Please update your Flash Player to view content.

Somerset Republican Times

This is the official Blog Site for Somerset County Maryland Republicans.

  • Home
    Home This is where you can find all the blog posts throughout the site.
  • Categories
    Categories Displays a list of categories from this blog.
  • Tags
    Tags Displays a list of tags that have been used in the blog.
  • Bloggers
    Bloggers Search for your favorite blogger from this site.
  • Team Blogs
    Team Blogs Find your favorite team blogs here.
  • Login
    Login Login form
Recent blog posts

Posted by on in Maryland Politics

 

 

A PERSPECTIVE ON THE SECOND AMENDMENT

By

Michael N. Goldberg

This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

 

 

There is no debate among intellectually‐honest Constitutional scholars that the Second Amendment was intended to ensure that the American People, both individually and collectively, would always maintain the means by which to defend themselves against the tyranny of government. This principle has been well‐established in the writings of the Founders and has been upheld by the Supreme Court time and time again. Any arguments to the contrary are simply disingenuous and inconsistent with the facts. The Founders, through their intimate knowledge of history and understanding of the nature of mankind, recognized that the newly established government would evolve over time, with power eventually concentrating and ultimately becoming repressive. Thus, by means of the Second Amendment, the American People were guaranteed the Godgiven right of defense against the abuses of an authoritarian government and the ability to provide for their own security without impediment.

 

Those who would abridge the Second Amendment claim that there is no justification for the People to possess high‐capacity magazines or so called "assault weapons" (which are, in fact, undifferentiated from other legal firearms in their lethality—they only look more intimidating). But if the People are inadequately armed relative to the forces of a tyrannical government, then they have no effective defense against such tyranny. For instance, had George Washington only been able to avail himself of bows and arrows to oppose the King of England’s muskets and cannons, we would still be subjects of the British Empire and would never have known the freedom and prosperity of the past 240 years. If the colonists had been required to provide the British government with an inventory of the firearms in their possession, such weapons would have undoubtedly been confiscated, thus rendering the People impotent in their ability to resist the abuses of the British Crown. The tactic now being employed by the government to achieve its thinly veiled goal of disarming the American People is to surreptitiously implement legislation that erodes Second Amendment rights incrementally, for should they endeavor to confiscate our firearms abruptly, massive insurrection would most assuredly result. But let us not be deceived as to the intentions of those who would deny us our Constitutional right to keep and bear arms; REGISTRATION IS REQUISITE TO CONFISCATION!

 

Many government officials seem to place little value on the right of ordinary people to provide for their own defense, while they themselves benefit from the protection of heavily armed bodyguards concealing high‐capability weapons. Most of us who are not members of the elite ruling class are prohibited from carrying concealed weapons, and even within the confines of our own homes, we are relegated to the possession of firearms having limited capabilities. But if your home were to be invaded by a team of 2 or 3 violent intruders (as has been the recent trend), are you willing to bet the lives of your children that an inferior weapon loaded with a clip containing just 7 or 10 rounds of ammunition is sufficient to thwart multiple attackers in such a circumstance? Do you believe that your marksmanship will be good enough in a moment of terror that every shot will hit its target to stop the invaders in their tracks? Is an armed intruder who may only be wounded incapable of killing you or your family? Personal security is the solemn responsibility and sacred right of each and every American citizen, upon which the government has no legitimate authority to impinge.

 

Undeniably, our government is shifting precipitously to the extreme left under the current administration in Washington, DC. Leftist governments throughout the 20th Century, including those of Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, Pol Pot, Mao Tse‐Tung, Ho Chi Minh, and Fidel Castro, among many others, effectively disarmed the people in order to seize power. I must wonder how many of the 20 million Russians murdered by Stalin’s socialists could have been spared had they the means to defend themselves. I must wonder if the Jews of the Warsaw Ghetto could have avoided annihilation had they been sufficiently well armed in their heroic uprising against Hitler’s National Socialists. I must wonder how many of the nearly 150 million people who died at the hands of Socialists and Communists throughout the 20th Century could have been saved had they only been able to avail themselves of adequate defenses against the despots.

 

The only reason such events have not occurred in the United States (thus far) is because of the protections provided by the Constitution, and it is only the Second Amendment that ultimately secures that Constitution and the freedoms guaranteed therein.

 

Through alarmist and specious arguments, many politicians are attempting to convince Americans that surrendering our constitutional rights will somehow render us safer, however, the evidence overwhelmingly indicates otherwise. To wit, virtually every study undertaken by the Center for Disease Control and other government agencies have clearly established that gun control measures, including registration, are not only ineffective, but actually contribute to higher rates of violent crime, whereas criminals can act with virtual certainty that their victims will be unarmed and are, therefore, unable to defend themselves. Although dozens of precious lives were tragically lost in Newtown, Connecticut at the hands of a deranged madman, the government’s own statistics clearly indicate that gun control measures only leave us more vulnerable to criminals who, despite the prohibitions of law, manage to obtain firearms through illegal global networks. But even more insidiously, history has repeatedly revealed that thousands or even millions will lose their lives or their liberty as a consequence of unconstrained governments acting with impunity against unarmed civilian populations. Such is the nature of government. Such is the nature of man.

