A Lawman that gets it

He stands up to the gun grabbers in Maryland and our Federal Government.

Maryland Sheriff Attacked for Promising to Defend 2nd Amendment


http://finance.townhall.com/columnis...3713/page/full

Michael Schaus | Oct 11, 2014


I know this won’t be shocking, but we have some additional proof that the gaggle of anti-gun groups spread throughout the nation don’t generally have a firm grip on the civilian nature of our democratic republic. The pro-gun sheriff of Wicomico County in Maryland (yeah… there’s a pro-gun sheriff in Maryland) is under fire from anti-gunners after a comment he made about protecting the Second Amendment rights of Wicomico citizens. According to Delmarvanow.com, Sheriff Mike Lewis is on record explaining that Federal curbs to the Second Amendment will not be tolerated in his county:

"As long as I'm the sheriff in this county, I will not allow the federal government to come in here and strip my citizens of their right to bear arms. I can tell you this, if they attempt to do that, it would be an all-out civil war, no question about it."

Unsurprisingly, the hoplophobes seem less than thrilled about a government official actually threatening to defend his oath of office. (Strange how they aren’t outraged by Sheriffs, city councils, or municipalities invoking stricter laws than the federal government stipulates.) But rather than merely pushing for the Sheriff to be replaced in the next election, the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence has expressed their outrage that the Lewis is allowed to instruct other law enforcement personnel:

Ladd Everitt, director of communications for the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence said he was "astonished" Lewis was still able to train law enforcement officers after making the comments.

Really? He was “astonished” that a Sheriff was permitted to teach other law-enforcement officers? Something tells me it doesn’t take much to “astound” Ladd… Next thing we know, Ladd will be "astounded" that Lewis is prepared to defend the right to freedom of speech. Delmarvanow.com continued:

Someone who threatens violence isn't the type of person Everitt wants teaching officers. "That's the behavior of a thug, not a citizen in a democracy," he said.

Um… A couple of points leap to mind: First of all, we’re not a democracy (we’re a republic.) But second of all, even if we were a democracy, that’s exactly the behavior of a responsible citizen. After all, aren’t “we the people” supposed to be the final arbiters of the laws that are imposed upon us? Because I think I remember Thomas Jefferson mentioning something about that.

Besides, “thug” like behavior would be someone usurping the rule of law with the use of force… And, unless I missed something, it seems that Sheriff Lewis is promising to prohibit that very behavior.

Of course, Ladd’s indignation at Lewis’ comments is actually pretty enlightening. Here we have an elected public official promising to protect an enumerated right from unconstitutional federal infringements, and (according to Ladd) we’re supposed to be upset because this philosophy doesn’t jive with some Bloomberg-inspired vision for a gun-free America.

Contrary to what our friendly anti-gunners might believe, this Sheriff is probably more in sync with the intention of the Constitution than any of the 535 politicians on Capitol Hill… And I’m not just saying that because he happens to agree with me on gun rights. After all, he took an oath to uphold the Constitution – and he just stated that his county will not tolerate a federally-sponsored attempt to usurp those principles. Basically, he’s explaining that he did not take an oath to blindly allow the Federal government to impose its will on his fellow citizens. I guess I should be outraged that he’s promising to do his job?

American government is, after all, supposed to be designed to protect our individual rights. It seems to me that this Wicomico Sheriff is executing his duty with a rare-form of intellectual integrity. Too bad we can’t say the same thing about the statists in DC.

I hope that streetracer has some Maalox handy.

I hope that streetracer has some Maalox handy. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Whether we live in a democracy or a republic, and assuming that the position of sheriff in Wicimico County Maryland is an elected position, the voting people in the county decide whether or not this is an important issue and can vote either for or against Sheriff Lewis.

That's what makes this country great.

Or

Originally Posted by IIFFOFRDB

I'm sure that everyone of us would like to see all U.S. citizens of any age walking down the street with a loaded M-16 over their shoulders. Or maybe we should infringe that right just a little bit.

The threat of instant justice would be quite the deterrent...ijs.

The threat of instant justice would be quite the deterrent...ijs. Originally Posted by boardman

And how many would be dead before "instant justice" was achieved? It's apparent to me that the people who have committed mass murders do not expect to escape with their lives.

