday, February 20, 2013
Article comment by: Ryan Jensen

Oh my gosh! David Gordon is right!

They're coming to take my guns!!!!!!!
They're coming to take my guns!!!!!!!
They're coming to take my guns!!!!!!!

I guess it's not paranoia when enough people believe it.


Posted: Wednesday, February 20, 2013
Article comment by: Country Boy

Ms. Anderson, Thank You! Great Job. What an honor to have had you chime in on this subject!
Please continue to follow these silly statements by the uneducated propagandists and reply with true facts so that all readers will have the opportunity to learn and grow with their eyes wide open instead of "influenced" by those with dark agendas.

@ nelson.... Look at your silly rebuttals! just like the rest of the liberals. FLIP FLOP you are so predictable. Some one actually writes something that just shot large holes in everything that you have ever written and pointed out your utter lies, propaganda and deception and what do you do? Try to act like you still somehow have any credibility in any way and kiss A@# to try and save face...

CHECK AND MATE nelson and bond.
As most of us that follow all these posts already have known, YOU BOTH ARE FOOLS! as well as dishonest people of zero integrity!


Posted: Wednesday, February 20, 2013
Article comment by: David Gordon

Mr. Ryan, you stated, “You Conservatives know that no one is proposing to take away your guns, right?” You did not specify Obama in particular, as you are now trying to do with your last comment. When dealing with people like you, who allow their position to shift with the political expediency required to stay ahead of evidence that proves the idiocy of their previous comments, is it any wonder that those on the other side of any issue you might be arguing about simply don’t believe a single word you say? Your credibility, so far as any can be established in this limited medium, is non-existent.

Want more recent examples of ‘no one’ proposing to take away guns? Here ya go.

1. “Any person who, prior to the effective date of this law, was legally in possession of an assault weapon or large capacity magazine shall have ninety days from such effective date to do any of the following without being subject to prosecution:
(1) Remove the assault weapon or large capacity magazine from the state of Missouri
(2) Render the assault weapon permanently inoperable or
(3) Surrender the assault weapon or large capacity magazine to the appropriate law enforcement agency for destruction, subject to specific agency regulations.

Part of House Bill No. 545 being introduced by Missouri Democrats at their 97th General Assembly this year

2. “10.20 Sec. 7. PERSONS POSSESSING ASSAULT WEAPONS ON EFFECTIVE DATE
ACT REQUIRED ACTIONS.
Any person who, on February 1, 2013, legally owns or is in possession of an assault weapon has until September 1, 2013, to do any of the following without being subject to
prosecution under Minnesota Statutes, section 624.7133:
(1) remove the weapon from the state
(2) surrender the weapon to a law enforcement agency for destruction
(3) render the weapon permanently inoperable or
(4) if eligible, register the weapon as provided in Minnesota Statutes, section 624.7133, subdivision 5.

Part of H.F. No. 241 being introduced by Minnesota Democrats at their 88th Legislative Session (2013-2014)

3. “Any person who has not purchased insurance in compliance with the law within 30 days of its passing would be in violation of the law. Such an occurrence “shall result in the immediate revocation of such owner’s registration, license and any other privilege to own such firearm.”

Condition of gun ownership Legislation introduced by New York Assemblyman Felix Ortiz, this week.

4. “It is clearly within the right of the government to determine what type of weapons can be owned by the public.”

VP Joe Biden in an address to House Democrats at a retreat in Virginia Feb 6th 2013. If he’s trying to make that point, it logically follows he believes its government’s ‘right’ to take away the ones government feels are inappropriate for us to own. Biggest problem with that? Our own VP apparently doesn’t realize that government doesn’t have any rights. Our government has the powers granted to it by we the people, not ‘rights’, and it’s a danger to us all if our government is actually thinking otherwise.

5. “Confiscation could be an option…mandatory sale to the state could be an option,”

New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo during an interview this past December

6. “It may take a generation, but guns will eventually be taken off the streets through new laws.”

San Diego Police Chief William Lansdowne who is a mover and shaker in the International Association of Chiefs of Police during an interview on January 17, 2013 while pushing other Association Chiefs to push for new laws.

7. “Banning all guns is necessary but not sufficient in light of the increasing violence in our society.”

Rabbi Michael Lerner, contributor to the Huff Po, December 15, 2012

8. “I am officially beyond a place of wanting to find a compromise with those who want to argue for the right, or the need, of citizens to arm themselves with guns.” “The time has come for our society to say enough is enough and that we must completely outlaw private citizens from owning guns.”

Earnest Harris, film producer, writer, director, also a Huff Po contributor, January 16, 2013

In closing Mr. Jensen, yes, there are lots of people actively interested and desirous of taking away law abiding people’s legally obtained, and legally and responsibly owned firearms. Only a moron, or someone living as a hermit in a cave, could possibly believe that that’s not the case. I don’t think you are either one though. I believe you’re just another shill trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the uninformed folks out there who aren't necessarily at the center of this debate, in an effort to sway the opinions of those who aren't knowledgeable on the facts central to the issue, and/or too lazy to do their own research.
Try again.

And PF, please provide evidence that “there is a very real push by some to guarantee that weapons capable of killing hundreds are easily available for mentally ill and/or just plain mean people to use for murder?”


Posted: Wednesday, February 20, 2013
Article comment by: Ryan Jensen

@ W J

Like I said earlier, nothing the President is doing or proposing is threatening to part you from your precious pop-guns.


Posted: Wednesday, February 20, 2013
Article comment by: P F

@ W J

You may not believe it, but, did you know that there is a very real push by some to guarantee that weapons capable of killing hundreds are easily available for mentally ill and/or just plain mean people to use for murder?

Here in the US!!!!

Some even are even requiring that all people be armed!!

Worse, all of this is being accomplished with small steps.

W J, we all already have agreed to accept parts of the government 'tyranny' we supposedly fear by allowing-- no, demanding!-- limitations of our Constitutional right to freedom of speech and our right to protection from unusual search and seizure in return for illusionary government 'protection from terrorism.'

Me? I'd prefer restrictions on mega-bullet clips and the availability of military type rifles to allowing some testosterone laden camouflage-garbed SWAT guys to bust down my door in a mistaken-address drug raid looking for a marijuana joint, or, to having my 9 year old daughter patted down by TSA.

You selectively purist Constitution-thumpers need to broaden your paranoia to include actual threats to our freedom.





Page 1  - Page 2 -  Page 3



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