(Advertisement)

COMMENTARY: Freedom Comes From Law, Not Firearms

Posted: January 22, 2013 at 1:31 a.m.

It’s hard to be on middle ground on a hot national topic like gun control, but that’s where I find myself these days.

This story is only available from our archives.

Opinion, Pages 5 on 01/22/2013

(Advertisement)



« Previous Story

HOW WE SEE IT: Board Right On Second High Sch...

A little more than a week ago, members of the Bentonville School Board surprised some in the community by voting to build a second high school. Read »

Next Story »

PUBLIC VIEWPOINT: Fayetteville Facilities Go ...

On a recent day, the Veterans Home at Fayetteville surprised my mother- and father-in-law with a romantic dinner for two to celebrate their 66th wedding anniversary. Comple... Read »

Frederick claims to be "on middle ground on a hot national topic like gun control," but one who believes the second amendment's "well regulated Militia" clause is there to justify "shooting the police and soldiers of a government gone bad" is not standing on middle ground, but well out on the right fringe.

Perhaps he believes himself to be in the middle because he recognizes that some of his readers are even further to the right, gun nuts who think that a cache of ammunition and assault weapons would protect them against the full force of federal law enforcement.

But, I'll agree with Frederick in taking "the law as my first and best protector," and further the proposal that reasonable gun laws are long past due.

And just to be clear, this phrase, "Congress shall make no law” does not appear in the second amendment Mr. Frederick; that's the first amendment. Best to avoid embarrassment by pulling out your pocket copy of the Bill of Rights and consulting it before writing newspaper columns destined for national distribution.

Posted by: FrankLloydLeft

January 22, 2013 at 12:43 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

FDR violated no one's rights during WWII because there weren't any rights to violate.

It was a real, CONSTITUTIONAL WAR, not the unconstitutional fantasies of the 1950s,1960s and 2000s wherein our Constitution was grossly violated by Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Nixon, Bush and now Obama.

In a real, declared war the War Powers Act takes effect and civilian rights are suspended. It lasts so long as a real war is being waged. Then it ends.

Posted by: cdawg

January 22, 2013 at 2:33 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

"Middle ground" indeed.
Frederucj oulls a little verbal sleight of hand in paragraph 4 when he says "On the other hand..." His second argument is another argument on the same side as the first.

Posted by: Coralie

January 22, 2013 at 4:19 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Now the Obama-haters are dumping on FDR too.
He took office 80 years ago.
"Vas you dere, Charley?"
I was.
Even as a young child I was aware of men sleeping on park benches, with newspapers for blanket. Of people selling apples on the street corner. Of people coming to the door to sharpen knives and scissors, mend pots, anything.
Staying at my grandparents' house I watched the trains go by, the boxcars filled with men, unemployed men, going wherever, trying to find work.
25% unemployment around 1933 or 1934.
I was aware of my parents' struggles. Of the day that the only thing in the cupboard was an almost empty box of cereal. Dad was on relief briefly, then worked for the WPA, then he got a "real" job as a bakery driver, earning about as money dollars a month as he worked hours a week.
I know that people tried to help each other then.. Some people let their hours be cut to keep others from being fired. People bartered, stores accepted chits.
The people I was around were good people, not like the selfish twerps who so often sound off in these pages and threads.
What do they think FDR should have done instead of what he did? Or do nothing, like Hoover?

Posted by: Coralie

January 22, 2013 at 4:35 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Patrick Henry said "Give me liberty or give me death."
Neither he nor any other founder would have said "Give me gridlock or give me death."
Not exactly an heroic sentiment.

Posted by: Coralie

January 23, 2013 at 1:37 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Some online definitions:
SUBVERSION: A systematic attempt to overthrow or undermine a government or political system by persons working secretly from within. (Well, that doesn't apply, because there's nothing secret about it.)
SEDITION: Conduct or speech inciting people to rebel against the authority of a state.
A person commits the crime of advocating the violent overthrow of the federal government when s/he willfully advocates or teaches the overthrow of the government by force, publishes material that advocates the overthrow of the government by force, or organizes persons to overthrow the government by force. A person found guilty of seditious conspiracy or advocating the overthrow of the government may be fined and sentenced to up to 20 years in prison.
Very rarely applied, but still on the books.

Posted by: Coralie

January 23, 2013 at 1:44 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

INSURRECTION; A violent uprising against an authority or government.
TREASON; Waging war against one's own country.
According to some, this is the purpose of the Second Amendment.