But let's be realistic. We will never be a nation where any person is allowed to carry any weapon any place at any time. And we will never be a nation where average citizens are totally denied the right to arm themselves. Reality is somewhere in between.

And how many would be dead before "instant justice" was achieved? It's apparent to me that the people who have committed mass murders do not expect to escape with their lives.

But let's be realistic. We will never be a nation where any person is allowed to carry any weapon any place at any time. And we will never be a nation where average citizens are totally denied the right to arm themselves. Reality is somewhere in between. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Fair statement but there are radicals on each side that would have it their way. On one side you have the NRA on the other is Michael Bloomberg. Failure from one side to continue pushing allows the other side to gain an advantage. Neither side will stop. Even with SCOTUS rulings they just find a different angle to push from. As long as the money used to push the agenda comes from Bloomberg and supporters from the NRA then I'm good with it.
I agree with you in that if the citizens of that county don't agree with the sheriff they have the right and should vote him out. Or they can decide to keep him. Chances are they keep him if this is the only issue because even liberals want to keep their rights. They just want to restrict other's rights when it doesn't affect them.

Fair statement but there are radicals on each side that would have it their way. On one side you have the NRA on the other is Michael Bloomberg. Failure from one side to continue pushing allows the other side to gain an advantage. Neither side will stop. Even with SCOTUS rulings they just find a different angle to push from. As long as the money used to push the agenda comes from Bloomberg and supporters from the NRA then I'm good with it.
I agree with you in that if the citizens of that county don't agree with the sheriff they have the right and should vote him out. Or they can decide to keep him. Chances are they keep him if this is the only issue because even liberals want to keep their rights. They just want to restrict other's rights when it doesn't affect them. Originally Posted by boardman

Well said.

Originally Posted by IIFFOFRDB

How about a link to where he made such a statement, rather than a reference that could be totally out of context.

How about a link to where he made such a statement, rather than a reference that could be totally out of context. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Tuesday, August 19, 2014
Obama to Citizens of Ferguson: Carrying a Gun ‘Undermines Justice’
Melissa Melton


With National Guard now stationed in Ferguson, Missouri as the riots and protests there continue over the shooting death of an unarmed teen by police, Obama held a press conference where he said that citizens carrying guns undermines justice (Via the Chicago Tribune ):

"While I understand the passions and the anger that arise over the death of Michael Brown, giving in to that anger by looting or carrying guns, and even attacking the police, only serves to raise tensions and stir chaos,” Obama told a news conference. “It undermines, rather than advancing, justice.”
Remember that game on Sesame Street? “Which of these things is not like the other…”

The president mentioned looting, carrying guns and attacking the police. But these three things aren’t all the same. Two of these things are crimes. One of them is not.

In fact, there are no Missouri state permit requirements for the purchase of a rifle, shotgun or handgun, and there are no state licensing requirements to possess these guns, either. Concealed carry is legal in the state with a valid endorsement or permit.

Read more at http://www.activistpost.com/2014/08/...ZsAQAUGBd7j.99

How about a link to where he made such a statement, rather than a reference that could be totally out of context. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Never mind. I found it:

"While I understand the passions and the anger that arise over the death of Michael Brown, giving in to that anger by looting or carrying guns, and even attacking the police, only serves to raise tensions and stir chaos,” Obama told a news conference. “It undermines, rather than advancing, justice.”

Obama was referring to a specific town, not the U.S. in total. A town that was being torn apart by racial anger. And who was he talking to when he made the statement? He specifically referred to those who were angry about the death of Michael Brown, not the total population of Ferguson, Mo.

Nice try. Very obvious, at least to me, that
he was addressing ONLY those that were going to use the guns in criminal activities.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Governm...rds-Photo-Leak

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Governm...rds-Photo-Leak

Originally Posted by IIFFOFRDB

And your point is????

I would think that being severely injured and almost killed by someone with a gun might tend to change your thinking on gun control, sometimes in one direction, sometimes in another. If you take the time to read Gifford's statements in the article you cite, she makes her stand on gun control very explicit, very little that the average American would disagree with.