Wednesday, April 23, 2014
PLACERVILLE, CALIFORNIA
99 CENTS

Tutorial on Constitution

EDITOR:

Sylvia Medley is correct, she does not need a tutorial on what is or is not an “assault” weapon. What she, and many others, truly need, is a tutorial on our Constitution.

The Second Amendment is not about hunting, or hobbies, or anything of that nature. It specifically states, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” The specific purpose of the amendment is for the people to be able to “protect themselves from a tyrannical government.” To do so means the people need comparable weapons to what would be used against them.

Make no mistake, our government is becoming ever more tyrannical. Every modern tyrant followed the same course, disarm the people. It couldn’t be any clearer unless you simply refuse to see the obvious.

WILLARD F. SCHMEHL
Cool

Letters to the Editor

LEAVE A COMMENT

Discussion | 64 comments

  • James E.January 20, 2013 - 11:33 am

    "To do so means the people need comparable weapons to what would be used against them." So, in addition to the weapons currently held by citizens they will need 7.62 miniguns, 20mm miniguns, 105mm and 155mm artillery, napalm, tanks, APCs, armed helicopters, fighter jets, etc., etc. In 1776, musket vs. musket worked well, but today? To think that small arms would work against modern weapons is just nutso. I'm guessing those who think it possible have never been exposed to the absolute violence of weapons larger than their small arms. As I've said before, I don't know the answer to the current debate, but I do know that small arms won't cut it in a revolt against the government.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Sylvia MedleyJanuary 20, 2013 - 12:00 pm

    Mr. Schmehl: James stated it very well. I will add that no one wants to take away your guns. Despite what a Mt. Democrat reporter recently stated, no one wants to disarm you. And you will never have comparable weapons against your fantasy tyrannical government. Your argument just doesn't work.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • DarrinJanuary 20, 2013 - 12:31 pm

    Is there anything in the Constitution or Second Amendment that allows the hunting of children and adult humans as sport? Seems like things have changed in the 200 years since the US was started. While I don't think anyone disputes the intent of the 2nd, the current circumstances are impeding the freedom of others. With less than 5% of the world's population, the United States is home to roughly 35–50 per cent of the world's civilian-owned guns, heavily skewing the global geography of firearms and any relative comparison http://bit.ly/Xq7Jms Gun Facts "Homicide rates tend to be related to firearm ownership levels. Everything else being equal, a reduction in the percentage of households owning firearms should occasion a drop in the homicide rate". Evidence to the Cullen Inquiry 1996: Thomas Gabor, Professor of Criminology - University of Ottawa http://bit.ly/VTa3G8

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Paddy O'FurnitureJanuary 20, 2013 - 3:48 pm

    James (and Sylvia), all right, we've heard the argument that our little pea shooters that the government has so generously allowed us to keep (after outlawing us having anything that would put us on par with them) will not match their firepower. It's true and we get it already. Your argument does not alter the fact the the 2nd Amendment is what it is. And it says our right to have a gun or two or fifteen shall not be infringed upon. Is your point that since all we have are AR15s and they have Predator drones that we should just roll over, give up and let them run roughshod over us? You may, but I will not. It is not the shot that's fired that is as much of a deterrent the the shot that may be fired. No one wants to take the first one. The 300 million privately owned guns make the power junkies in DC a little uncomfortable, and no, not because of Sandy Hook. DiFi, Barry O and Chuckie Schumer could not care less about those kids. It was an opportunity, and they're making the most of it.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Phil VeerkampJanuary 20, 2013 - 4:11 pm

    Colonel WILLARD - "To do so means the people need comparable weapons . . . " No, to do so means a well armed citizenry makes the task of turning the military upon them is so extremely unpalatable that the odds are substantially REDUCED. Think of a catalyst in a chemical reaction, small amount of a substance that facilitates a reaction. A well armed population is a catalyst for liberty - not a guarantee - an "immunization" – Anyway, the 49ers are heading to the super bowl!!! ENJOY, BE HAPPY!!!