 

Many currently in power, in direct violation of their oaths of office to “protect and defend the Constitution,” are instead attempting to subvert the Second Amendment and deny us the constitutionally‐protected civil right to keep and bear arms, despite their false claims to the contrary. Nevertheless, the Constitution remains the supreme law of the land. Shortly after its adoption, the several States chose to add further declaratory and restrictive clauses to the Constitution in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers. These are known as the Bill of Rights, and consist of the first ten amendments to the Constitution. Now mind you, the Bill of Rights is not known as the Bill of Suggestions. Neither is it known as the Bill of Recommendations. But rather, the Bill of Rights, without qualification, places specific limitations on the powers of government and enumerates certain absolute freedoms that the government is powerless to deny to the American People, among which is the Second Amendment, which simply states: “…the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed…PERIOD.” This inalienable right is not subject to laws that may be promulgated by Congress from time to time. It is not subject to the whims of the legislature or governor of any state. Nor is it subject to any executive order that may be issued by the President of the United States.

 

The Constitution contains a built‐in mechanism for its modification should the People choose to amend or repeal any portion thereof. But until and unless the American People repeal the Second Amendment in the manner so prescribed by the Constitution, it shall remain the law of the land, and, therefore, any action on the part of the government that violates the Second Amendment is simply unlawful and illegitimate! For presidents, governors, legislators or bureaucrats to usurp powers not granted them by the Constitution, most particularly when attempting to render asunder specifically enumerated and guaranteed constitutional rights, is contrary to the most fundamental of our legal tenets and establishes a highly dangerous precedent. If today we allow this government to undermine the Second Amendment without due process of law, then how can we stop them tomorrow from abolishing the right of free speech, or of the press, or of religion, or of protection from unreasonable search and seizure? If we allow this government to act in a mannerinsubordinate to the Constitution for any reason whatsoever, the American People will henceforth be at the mercy of whatever regime happens to be in power! It is, therefore, our sacred obligation to those who fought and died for our freedom, and to those who will some day inherit out great nation, to resist and to disobey any unconstitutional mandate that this government may attempt to unlawfully impose upon the American People!

 

Of course there are life‐safety risks connected with being an armed society, just as there are even greater risks associated with being an automobile‐owning society. But once Pandora’s Box was opened with the invention of firearms some 900 years ago, it can never again be closed, no matter how hard we may wish it to be so. Considering this ostensible truth, the most dangerous course is for a disarmed people to be left prostrate before an imperious government, which history has shown will eventually force its will upon the People at the point of a gun. Or to be vulnerable to criminals, who through a robust black market can easily obtain any class of firearm available worldwide for use against decent people whose ability to defend themselves has been mitigated by autocrats.

 

Do you really think such events could never occur here? That is precisely what the Jews of Europe thought when Hitler seized absolute power in 1933. Anyone who believes in the benevolence of this or any government has simply chosen to ignore 3,000 years of recorded human history.

 

Hits: 360
0

Posted by on in National Politics

My high school was next to a state mental hospital (Springfield).  Soon after we graduated the population of the hospital started to drop and the problems of untreated serious mental illness started to increase.

The following from The Wall Street Journal explains what happened:

 

Fifty Years of Failing America's Mentally Ill

By:  E. Fuller Torrey

JFK's dream of replacing state mental hospitals with community mental-health centers is now a hugely expensive nightmare.

On Feb. 5, 1963, 50 years ago this week, President John F. Kennedy addressed Congress on "Mental Illness and Mental Retardation." He proposed a new program under which the federal government would fund community mental-health centers, or CMHCs, to take the place of state mental hospitals. As Kennedy envisioned it, "reliance on the cold mercy of custodial isolations will be supplanted by the open warmth of community concern and capability."

President Kennedy's proposal was historic because the public care of mentally ill individuals had been exclusively a state responsibility for more than a century. The federal initiative encouraged the closing of state hospitals and aborted the development of state-funded outpatient clinics in process at that time.

Over the following 17 years, the feds funded 789 CMHCs with a total of $2.7 billion ($20.3 billion in today's dollars). During those same years, the number of patients in state mental hospitals fell by three quarters—to 132,164 from 504,604—and those beds were closed down.

