POLITICS: Beware 'give and take' talk

Too many politicians today use the Soviet model when asking their opponents to compromise. “Give and take” means we give, they take. We see this repeatedly, especially as related to more gun laws.

Look at Connecticut citizens’ current civil disobedience with their state’s recent edicts. What happens when citizens just say no? There, the citizens are being turned into law-breakers by an unconstitutional law. We don’t have enough real criminals? Now people right here in the U.S. are being told that police will break in their doors to get those guns from the legal (until now) owners. It can’t happen here? Famous last words. California has already done the registration turns into confiscation routine, and now Connecticut.

Remember the “just say NO” to drugs mantra? What happens when people just say NO to stupid gun laws? I have worked my whole life in emergency services as a fireman/paramedic, as well as a civilian and police firearms instructor, so I have seen the results of violent criminal behavior. I became a firearms/use of force trainer because I got tired of putting innocents in body bags thanks to utopian propaganda that made them “feel” safe instead of actually being in a position to stay safe. I said NO, that is not going to happen to me, mine or anyone I train. Do citizens who carry pose a threat to other good citizens? No. They only pose a threat to bad guys.

Here is the truth; criminals do not obey laws. Therefore such laws are only designed to affect the good guys, whether enacted out of ignorance or malice. Yes, I said malice. Those who wish to pit law-abiding citizens against police to enable their people control agenda will fail. We are not afraid of each other, we know that criminals of all stripes are the real problem.

Idaho Representatives that claim to support the U.S. Constitution should try emulating it within our state. Do like Vermont, Alaska and several other states, and return to strict interpretation of the Bill of Rights. What part of “shall not be infringed” in the Second Amendment is unclear? These are rights we possess until we show that we are not fit to use them. It is called presumption of innocence. The argument is often made with the First Amendment that free speech doesn’t allow one to yell “fire” in a crowded theater, hence there are limits to the Bill of Rights. Well, yes, I actually can yell “fire” in a theater. I didn’t have to get a permit to possess a tongue, vocal chords and a brain. No one removes these parts from me because of what I might do. I am punished if I endanger people with such speech after the fact. Would we stand for a pre-emptive permit to control our speech? Maybe we will soon, if it’s “for the kids.”

Speaking of folks of different stripes, many of us are students of history, and past performance can indeed be an indicator of future results. Mr. Representative of a Socialist stripe, the mid-terms are coming, and we voters are coming for YOU.

ROBERT B. SMITH

Kootenai County