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 May 26, 2016

3/19/2013 1:07:00 PM
Letter: We live in interesting times


We have read many exchanges in the Verde Independent “Letters” section concerning the 2nd Amendment and the people’s right to keep and bear arms.

Gun advocates hang their Constitutional hats on the “...shall not be infringed...” wording. For these people, The Constitution is the immutable Final Word.

On the other hand, folks who prefer gun regulation reference the 2nd Amendment’s “...well regulated militia...’ wording as indicating gun control is constitutionally allowed.

A few have opined -- with strong disagreement from man y-- that part of the intent of the 2nd Amendment also had to do with slavery.

As in tennis or ping-pong words fly back and forth.

Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution states that Congress shall have the power: “To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.”

Since an ‘insurrection’ is “resistance against civil authority or an established government,” besides British loyalists still in the colonies, what other insurrection(s) could the Founding Fathers possibly have feared?

They certainly could have been thinking about their slaves.’

If some of those who hide behind the ‘militia’ wording start an insurrection against new Gun Laws, will other “militia” types raise up to fight that “insurrection” to protect “the Laws of the Union,” as mandated in the Constitution?

Several sheriffs and Arizona State Senator Crandell advocate ignoring the law if any are passed limiting weapons.

Aren’t those stating they will ignore “the Laws of the Union” advocating insurrection?

Gee, what is a militia to do?

There are others beside the government who advocate ‘tyranny.’

We live in interesting times.

Phil Falbo


    Most Viewed     Recently Commented
•   Police soon will have one more reason to pull you over (4750 views)

•   What's hot in Verde Valley job market? (2956 views)

•   Cornville man charged with child molestation seeks plea (2875 views)

•   Marana man suffers skull injury, brain bleed following ATV crash (2737 views)

•   Motorcycle rider suffers head injuries in crash (2195 views)

Reader Comments

Posted: Thursday, March 21, 2013
Article comment by: Oh dear,

is P F really saying that Democrats will ignore the very laws they champion? That the laws apply only to those who oppose them?

Posted: Thursday, March 21, 2013
Article comment by: nutso fasst

The federal militia was called up for the first time in 1794 to subdue a 3-year protest by Pennsylvania farmers against a tax on small-scale whiskey distillers. The federal militia was never called up to subdue a slave insurrection, and could never have responded promptly in any case. The only time there was a slavery issue that could have provoked the federal militia was if John Brown's raid on the federal arsenal at Harper's Ferry had been successful. But Brown's raid was quickly thwarted by a local militia wielding their own weapons.

It was not an insurrection by slaves (reasonably feared by both North and South), but the 1786-87 Shays Rebellion in Massachusetts that most influenced delegates to the Constitutional Convention. In 1787, Washington wrote to Henry Knox that "The moment is, indeed, important!--If government shrinks, or is unable to enforce its laws; fresh maneuvers will be displayed by the insurgents--anarchy & confusion must prevail--and every thing will be turned topsy turvey in that State; where it is not probable the mischiefs will terminate." Washington feared the rebellion would spread to other states and destroy the union, but the federal government had no authority from the Articles of Confederation to do anything about it. Hence, Article I, Section 8 in the new Constitution.

Posted: Thursday, March 21, 2013
Article comment by: 545 People, Ponder This.

We do live in interesting times,I'll give you that and thats all. As for gun control, I control my AR15 and NOBODY will take it from me. Now, isn't that interesting? So, ponder this,

Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.

Have you ever wondered, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, WHY do we have deficits?

Have you ever wondered, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, WHY do we have inflation and high taxes?

You and I don't propose a federal budget. The President does.

You and I don't have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does.

You and I don't write the tax code, Congress does.

You and I don't set fiscal policy, Congress does.

You and I don't control monetary policy, the Federal Reserve Bank does.

One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one President, and nine Supreme Court justices equates to 545 human beings out of the 300 million are directly, legally, morally, and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.

I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered, but private, central bank.

I excluded all the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason. They have no legal authority. They have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman, or a President to do one cotton-picking thing. I don't care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash. The politician has the power to accept or reject it. No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator's responsibility to determine how he votes.

Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless of party.

What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall. No normal human being would have the gall of a Speaker, who stood up and criticized the President for creating deficits.. ( The President can only propose a budget. He cannot force the Congress to accept it.)

The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating and approving appropriations and taxes. Who is the speaker of the House?( John Boehner. He is the leader of the majority party. He and fellow House members, not the President, can approve any budget they want. ) If the President vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto if they agree to. [The House has passed a budget but the Senate has not approved a budget in over three years. The President's proposed budgets have gotten almost unanimous rejections in the Senate in that time. ]

It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300 million cannot replace 545 people who stand convicted -- by present facts -- of incompetence and irresponsibility. I can't think of a single domestic problem that is not traceable directly to those 545 people. When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise the power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.

If the tax code is unfair, it's because they want it unfair.

If the budget is in the red, it's because they want it in the red.

If the Army & Marines are in Iraq and Afghanistan it's because they want them in Iraq and Afghanistan ..