Posted by: Coralie

January 23, 2013 at 1:54 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

INSURRECTION: The Revolutionary War
TREASON: A President order attacking another country without declaring war through the War Powers Act
TRAGEDY: The South not wining the War of Norhern Aggession
SUBVERSION: Lobbyists in Washington
SEDETION: What the FBI thinks I do, but can't prove it
FREEDOM: A right given to all persons by God until government takes it away
LAWS: How governments take away your freedom

Posted by: Moneymyst

January 23, 2013 at 4:55 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Coralie,

RE-

"The people I was around were good people, not like the selfish twerps who so often sound off in these pages and threads."

I admire your having lived during such a trying time. My grandad did as well. Before he passed on, he told me stories of the Great Depression on regular basis from the time I was a little kid until he died when I was 29 years old.

I know for a fact, his opinion of some (not all) of the New Deal is most likely different than yours. Have you ever considered some of us "twerps" have the opinions we do based off of what we were taught by witnesses to history?

By the way, as tragic as it is, mobilization for WWII is what pulled us out of the Great Depression, not the New Deal. I'm not bashing on President Roosevelt, either. He was a great man who did a lot of great things. You shouldn't always equate disagreement with anything but disagreement, but you believe in moderation and not just the beliefs of the extreme left too, right?

cdawg,

RE-

"FDR violated no one's rights during WWII because there weren't any rights to violate."

Tell that to the Americans of Japanese decent that were thrown in concentration camps. Defend your version of the law when it suites you again, I see.

RE-

"unconstitutional fantasies of the 1950s,1960s and 2000s"

Written like a true flag burner. Fantasies? I would love to have a conversation about that with you.

Please tell us what war is and what you know about it besides who must write a declaration of it on paper.

Posted by: Tankersley101

January 23, 2013 at 10:07 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

"selfish twerps"
I' was referring to those who blame unemployed people for being unemployed at a time of high unemployment
those who vastly overestimate the number of people who are receiving government aid and the amount of that help
those who clearly project the "I've got mine" meme.
I was not thinking about you in particular, Tank. I used to comment a lot on the ADG thread before they decided that NWA subscribers were not entitled to that privilege, and so I've seen a lot more comments than on these threads--not to mention letters to editor..

Posted by: Coralie

January 24, 2013 at 12:55 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Some economists don't agree that WWII was what ended the Depression.

"In response to contemporary arguments that the expenditures associated with World War II were a major factor in ending the Great Depression and should therefore be imitated today, we offer historical evidence to suggest that the wartime economy was hardly a model of success in the eyes of most Americans. Expanding on Robert Higgs’ criticisms of the ability of conventional macroeconomic data to tell the real story, we examine newspapers, diaries, and other primary source material to reveal the retrogression in living standards in the US during the war. Our investigation suggests that wartime prosperity is largely a myth and hardly a model for recovery from the Great Recession."
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cf...
"Historian Stephen Davies explains that military production is not real wealth.; wars destroy wealth, they do not create wealth. In fact, examination of the historical data reveals that the U.S. economy did not really start to recover until after WWII was over."
http://www.learnliberty.org/content/t...

Posted by: Coralie

January 24, 2013 at 1:05 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

WWII did end the high unemployment rates. (Both my parents worked in defense industries.) But that is not the same as prosperity.
"Even though GNP statistics signaled a massive increase in production, the American consumer in fact had fewer purchasing options available…. It is very easy to reduce the unemployment rate through a military draft that removes millions of men from the labor market…. In view of the draft of 10 million men and the enormous demand for workers to build tanks, guns, and ships, it is no surprise that the war drove down the unemployment rate. Like the increase in GNP, however, this drop in unemployment did not translate into improved standards of living or a genuinely recovered private economy…. GNP uses market prices to measure the value of final products. If those prices are capped by law, market prices do not reflect the actual value to consumers, and GNP is accordingly distorted.
http://www.jeremyrhammond.com/2013/01...

Posted by: Coralie

January 24, 2013 at 1:08 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

RE "SEDETION: What the FBI thinks I do, but can't prove it"
It is my understanding that the FBI thinks you made a terroristic threat across state lines. That seems an uncharitable interpretation of ill-conceived chivalry.

Posted by: AlphaCat

January 24, 2013 at 2:32 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

It is ironic and contradictory for anti-FDR people to claim that massive WWII spending brought us out of the Depression--since they are so hostile to government spending in general.
It seems that only military spending will do the trick, while the rebuilding of infrastructure. for instance, won't.
The national debt after WWII was the highest ever (relative to GDP).

Posted by: Coralie

January 25, 2013 at 10:55 a.m. ( | suggest removal )