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Phil VeerkampJanuary 20, 2013 - 4:13 pm

    oopsoff

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • James E.January 20, 2013 - 4:29 pm

    Paddy, not saying you should just roll over. Resist as you are able. The 2nd Amendment exists and you can have guns as it is your right. I assume because you like guns and shooting them (hunting, target practice, etc.). But to say, as does Mr. Schmehl, that you have to protect yourself from the government is simply irrational given the alleged 310 million small arms are no match to the reality of the fire power of the government. And, when Mr. Schmehl had taken all he can stand and starts shooting at the government, I wonder how many of the 310 million will join him. Not me certainly -- if he's dumb enough to shoot up the government, he will get no aid from me and I suggest around 309 million will join me. I have a pistol and I don't want it taken away. But if the government sends a SWAT team to take it from me I'd have to make a choice knowing my pistol is no match. Death before dishonor? Well, yes, if you have a death wish. In the military when you are surrounded and out of ammo, you have to make a decision. Surrender or die. Surrender to fight another day, or the final chapter of your book. Give me liberty or give me death! Who said that and did he really say it? Or, was he grandstanding like some of our extreme radio/TV hosts who if the shooting started would be hiding in their closets. Manly men until the bullets start whizzing around their ears. I don't know how this will end, but it won't be a revolt against the government. Well, maybe a small revolt from Mr. Schmehl.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • EvelynJanuary 20, 2013 - 5:23 pm

    The metropolis of Chiloquin, Oregon (pop 734) has a gun law with a difference. In 1982 their City Council passed Ordinance No. 428 requiring every head of household to "maintain a firearm, together with ammunition." Some exemptions are provided for. "City Council members at the time are quoted as saying they supported the ordinance out of worry that Californians moving to the area would try to enact stricter gun laws." “They put this law in place because they didn’t trust the government." They haven’t had any deaths by a gun since the 1960s. - HERE

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • EvelynJanuary 20, 2013 - 5:32 pm

    abcNEWS.com (Video) - Mother Shoots Home Intruder as Husband Shouts “Shoot Him! Shoot Him Again!” on 911 Call - HERE ********** 1. Should this mother have been allowed to defend her family? 2. Would you have defended your family? 3. How would you have defended your family?

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Paddy O'furnitureJanuary 20, 2013 - 5:52 pm

    Evelyn, I've need to Chiloquin. NOT a place you want to start trouble. A buddy of mine did some years back and got the stuffin' beat out of him.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • PaddyJanuary 20, 2013 - 6:14 pm

    James, nobody, I mean NObody wants to get in a shootin' spat with gubmint. Even the most ardent pro 2A folks do not want it. Nobody's looking for it, nobody wants to start it, and nobody has "assault weapons fantasies" (as Richurd says) about "shootin' it out with The Man". There is a big, big difference in being resolute, and looking for trouble. Most folks just want to be left alone. So much so that a nearly infinite amount of tiny little "incremental infringements" have been levied against us while we were comfortable and complacent and we did little to stop it. Well times, they are a changin'. The Powers That Be have stirred up a hornets nest now. It's no secret that many politicians (most all on the left) would love to severely restrict the number of guns in this country. Sandy Hook was a gift form above for these types. DiFi had the legislation written and waiting "for the opportune moment", which Sandy Hook was. That woman, along with Mario Cuomo and our POTUS and VPOTUS should be ashamed of themselves for their raw unbridled exploitation of this thing. And Obama does his XO photo op with kids on the stage? Does this get worse or are we done yet? We are sick and tired of it. We want to be left alone. We have done nothing to provoke the Obama/Biden/Feinstein/Cuomo and yet they insist on poking the hornets nest. Now, the interesting twist is all of the County Sheriffs telling O'Biden to stick it. They are on our side. Gun control at the local level, has to go through them first. The fight, if there is one, will be between these sheriffs and the feds. That's why I say there won't be one. The dopes in DC will see what they are up against and this thing will die off. Some token legislation will be passed so they can say they did something, but it will be along the lines of Clinton's "Don't ask, don't tell", which the intended beneficiaries were not happy with. Power Junkies push until someone pushes back, then the reality check puts them min their place. The sheriffs are the reality check, and we are behind them. This effort on O'Bidens part will go down in flames. Next... '

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Paddy O'furnitureJanuary 20, 2013 - 7:11 pm

    **BEEN to Chiloquin**

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • francescaduchamp@att.netJanuary 20, 2013 - 7:39 pm

    http://www.history.org/almanack/life/politics/giveme.cfm "Give Me Liberty Or Give Me Death!" Patrick Henry St. John's Church, Richmond, Virginia March 23, 1775....its the end of his speech...It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace²but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • James E.January 20, 2013 - 7:59 pm

