A Farewell to Arms Control

[XLFD]

In November of 2016, Mason County was definitely a red county with Donald Trump defeating Hillary Clinton by over 20 percentage points.  In Victory Township, Clinton could not even muster 25% of the vote.  But the red ran deeper, with the two state and one federal Republican candidate winning with almost identical 20% or more margins. 

This would still be manifest in 2018, when even though the US Senate, governor, attorney general and secretary of state races featured easy wins by Democrats statewide, the Republicans of those races won by a margin averaging over 15% here.  Regional federal and state congressional races were Republican blowouts, with Curt Vanderwall receiving over two votes for every one of his capable Democratic opponent in a State Senate race where he wasn't even an incumbent.

Despite this clear Republican plurality, local newspapers seem to be gravitating left with their editorial board.  Thomas Sheppardson and his occasional column in the City of Ludington Daily News (COLDNews) appears to be most in line with the area's majority, but recent editorial boards seem to favor editorials and guest opinions that would clash with conservative orthodoxy.  

The Manistee newspaper I affectionately call the City of Manistee Advocate (COMA) has had similar failings despite their near similar political party demographics, which was why I was impressed that Glenn Zaring's March 5th column was published by them as a sensible way to interpret what is behind the genuine grassroots effort to make sanctuary cities, counties, and states for the Second Amendment, aka 'the right to bear arms'. 

Republicans have historically sided with the Second Amendment strictly, Democrats have pushed for gun controls, the extremists pushing even more so.

Typically, I borrow editorials and opinions from the COLDNews or the COMA to evaluate, analyze, and refute on these pages, but Zaring has woven together a narrative that combines common sense with what we hold dear.  

Have you ever spent any time around dogs? It’s a wonderful example that we need to take a look at as we discuss one of the most controversial issues of this particular time here in the US of A ... the Second Amendment to the Constitution, the right to keep and bear arms.

Dogs are protective. They might wag their tail and all that as you come up to them, but approach in a threatening manner or attempt to hurt one of their family members, and they all of a sudden become a toothed beast with a serious attitude. They are protecting their own. My heavens, from chihuahuas to German shepherds, they all are going to come after you if you threaten their "family."

Last year, I had a good example of that when my golden doodle and I were on a walk and a pit bull charged through a screen door looking for a bite of doodle. Now, keep in mind my pooch hasn’t a mean bone in his body. He even gets along with my parrot!

Well anyway, this pit bull is all of a sudden chomping down on my boy and just about bringing me to the ground with them both. As quick as a flash, my doodle is mixing it up with the pit bull and not taking any grief. He was protecting both himself and me and was holding his own until we could get them separated. Yes, he took a wound on his back but he protected me.

When you start looking at it in human terms, this "protective" attitude starts to make some sense. One man was talking to his companion recently about carrying a weapon. The companion asked, in a very serious voice, “Do you want to kill someone?” The answer is instructive. The guy with the gun said, “No, I carry a firearm to stop bad people from doing bad things.”

Why was the 2nd Amendment put into place in the first place? It wasn’t just to protect the right of citizens to hunt and target shoot. It is there in our Constitution to guarantee the rights of the citizenry (the "people’") from an over-reaching government such as a vindictive king in a far-away land from infringing upon their rights and putting them in danger's way.

The early citizens of this unique nation were pragmatic and intelligent beyond belief (how they did it without smartphones and the internet is amazing). They saw firsthand how distant overlords could pass something that they thought was reasonable and impose their will on the little folks in, what was to them "fly over country".

Right now, in this county and in many counties around the nation, there is a movement to pass a message to our overlords in Lansing, in Washington and throughout the land that “you are waking up the dog and he’s not happy with you!” This movement is the 2A Sanctuary movement.

Realistically, the movement doesn’t have any teeth. It is not a law or rule to effectively guide law enforcement to not enforce laws which are unconstitutional ... it is a message from a frustrated electorate who recognize the existential threat to our "families" from those who wish to disarm the people.

Gun free zones and highly restrictive gun cities do nothing to stop bad guys from doing bad things. Just look at the real statistics and you will see what I mean. They merely ensure that folks are going to be unable to defend themselves from the wolves which hover around all of us.

The 2nd Amendment clearly states that this is wrong and that we have the right, and indeed the responsibility to protect ourselves, our families and our communities from approaching threats.
The 2A Sanctuary movement is really just a cry of protest from "the people’" that says, "Enough with eroding our rights!" The mere fact that the 2A Sanctuary movement is happening should tell Lansing and D.C. that the people are making a stand and establishing our own "red line in the sand".

Whether or not counties and indeed states feel the need to become 2nd Amendment Sanctuary areas should tell our leaders that they need to back off.

[Willy]

I guess I don't get the 2nd amendment sanctuary idea. All they're saying is that they support the 2nd amendment but unless it is put into law then what good is it? I do like Mr. Zaring's article but he took to much time on the dog side of it just to explain his support for the 2nd amendment. As it stands now the full power of the 2nd Amendment has already lost much of it's punch when gun permits and registration were required to own one. I have yet to hear of a criminal who registered their guns but law abiding citizens who do not are prosecuted. 

[XLFD]

Patterned after leftist sanctuary cities/counties that do not recognize and/or enforce state/federal immigration laws, Second Amendment sanctuaries refer to a rightist city, town, or county that has adopted a resolution rejecting the enforcement of state or federal gun laws perceived to violate the Second Amendment. Targeted regulations commonly include red flag laws, universal gun background checks, and bans on assault-style weapons. 

The movement to do so everywhere has greatly increased since the State of Virginia came under control of Democrats in the governorship and state congress and has been actively passing legislation going after people's gun rights.  These sanctuary resolutions or proclamations usually have very limited authority, but those who press the issue, whether it's local politicians or gun rights activists, feel it gives them an extra line of defense against state and federal gun control laws often made in reaction to one or more shooting rampages, when lawmakers choose security over your basic rights.

Not understanding that most every form of gun control measures will hinder and/or restrict use of those who lawfully wield firearms for good purposes.

[Willy]

Wouldn't it be better to challenge the Constitutionality of the laws that are passed? Declaring a region of a State to be a sanctuary makes no sense. Not for illegals or gun legislation. If the State wants to confiscate firearms through passed legislation there is nothing to stop them except the Constitution. The Constitution should be the focus. All the sanctuary nonsense is just a feel good move. If people were serious about the firearms situation they would pass an ordinance declaring to uphold the Constitution but of course they won't do that because there are to many things now protected under the Constitution such as abortion. It's a sticky wicket when progressives try to undermine the foundations of a free society. But of course all things are continually in a state of flux and when things change by force we then have some form of ism, such as Communism, Fascism and socialism behind it.