From the beginning, it was clear that CMHCs were not interested in taking care of the patients being discharged from the state hospitals. Instead, they focused on individuals with less severe problems sometimes called "the worried well." Federal studies reported individuals discharged from state hospitals initially made up between 4% and 7% of the CMHCs patient load, and the longer the CMHC was in existence the lower this percentage became.

It has now become politically correct to claim that this federal program failed because not enough centers were funded and not enough money was spent. In fact, it failed because it did not provide care for the sickest patients released from the state hospitals. When President Ronald Reagan finally block-granted federal CMHC funds to the states in 1981, he was not killing the program. He was disposing of the corpse.

Meantime, during the years CMHCs were funded, Medicaid and Medicare were created and modifications were made to the Supplemental Security Income and Social Security Disability Insurance programs. None of these programs was originally intended to become a major federal support for the mentally ill, but all now fill that role. The federal takeover of the mental-illness treatment system was complete.

Fifty years later, we can see the results of "the open warmth of community concern and capability." Approximately half of the mentally ill individuals discharged from state mental hospitals, many of whom had family support, sought outpatient treatment and have done well. The other half, many of whom lack family support and suffer from the most severe illnesses such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, have done poorly.

According to multiple studies summarized by the Treatment Advocacy Center, these untreated mentally ill are responsible for 10% of all homicides (and a higher percentage of the mass killings), constitute 20% of jail and prison inmates and at least 30% of the homeless. Severely mentally ill individuals now inundate hospital emergency rooms and have colonized libraries, parks, train stations and other public spaces. The quality of the lives of these individuals mocks the lofty intentions of the founders of the CMHC program.

Perhaps the most remarkable aspect of this 50-year federal experiment is its inordinate cost. In 2009, 4.7 million Americans received SSI or SSDI because of mental illnesses, not including mental retardation, a tenfold increase since 1977. The total cost was $46 billion. The total Medicaid and Medicare costs for mentally ill individuals in 2005 was more than $60 billion.

Altogether, the annual total public funds for the support and treatment of mentally ill individuals is now more than $140 billion. The equivalent expenditure in 1963 when Kennedy proposed the CMHC program was $1 billion, or about $10 billion in today's dollars. Even allowing for the increase in U.S. population, what we are getting for this 14-fold increase in spending is a disgrace.

Including President Kennedy, five Democratic and five Republican presidents have presided over the 50-year federal experiment. Jimmy Carter and George H.W. Bush appointed presidential commissions to examine the failed programs, but nothing useful came from either.

Nor is President Obama likely to do anything, since his lead agency, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, has essentially denied that a problem exists. Its contribution to the president's response to the Dec. 14 Newtown tragedy focused only on school children and insurance coverage. And its current plan of action for 2011-14, a 41,000-word document, includes no mention of schizophrenia, bipolar disorder or outpatient commitment, all essential elements in an effective plan for corrective action.

The evidence is overwhelming that this federal experiment has failed, as seen most recently in the mass shootings by mentally ill individuals in Newtown, Conn., Aurora, Colo., and Tucson, Ariz. It is time for the federal government to get out of this business and return the responsibility, and funds, to the states.

The federal government, perhaps through the Institute of Medicine, would be responsible only for evaluating and rating state programs, much as it now does for education. The ultimate responsibility would rest with state legislatures and governors. Then, for the first time in 50 years, somebody could be held accountable for what has become an ongoing disaster.

Dr. Torrey is founder of the Treatment Advocacy Center and author of "American Psychosis: How the Federal Government Destroyed the Mental Illness Treatment System," forthcoming from Oxford University Press.

Hits: 174
0

Posted by on in National Politics

The following explanation of the Second Amendment was written by Walter E. Williams. It explains that the right to bare arms has nothing to do with hunting or target shooting, but was intended to prevent tyrants from taking over the country.

Rep. John Lewis, D-Ga., in the wake of the Newtown, Conn., shootings, said: "The British are not coming. ... We don't need all these guns to kill people." Lewis' vision, shared by many, represents a gross ignorance of why the framers of the Constitution gave us the Second Amendment. How about a few quotes from the period and you decide whether our Founding Fathers harbored a fear of foreign tyrants.

©Walter E. Williams
Hits: 336
0

Blog Calendar

Loading ...

Popular Blog Entries

MD HANDGUN-CARRY LAW UNCONSTITUTIONAL, FEDERAL JUDGE RULES
Maryland Politics
In a 23-page memorandum opinion, made public Monday, U.S. District Court Judge Benson E. Legg said a state requirement forcing those applying for a gun-carry permit to show that they have a "good an...
Read More
BILL BANNING SMOKING IN CARS WITH KIDS SURVIVES
Maryland Politics
The cruicial test came on an amendment offered by Sen. John Astle, an Annapolis Democrat, to change the age limit on the bill so that the law would have protected all minors under 16. Astle chacteri...
Read More
0