People could succeed at overthrowing government
Supervisors, thanks for supporting our Second Amendment! (Board backs gun rights," Feb. 28.) Supervisor Martha McClure apparently abstained, stating that it made no sense "cherry-picking amendments."
Under normal circumstances I could agree with her, but looking at page A7 of the same newspaper reveals why it really does make sense: over a third of the entire page was filled with proposed California bills limiting guns and ammunition.
Additionally, many more similar bills have been introduced in the U.S. Congress and the United Nations and the president has threatened to use executive orders to achieve similar goals. Never before has the Second Amendment been under such intense attack.
Our freedoms, which limit governmental overreach, are based on four boxes.
First is the soapbox: Our freedom of speech, which enables us to influence the second box, the ballot box. If unjust laws are nonetheless enacted, the citizens may still prevail via the jury box, but if even that fails, our final line of defense against tyranny is the cartridge box.
Our Second Amendment makes us unique in the world. It's the right that secures all other rights. Tyrannical governments often display the trappings of freedom such as constitutions and elections without actually being free since rights there are not secured. For obvious reasons, not a single tyrannical government allows its subjects to "keep and bear arms."
Who decides when the government has gotten tyrannical enough to justify shooting its agents? The answer is clearly "we the people." There is no way we can divest ourselves of this responsibility if indeed we are to have a government of the people, by the people and for the people.
Is it legal to disobey the mandates of government? Absolutely! Even in the military our soldiers are only required to obey "lawful" orders, thus it's left to each individual to determine if a particular order is indeed "lawful" (10 USC 892 - Art. 92).
The Jan. 12 Editor's Note column questioned how citizens with "large-magazine semi-automatic weapons" could be successful against a heavily-armed government. In a nutshell, you basically use lesser weapons to take the enemy's larger weapons.
My years in Special Forces guerilla warfare training made me a believer in its effectiveness. As the saying goes, "Guerillas don't win wars, but their enemies often lose them." Recent examples were the defeat of the world's two greatest superpowers by guerillas from two of the weakest countries on Earth: Vietnam and Afghanistan.
Michael Mavris, Crescent City
Fixing 101 more importantthan high-speed rail
With a lot of publicity about government wasteful spending, I have concerns about a project in California, the high-speed rail.
Gov. Jerry Brown stated that California would be the first to have a high-speed rail in the United States. With many infrastructure repair/replacement projects waiting to be done, the prestige of a high-speed rail should be on a back burner.
The federal government, with its financial problems, has allocated a large sum toward the rail project. From experience, we can be certain of cost overruns. Who pays for them? Also, who does the rail really serve?
The Triplicate recently published an article concerning Highway 101's Last Chance Grade ("Highway's trouble spot is costly," March 5). I would think that a correction of the highway would have more priority than the high-speed rail.
Please contact your legislators if you have concerns about the rail project.
Robert Ames, Crescent City