    Paddy, I don't know what law, or lack of law, will come from all of this. But, if there is a law, local Sheriff's lack of support of that law will not prevent it from being adhered to -- a Sheriff can say a law is unconstitutional, but only the Supreme Court can find on that. Until a law is declared unconstitutional, a Sheriff has the duty to enforce it. If he fails to do so he himself is subject to arrest. During the Civil Rights days in the 60s many Sheriffs failed to enforce federal law -- the FBI taught them otherwise. In fact, I remember being on standby ready to fly into Montgomery if it became necessary to arrest the governor. It wasn't necessary because he was all out of cheap talk and stood aside. So, why are so many Sheriffs telling the VP to stuff it -- may I suggest they know that many voters in their districts are pro gun, so it is a great way to get votes in the next election. Their talk is cheap because there is no violation of the law to tell the VP to stuff it. But, when push comes to shove, they will obey the law or find themselves in violation of the same. And, yes, I voted for the current Sheriff but wonder if his zeal in writing letters to the VP exceeds his real behavior when the time comes.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Phil VeerkampJanuary 20, 2013 - 9:53 pm

    James, you seem reflective - almost melancholy - HEY!!! - - snap out of it - - - THE 49ERS WON - - - OK???

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • James E.January 20, 2013 - 10:51 pm

    Phil, it will be great when the 49ers win the Super Bowl!!!!

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • R.J. CarterJanuary 21, 2013 - 9:14 am

    According to a count taken, the crowd of sheep attending today's inauguration of King Obama is 2/3's less than 4 years ago....Apparently, people just didn't have the money to go this time around....LOL.......

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • cookie65January 25, 2013 - 5:51 am

    When did we go from a country based entirely on the freedom and liberty of the individual to a country based entirely on the power of government? The simplest way for government to secure its unlimited power is to disarm the free citizens and we have people so uneducated in history that they support it. Absolutely baffling. "- Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws." Plato.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Paddy O'furnitureJanuary 25, 2013 - 8:06 am

    James, with regard to the Supreme's, they've already spoken. "A law, repugnant to the Constitution, is void, and no one is obligated to obey it and no official empowered to enforce it."-- Marbury v. Madison. Some things may need interpretation, others are patently evident, as is the 2A, written so even the common folk like me could understand. ;^)

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • chrispytahoeJanuary 25, 2013 - 10:20 am

    "No one is saying you cant own a gun. No one is saying you cant carry a gun. All we are saying is yuo cant carry a gun in town!" - Virgil Earp (tombstone 1993)

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Dink LaneJanuary 25, 2013 - 2:46 pm

    Willard, Who would be the TYRANNICAL GOVERNMENT? Would it be McClintock? You think he will take your guns away? How about Ted Gaines? Or how about D'Agonstini? Or maybe his deputies? What about the soldiers in Afghanistan? Do you think they will take your guns away?... I think they would be the 1st to block it from happening...Let's stop this HYPERBOLIC RHETORIC.... Think, guys, think.... You guys are smarter than this!

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • DKantzJanuary 25, 2013 - 3:13 pm

    The intent of the 2nd Amendment was not: "for the people to be able to “protect themselves from a tyrannical government”. The 2nd Amendment states:

    "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"
    and Article 2 Section 2 of the Constitution states:
    "The President shall be Commander in Chief of ... the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States."
    The 2nd Amendment was about arming a militia who could be called to duty under the authority of the president (Article 2) as might be required in the event of attack -- exactly as the British initiated in 1812.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • DKantzJanuary 25, 2013 - 3:17 pm

    ooops, bad formatting before. let me try again ... The intent of the 2nd Amendment was not: "for the people to be able to “protect themselves from a tyrannical government”. The 2nd Amendment states: "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". Article 2 Section 2 of the Constitution states: "The President shall be Commander in Chief of ... the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States." The 2nd Amendment was about arming a militia who could be called to duty under the authority of the president (Article 2) as might be required in the event of attack -- exactly as the British initiated in 1812.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • MartinJanuary 25, 2013 - 4:32 pm

    Weltered your right on, It don’t matter what the opponent has It your right to have the ability to defend yourself and family. So be it if you fall victim to a tank, at least you had a chance along with others with some common since to fight for our freedom. France had the underground that did amazing things with little of nothing to fight with. There is no reason that our government should have control over private citizen’s weaponry as long as they stay with the boundaries of existing laws.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • cookie65January 25, 2013 - 4:33 pm

