"Edgefield
County
as
it
Happens"|
Sections Headlines Opinion Obituaries Sports Crime Blotter Happenings Country Cooking Wandering Minds Classifieds Birthdays On The Record Church Listings Archives Featured Columns Pastor Howle Editor's Column  Registered Sex Offenders for Edgefield County Contact us Contact Info Phone: 803-634-0964 day 803-279-5041 eve 803-279-8943 fax Mail to EdgefieldDaily.com PO Box 972 Edgefield SC 29824 Archived Columns Carl Langley Wise Tech Tips Dr. Skip Myers School System EC District Office School Board Strom Thurmond Charter Schools Fox Creek Private Schools Wardlaw Academy Public Offices Edgefield County Edgefield Johnston Trenton Political State and Federal Legislative Contacts Local Political Parties Republican Party Democrat Party Rep Women of EC Chamber of Commerce Edgefield County Chamber Historical Edgefield Genealogical Society News links The Citizen News The Jail Report Aiken Standard North Augusta Star The State Augusta Chronicle Atlanta Journal United Press Associated Press FOX News Reuters CNS News WorldNet Daily Newsmax Drudge Report GoogleNews Yahoo!News New York Times New York Post Los Angeles Times Washington Times Washington Post |
 Opinion
Gun Control? Or Citizen Control? A Column by the Editor web posted January 14, 2013 COLUMN – With recent comments from the Obama Administration foretelling Obama is going to take action on gun control measures by executive fiat, causing panic across the country, I felt I would weigh in with some facts, historical facts, and the meaning of 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," is an order to the federal government saying they do not have the ability to limit nor infringe on that God given right. Let's break down that one sentence. "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state…" Notice it does not say "union" or Republic, or nation. It says a "free state". The constitution does not grant rights to the federal government, it restrains the federal government from imposing laws on the states and the people. The founder's recognized that a large and powerful central government would be tyrannical, and they knew that all too well. They had just won their independence from such a government. Therefore, the states refused to sign on to the newly drafted constitution unless the right to bare arms was included to restrain the central government from becoming what it has become today. That is why the second half of the sentence was added. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Some on the left claim that the word militia refers to the military and not "the people" and it is not an inherent right of the individual. That is wrong since the amendment specifically says "the right of the people" shall not be infringed. The wording that refers to the military is covered elsewhere in the articles of the constitution. To convey the meaning of a militia, George Mason, one of the Founding Fathers stated, "I ask sir, what is the militia? It is the whole of the people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them." Thomas Jefferson also understood the individual's rights when he said, "The Constitutions of most of our states assert, that all power is inherent on the people…it is their right and duty to be at all times armed." Read the last part of that again, "it is their (the people's) right and duty to be at all times armed". This proves that the federal government has no right to infringe, regulate, or create laws that are then imposed on the states and the people of those states. It also shows that it was not just a right, but a duty to be armed at all times. That does not mean if you are granted the right by the government, if you are lucky enough to be given that right by the government, that you can own a gun and keep it in your home. The government does not grant rights, it can only steal them. The Bill of Rights are given by God and secured in the constitution that limits the power of the federal government. Thomas Jefferson stated during the drafting of the constitution the real meaning of the right to bare arms, "The strongest reason for the people to retain their right to keep and bear arms is as a last resort to protect themselves against tyranny in government". Our God given right to bare arms is not about deer hunting. It is not about keeping you and your family safe in your home, though both are granted in the right. The real reason is that an armed society in the 50 free states that make up the union of the United States have the ability to defend itself from the federal government should it wander away from our founding documents. However, too many have already grown to accept the fallacy that the federal government grants the right to bare arms, therefore the same government has the right to restrict the rights it grants. Only a fool would believe that, which is why we have the liberal Democrat Party. It gives the fools someone to vote for in an election. The leftist main stream media promotes this false narrative on a daily basis. They push the Democrat agenda of gun control saying there should be a ban on all "assault weapons" because of the recent school shooting in Newtown Conn. I direct your attention to the 1994 - 2004 Assault Weapons Ban instituted by Congress and signed by President Bill Clinton. Five years into this ban to protect us was the deadliest High School shooting in history on April 20, 1999 at Columbine High School. A total of 34 students and teachers were shot, 12 fatally. Three others were inured trying to escape the school. The two students doing the shooting were armed with banned "assault weapons". After the ban was lifted, President Clinton's own Justice Department stated the ban did "nothing" to curtail violent crime. I also ask, what is an "assault weapon"? Isn't any weapon used in an assault an assault weapon. Can I not assault and even kill with a knife? Shall we ban knives? A baseball bat used to assault someone can be a deadly, is it not also then an "assault weapon". A piece of steel pipe, a chain, a brick placed in a long sock can all be used to kill during an assault. Shall we ban all of them? Of course not, that would be silly. So is any ban on any type of weapon that the 2nd amendment clearly says all the people are granted the right by God to own, possess and be, "at all times armed," as Jefferson said. Anyone armed would be able to defend against a criminal using any of the above to comit a crime against anyone else. In case you did not know, criminals do not follow the law, so laws passed to prevent crime affect only law-biding citizens, not the criminal. Any weapon the federal government does not want the free people of our states to own, you need at least two of them with plenty of ammunition to boot. When a government fears its people, there is liberty. When the people fear their government, there is tyranny. That is the reality of history throughout mankind. As an ending note. In 2008 the US Supreme Court ruled with a 5-4 decision that the 2nd amendment means what it says. It is a right of the people to bare arms. The House of Representatives should have drawn up articles of impeachment against the four dissenting judges and removed them from the Supreme Court for failing to uphold and protect our Constitution. That is how far removed we have come from following the US Constitution. As sad as that may be. © Copyright 2012 - 2013 All material is property of
Edgefield Daily and/or parent company ECL and
cannot be reproduced,
rewritten or
redistributed without expressed written permission.
|
|