If they do not receive social security but are on an elite retirement plan not available to the people, it's because they want it that way.

There are no insoluble government problems.

Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take this power.
Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exists disembodied mystical forces like "the economy," "inflation," or "politics" that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do.

Those 545 people, and they alone, are responsible. They, and they alone, have the power.

They, and they alone, should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses. Provided the voters have the gumption to manage their own employees... We should vote all of them out of office and clean up their mess!

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

Mr. Holmes, what makes you think Dems will not have 30+ round clips?

Arizona is an anti-Obama, anti-Democrat state, yet will slurp from the cup of devil's brew that is Obamacare and takes all kinds of other Federal monies.

The Dems I know are just about as well armed as repubs. They are just not paranoid.

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

Old "Needs a Hobby" probably is a retired lawyer bored, pedantic and patronizing, who didn't get the irony of his instruction.

Regardless, 'perseverating' is a good word.

What is odd is I wrote the letter after I had taken my post walk nap and just before I did my volunteer service at the old-folks-home hobby shop.

Posted: Thursday, March 21, 2013
Article comment by: Matthew Holmes

Phil, "what other insurrection(s) could the Founding Fathers possibly have feared?" Shay's Rebellion, the Whiskey Rebellion come to mind. Some view the founding of the US as some sort of God-ordained miraculous event, where Moses was resurrected and brought the immutable Constitution to our angelic Founding Fathers on glowing stone tablets. Ridiculous hyperbole? Yes. But there ARE folks who think this or something not too far from it. The founders were men of their times influenced by the ideas of their times. You are correct, these are not those times. Jefferson and Madison both admitted that future Americans may find the government they established to be inappropriate and ineffective under different times. They realized we may want to do things differently and that this was our right.

Posted: Wednesday, March 20, 2013
Article comment by: Matthew Holmes

In a sense both parties are correct. Bearing guns is a fundamental constitutional and, yes, individual right. And according to those who framed the Constitution all able bodied freemen were to make up the state militias, to be called upon upon in times of national emergencies and wars. While the Founding Fathers were never a unified caucus as is often portrayed, I think most of them would be revolted by our current standing army (military) and related military budget. Especially as a career path controlled by a corporate-sponsored partnership/syndicate consisting of plutocrats and warlords, and being used for economic expansionism, political interventionism, and social engineering.

Remember too that those who fought in the Revolutionary War were themselves insurrectionists, rebels, and traitors in the eyes of the British Empire. Same with our Confederate ancestors. The idea of the right to revolution against a corrupt government was promoted most popularly by John Locke, whom inspired Jefferson and his immortal words in the Declaration of Independence. According to Lockean-Jeffersonian theory, when a government stops obeying and oversteps its constitutional boundaries and mandates, it becomes illegitimate: ruling de facto rather than de jure. In such a situation, after all other avenues have been exhausted, the people not only have the right to revolution, but they have a duty to revolt. The problem is that Democrats believe Republican regimes have done this, Republicans believe Democrat regimes have done this. Many of us Independents believe they have both done this. Unless we forge a new center, things will fall apart and revolution will erupt with both sides taking aim at the other. The main difference will be that Republicans will have 30 round clips with their assault rifles, and assumedly the Democrats will have 10 round clips with their puny .22s or holding hands and singing Kum Ba Yah in futile pacifism. Might is not right, but in such a scenario, it should be self-evident who will win the contest. Democrats may be shooting themselves in the foot (pun intended) with their proposed gun control legislation.

Posted: Wednesday, March 20, 2013
Article comment by: Brian Carlson

I may stand on a different side of the fence from Phil, but I must admit he poses some relevant questions. The founding fathers lived in a world much different than the world today. I would much rather see a wise question from Phil, than page after page of jiborish ranting of John Bond.

Posted: Wednesday, March 20, 2013
Article comment by: Hobby hoarse? .

Perhaps Mr. Falbo could start telling folks to take up a hobby..as a hobby...

wait... Mr. Hobby has already cornered that market. so who needs a hobby more?

seems Mr. Hobby could use a hobby... dangit! we just fell into the viscous hobby 'inception' conundrum trap...

how about we all just try and offer valid opinions rather than give hobby advice... unless we need to start a ''you ought'a' get a hobby' support group... we could hold meetings at... the hobby lobby...

it's adjacent to the NRA gun lobby... how ironic is that...

so in short... telling others to get a hobby means you really need a hobby!

and guns are a pretty serious issue that demands some intelligent conversation... 8^)

Posted: Wednesday, March 20, 2013
Article comment by: Needs a hobby

Is Phalbo still perseverating on this?

This man clearly needs something better to do with his time.

Take a nap Phil. Get a hobby. Go on a walk, the fresh air will do you good. Volunteer. Surely there is something better you can do with your time than this.

Posted: Wednesday, March 20, 2013
Article comment by: Peter, Yavapai County

Who regulates militias who oppose regulation?

Too many unregulated militias = Iraq.

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:
Last Name:
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