    Dkantz, the thinking behind the 2nd amendment is not too difficult to conclude, even for a graduate of the union run education system. Here is one clue from the declaration of independence: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Another clue is the fact that the second amendment was written by the same people who had just successfully won their liberty from a tyrannical government by means of the fact that they were armed. Did you know one of the strategies of the British empire was to disarm the colonies? I realize how historical fact is a useless exercise with people who have a pre-existing agenda, but the fact is the 2nd amendment is solely for the purpose of free citizens defending that freedom from the likes of our current crop of baby dictators in washington.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • lookie cookieJanuary 25, 2013 - 6:01 pm

    We have the ability to change our government by voting. In case you missed it, we did vote. You lost.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • cookie65January 25, 2013 - 7:11 pm

    Lookie, you are confusing changing representatives with changing government and its roll and limitations. I didn't lose, the entire country lost. Those who trade their freedom for a handout will end up with neither. We learned from the last election that 66 million of our fellow Americans lack the intellectual capability to understand that simple and repeated concept. The communist takover of our education system has proven very effective in dumbing down the citizenry. And being a victim of it is nothing to be proud of.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Tom GibneyJanuary 25, 2013 - 11:01 pm

    Dear God ther are alot of victims out there Cookie..some are now useful idiots..lol not really funny though. I will be 50 in a few months, I look to turning 60 hopefully I won't have to fight for it...

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Lookie cookieJanuary 26, 2013 - 9:16 am

    Yes, we have a representative form of government. We the people elected representatives and a President who are now doing something that you don't like. You think they are doing something unconstitutional; the majority of the country does not see it this way. If someone decides to take the issue to the US Supreme Court, they can decide - it's in the constitution. (yes, there is other stuff in the Constitution besides the right to bear arms). Next time, maybe you can work to elect different people with whom you agree. Unfortunately for you, Gibney, and the rest of the paranoid group mental defectives, your crazed ideology lost this time around. See you at the range.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Tom GibneyJanuary 26, 2013 - 9:27 am

    ...'paranoid group of mental defectives' nice. Did you have to think about that first? I find it amusing that not wanting big government,To want the debt reduced and the govt to stop trying to control everythng in our lives, to want President and a Congress to use some common sense and adhere to the constitution..This is a "Crazed Ideology"???

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • cookie65January 26, 2013 - 10:38 am

    Lookie, name 3 things you can do that the government has not involved itself in in one form or another. The Constitution is limitations of government not a permission slip. You like so many others were taught to believe two things about the Constitution: 1. the interstate commerce clause give government permission to do anything it wants and 2. the general welfare clause gives the government permission to do anything it wants. How big do think government should be? It was created with 3 equal and independent branches and now has over 600 seperate agencies and growing. At what point should a citizen become concerned about the potential of government to become a dictatorship? After it happens?

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • DB SmithJanuary 26, 2013 - 10:48 am

    Just yesterday I saw a bumper sticker... "The BIGGER the Government the SMALLER the Citizen". Gosh all mighty how true is that?!!!

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • cookie65January 26, 2013 - 10:49 am

    BTW those 600+ agencies are just at the federal level which gave us 400+ new regulations as of Jan 1. It does not include the state (876 new laws) county, city, muni, local and any other branch of overreaching government that is continually in the face of American citizens and the taxpayers. Of the government by the government for the government.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Lookie cookieJanuary 26, 2013 - 1:35 pm

    Kookie & Gibberish- thank you both for coming in on cue and illustrating my points for me. I travel all over the world, and it is no secret that everybody wants to come here. Reason? Because we are the freest people in the world. Because we are self-governed. Because we get to elect the people we like, toss them out when we don't like them, and sometimes even throw them in jail when they get caught being especially, bad. The people I meet while traveling are absolutely mystified when they see the likes of your kind of crazy on TV. Thank you, have fun in your imaginary world, and please don't hurt anybody.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Foamie Mouth®January 26, 2013 - 2:18 pm

    Twaddle, L cookie.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • cookie65January 26, 2013 - 2:37 pm

    Lookie, so I am to be thankful that we as a country aren't as bad as all others? I'm sorry that isn't good enough. When we roll back 2/3's of government we will be on the road to restoring this country to its foundation. We are not measured by the lack of freedom in the other parts of the world. That is identical to the leftist argument about the price of gas. They tell us since Europe pays $9/gal we should be happy only paying $4/gal. I don't measure my freedom by other nations, I measure it by a simple statement: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness". I don't get my rights from government and couldn't care less about the opinions of those who do. How come people come here from other countries and within a few years become very successful and we have people who are born here who never get off welfare? Because they are taught to be dependent and not to take advantage of our disapearing freedoms.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • cookie65January 26, 2013 - 2:59 pm

    Lookie, I am still waiting for the list of 3 things. Just 3.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • DB SmithJanuary 26, 2013 - 3:02 pm

    Right on Cookie. Personally I don't want to be anything like ANY of the foreign countries some of these so called world travelers have claimed to have gone. I think when they are abroad they need to visit places other than a toke house or spa. This is the place to be and everybody knows it. If you don't like it then get out of Dodge lookie.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Linda JohnsonJanuary 26, 2013 - 3:46 pm

    Right on, Lookie. Those guys are clearly a bunch of psychos. And Smith can't even read.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Alan ChalmersJanuary 26, 2013 - 3:49 pm

    Cookie, you sound like a proud anarchist. Since the US will never be an anarchic state, you should move to Somalia. They have virtually no government there. I'm sure you would love it.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • DB SmithJanuary 26, 2013 - 3:56 pm

    Linda are you really Richard or a Tokyo Rose?

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Wilfred MonahanJanuary 26, 2013 - 3:57 pm

    Lookie Cookiie writes a letter praising the US as the best place in the world, and DBSmith replies, oh yeah? if you don't like it, leave! LOL, these nutcases can't even read!

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • DB SmithJanuary 26, 2013 - 4:08 pm

    Wilfred, my reference was hastily made and in reference to the comment of "see the likes of your kind of crazy on TV"

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • cookie65January 26, 2013 - 4:29 pm

    Alan, I am not sure where you learned the word "never", but it doesn't apply to any nation is history. Fairies and Pixie dust don't preserve freedom and liberty. 'Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty'- Thomas Jefferson. 'A republic, if you can keep it'- Benjamin Franklin. This would be so much easier if we were dealing with people who were not union run school educated and has some education other than being able to quote algores stupid movie.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • DKantzJanuary 26, 2013 - 5:01 pm

    From cookie65's January 25, 2013 4:33 p.m. supposed response to me: "... the thinking behind the 2nd amendment is not too difficult to conclude..." .............................now, since I can't seem to post in any other way that specifically "replies" to that, here is my follow-up:......................................... the point (as I thoroughly detailed) of my January 25, 2013 3:13 p.m. reply to you (as well as to several others who have contributed to this conversation) is that I haven't been able to understand how the concept of the 2nd Amendment being about self-defense from our own government makes any common sense when Article 2, Sect. 2 of the Constitution specifically designates the President to be commander in chief of the (well-regulated) "militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States." To put it a bit more bluntly, unless you can explain that obvious conflict between your "thinking" and what the U.S. Constitution actually states (in some way that your supposed response elected to ignore), then you're continuing to ignore what the U.S. Constitution says that very clearly contradicts this particular "plank" in your ideology.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • cookie65January 26, 2013 - 5:12 pm

    DKantz, I am not sure how to break the news to you but the bill of rights makes no mention of the President of the United States nor does it mention the Commander in Chief. And that typically is where the problem lies with leftists. They simply cannot conceive that the framers meant individual liberty when they said individual liberty. http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • DKantzJanuary 26, 2013 - 6:29 pm

    Replying to cookie65 January 26, 2013 - 5:12 pm. So far, you are 0 for 2; so it's no wonder you're becoming cranky. .............................. Slow down. Read what I actually wrote. Otherwise, you appear to be trumping up some non-existent disagreement between you and me about whether the Bill of Rights does/doesn't mention the President or the commander in chief in the Bill of Rights. Is that supposed to somehow justify to your completely unwarranted "... that typically is where the problem lies with leftists"? Because, notice, it's you who's ignored (in both your previous messages to me) the conflict between what Article 2 Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution (commonly abbreviated 2/2) says and what you have understood up to this time to be the purpose of the 2nd Amendment (often abbreviated 2A). And what's "typical problem of leftist" even got to do with it? We're having a conversation about a matter with which we both are passionately concerned, and I'm just trying to encourage you to think about how 2A interfaces with 2/2. I could be wrong; if you can make a persuasive case about why you're right and why I'm wrong, lay it on me and if you convince me, I'll be grateful for you having shown me the patience and persistence necessary to straighten out my error. .............................. To continue, "the militia" is included in both the 2nd Amendment (often abbreviated 2A) and 2/2. Do you agree? ......... Your potential patience and persistence having been appealed to, this is the third time I have quite clearly detailed the clash between your opinion (and I admitted before, you're not alone) that somehow a) the 2nd Amendment was intended to oppose U.S. government tyranny and the conflict of that specific opinion with b) 2/2 of the U.S. Constitution which names "The President commander in chief of ... the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States." That is what I'm asking is how could 2A be about opposing U.S. government tyranny when the president is named its commander in chief "when called into service of the United States?" By no means do I believe myself to be perfectly informed or more thoughtful or more better about anything than you or anybody else; in some cases, I know I've written things that later when I've read them, even to me made no sense. So, if I've not made myself clear and you find yourself confused about what I may actually have meant, please question me and I'll do my honest best to clarify. ................................... That clearly said, be honest about what you've actually understood me to say or what you're actually honestly confused about what I might have inadvertently garbled. Otherwise (to now put it far more bluntly), be certain that your future replies to me respond to what I actually clearly conveyed in the words I actually wrote -- do not create "straw men" out of corruptions you may somehow believe yourself entitled to make-up to distort the meaning of what I said so you can "knock those straw men down" -- as it now appears you have done in this case. At this point, my previous conclusion stands unless you articulate a coherent argument to the contrary. Unless you can explain that very clear conflict between your "thinking" about the "purpose" of 2A and what the U.S. Constitution 2/2 actually states (in some way that both of your previous responses elected to ignore), then you're continuing to ignore what the U.S. Constitution says that very clearly contradicts this particular "plank" in your ideology. ............ You owe me no attempt to persuade me of the correctness of your thinking. But unless you honestly try to think through that apparent conflict founded in actually reading the U.S. Constitution as it apparently contradicts your "thinking", you will be 0 for 3.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • cookie65January 26, 2013 - 5:28 pm

    For any of you leftist who are willing to read something other than what you want to be told I would like to suggest a book by an actual scholar and not some bloviating windbag. More liberty equals less government by Dr.Walter E. Williams. Professor of Economics George Mason University.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • cookie65January 26, 2013 - 6:46 pm

    The 2nd Amendment: 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 "pResidents" regard for the Constitution and his oath to uphold it. http://thehill.com/blogs/regwatch/pending-regs/279345-holder-begins-gun-control-push

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Paddy O'furnitureJanuary 26, 2013 - 8:23 pm

    DKantz, **This entry was on another thread but you may not have seen it** "Dkantz, I hear what you are saying and I've read 2/2. But proper exegesis requires us to attempt to understand the spirit of the Constitution and what the authors intended to be ascertained by its reading. Washington himself would later say, as quoted above (that was me) "A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government." So with that in mind, the people were to take action and oust the government if it ever attempted "to abuse them". Call it over reactionary or "paranoid" or "anarchist", as many here have, but that's what these men had in mind. Am I misreading Washington?"

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Tom GibneyJanuary 27, 2013 - 12:03 am

    Lookie..Try using my name properly... Otherwise you come off as some little 4th grade child. As for you and Mr. Kantz, have you a different view of the constitution? I find that interesting because The Constitution of the United States seems to be written in plain English, something you seem to be unfamiliar with.I have friends who are lawyers who have same damn problem explains alot now a days1 Then again Common sense is tricky now a days is it not? Now let us take into consideration the current Commander in Chief. A man who has never touched a gun. knows nothing of hardship, Knows nothing of the people of this country. Yet you people will defend his skewed socialist Ideology and his power to run roughshod over the principals and ideology of the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights??? Again, you see nothing wrong with letting him put his foot in the door? Are you people stupid? Seriously have you learned nothing from History? or are you truly the apitomy of the slow boiling frog syndrome??

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • cookie65January 27, 2013 - 3:30 am

    2/2 of the Constitution is not too difficult to read. "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States," very much to the point. Followed by "and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;". This second phrase expressly signifies that "the Militia" does in fact not answer solely to the the commander in chief and does in fact exist outside of the ultimate authority of the president and only falls under his command "when called into actual service of the United States". The Militia as mentioned in 2/2 is not exclusive to the civilian command of the executive branch as the army and the navy are. The Militia is not regular army or military and is not ever defined as such by the framers of the Constitution, who were the same guys who had every suspicion that our government would eventually become self-aware and abuse its defined limitations, leading to the loss of liberty and freedom. The 2nd Amendment being only inconvenient to those with no good intentions was purposely listed in the bill of rights "being necessary to the security of a free State", notice how it does not mention "the United States", "the right of the people", again no metion of the government, "shall not be infringed". The 2nd Amendment puts states rights and the peoples rights ahead of the federal government including the executive branch. 2/2 does not put the Militia under the authority of the president. It makes the Militia available to defend the United States keeping in mind that the framers never viewed the United States as the federal government.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • cookie65January 27, 2013 - 3:57 am

    Tom Gibney, lookie is obsessed with me. I have that effect on leftists. I can recite all the nonsense they have been trained to believe as well if not better than they can. I know leftism inside-out and backwards and the way I discuss it and expose it tends to send them into an unbalanced state of mind, not that they were balanced to begin with. They are childish in their very nature which is why they are leftists so a little coaxing is all it takes to bring it to the surface. The thing they fail to realize is all of us have been exposed to the exact same leftist indoctination but some of us just never figured we had to believe any of it. They don't practice critical thinking and discernment so convincing them of ridiculous things is not to difficult. algore has made hundreds of millions by convincing them that we can control the weather. The king of carbon footprint sells his failed network to one of the largest oil producers on the planet and they still don't understand how big a suckers they are.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • cookie65January 27, 2013 - 4:45 am

    Here is one tiny example of the overreach of the federal government. For those of you who can't understand why the rest of us know what happens when you start giving the government permission to make what ever laws it choses. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/01/26/study-finds-gulf-states-are-biggest-targets-government-overcriminalization/?test=latestnews

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • MartinJanuary 27, 2013 - 9:43 am

    Cookie the environmentalist has brought this nation to its knees, while China and the rest of the world disregard most international laws regarding environmental issues. United States have let the environmentalist take control of everyone’s destination, there is no longer a pursuit of happiness , you have 1000 acres and it is loaded with gold, but you’re not allowed to mine it because there is a chipmunk that “they” say is endangered. You can’t fight them unless you have money coming out of your ears. They bring law suits against the government knowing that under the Federal law Equal Rights to Justice Act that they will get reimbursed for their attorney fees. How do you fight something like this? The Center for Biological Diversity has over 23 attorneys and they are suing the government continually and the government instead of fighting just submits to their claims, proof or no proof. We lose they win; what has our nation become?

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Kirk MacKenzieJanuary 27, 2013 - 8:03 am

    Mr Gibney -- I disagree with your view that the Constitution is written in "plain English". It was written over 200 years ago by a collection of the best minds the world has probably ever seen. Every word was carefully selected; every phrase thoroughly debated. Mr Martin has pointed out that the meaning of the term "regulated" is more in line with "regular" than "regulation". He gave the example of "well supplied". Mr Martin -- what else did the founders mean by "well regulated"? Trained? What else?

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • cookie65January 27, 2013 - 11:39 am

    I have found multible sources that find the same etymology of the word 'regulated' in the time period. http://yarchive.net/gun/politics/regulate.html

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • cookie65January 27, 2013 - 11:40 am

    "multiple"

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Kirk MacKenzieJanuary 27, 2013 - 12:20 pm

    Cookie65 -- thanks for the link. The author's conclusion is in line with my understanding...'Therefore I conclude that the meaning of the 2nd Amendment is, "A properly functioning Militia is necessary to the security of a free State; therefore the (pre-existing) right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."' We have the "supply" aspect of that in a big way. So where is the "discipline" and "training"? Clearly we do not have a "well regulated" militia today.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • MartinJanuary 27, 2013 - 4:42 pm

    Cookie you will never change the mind of a left wing radical; they have been brought up to believe that the government is the determining factor of who gets and who gets not. They are the ones that have received these large retirement benefits and wages twice what the private sector receives, why would they want to change what has done them well. “It will never happen”

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Kenneth HurwitzJanuary 27, 2013 - 6:40 pm

    Martin and Cookie: I agree. Reality has a decidedly Liberal bias. It just don't seem fair.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • cookie65January 27, 2013 - 7:21 pm

    Kenneth, you are correct. The reality is we are roughly $16 trillion in debt, out of control healthcare costs, unsustainable pulic pension debt, out of control crime, more poverty than ever, a stopped dead in its tracks economy, business' laying off and closing, more taxation and regulation than in all of human history, out of control immigration, cities filing for bankruptcy, massive corruption in government, sustained unemployment at unacceptable levels, the middle east on fire, our allies left out to dry, the collapse of socialism all over the globe, 47 million on food stamps. Yep, reality has a liberal bias.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Kenneth HurwitzJanuary 27, 2013 - 9:25 pm

    and you are more than welcome to continue to dwell in unreality.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • DKantzJanuary 28, 2013 - 12:20 am

    Replying to Tom Gibney's January 27, 12:03 a.m. question to Lookie and me: "Have you a different view of the constitution?" Tom, would you please clarify what appears to you to be different about the view you have of the constitution compared with mine? Specific references quoted directly from the constitution with citations of the Article/Section and/or Amendment would be appreciated. Thanks!

    Reply | Report abusive comment
.

News

Herard over the back fence: Try fishing at Wakamatsu

By Bob Billingsley | From Page: B1

 
Downtown group coordinates painting, awnings

By Wendy Schultz | From Page: A1

 
More mountain lion sightings reported

By Dawn Hodson | From Page: A1, 8 Comments

Supervisor Nutting trial begins

By Cole Mayer | From Page: A1, 100 Comments | Gallery

 
Sanford murder case to jury

By Cole Mayer | From Page: A1 | Gallery

 
Gearing tax questions to correct office saves time

By Treasurer-Tax Collector | From Page: A3

.

Opinion

Building restored

By Mountain Democrat | From Page: A4

 
Outstanding dog

By Mountain Democrat | From Page: A4

My turn: More than a buzzword

By Special to the Democrat | From Page: A4, 63 Comments

 
.

Letters

Misquote

By Letters to the Editor | From Page: A5, 11 Comments

 
Altshuler framing

By Letters to the Editor | From Page: A5, 9 Comments

National Day of Prayer

By Letters to the Editor | From Page: A5, 5 Comments

 
‘Parents, be afraid’ letter

By Letters to the Editor | From Page: A5, 38 Comments

Ukranian situation

By Letters to the Editor | From Page: A5, 5 Comments

 
.

Sports

Outside with Charlie: Transitioning

By Charlie Ferris | From Page: A6

 
Pitching the ‘Root’ cause of Trojans’ victory

By Mike Bush | From Page: A6 | Gallery

Pedal power at the forefront next month

By Jerry Heinzer | From Page: A6 | Gallery

 
Sports Scene: April 22, 2014

By Democrat Staff | From Page: A7

Roundup: April 22, 2014

By Democrat Staff | From Page: A7 | Gallery

 
.

Prospecting

4-H’ers star at showcase

By Dawn Hodson | From Page: B1 | Gallery

 
Authors to share their stories

By Pat Lakey | From Page: B2, 2 Comments

At a glance: Look for fireballs

By Mimi Escabar | From Page: B2, 1 Comment

 
Church to host human trafficking conference

By Pollock Pines | From Page: B3

Grow For It! Flower of Easter

By Barbara Schuchart | From Page: B5

 
.

Essentials

Weather stats 4-22-14

By Michael Raffety | From Page: A2

 
Building permits 4/7-11/2014

By Michael Raffety | From Page: A2, 1 Comment

Crime Log: April 1-3

By Cole Mayer | From Page: A2

 
.

Obituaries

Bobby Lloyd Bridges

By Contributor | From Page: A2

 
Harry Frank Harper

By Contributor | From Page: A2, 6 Comments

Marion “Wayne” Griswold

By Contributor | From Page: A2

 
.

Real Estate

.

Comics

Working It Out

By Contributor | From Page: A8

 
TV Listings

By Contributor | From Page: A8

Shoe

By Contributor | From Page: A8

 
Sudoku

By Contributor | From Page: A8

Rubes

By Contributor | From Page: A8

 
New York Times Crossword

By Contributor | From Page: A8

Flying McCoys

By Contributor | From Page: A8

 
Speed Bump

By Contributor | From Page: A8

Tundra

By Contributor | From Page: A8

 
Horoscope, Thursday, April 24, 2014

By Contributor | From Page: A8

Horoscope, Wednesday, April 23, 2014

By Contributor | From Page: A8