This Sheriff Makes HUGE Threat if Barack Obama Takes Our Guns
” Wicomico County (Maryland) Sheriff Mike Lewis is fighting back against the gun grabbers who are using recent high-profile shootings to push for anti-gun legislation. He explained that bad guys shouldn’t have guns. But for many law-abiding Americans, gun ownership is a way of life.
And what happens when government tries to disarm Americans?
Wicomico County Sheriff Mike Lewis, a sheriff in the state of Maryland, recently reminded the citizens of his county that he will not violate the Constitution and warned the federal government that any attempt to disarm Americans will result in an all-out Civil War.
“ I made a vow and a commitment,” Lewis said. “As long as I am sheriff of this county, I will not allow the federal government to come in here and strip my citizens of the right to bear arms.” “
—
YouViewed/Editorial 
I will stand with this Sheriff or any Sheriff’s up hold his or her Oath as Sheriff(S)
Reblogged this on SherayxWeblog.
A View on Gun Control
Often when I’m speaking to people who don’t hunt, target shoot, collect or own firearms, I’m faced with the task of explaining why they should care if the Second Amendment is revoked or curtailed. The attitude is often, “why should I care?” and “this doesn’t affect me.” The Second Amendment (“2A”) is a larger argument than the right to own firearms without undue restrictions. The reason the Founding Fathers put the 2A second illustrates its importance. Right after stating that the people’s right to protest, assemble, pray and petition the government for redress came the 2A: the right that ensures all other rights.
Many people say that the Founders never meant for people to have military style weapons. The intent was exactly that. At the time of the founding, the people had just fought a war with the monarchy that sought to control every aspect of their lives. A people that had traveled to almost the other side of the world to pray, govern, work and prosper as they saw fit were now burdened under a government that took away their liberties, sought to disarm them and taxed them without giving them a voice in how they were governed. A government that sought to make sanctioned religions superior to those that were not and used illegal means to silence their critics. And a government that took wealth from hardworking, successful people and sought to redistribute it to others. I’ll pause for a moment to see if any of this sounds familiar.
At the time the 2A was drafted it would have been simple to say “bows and arrows” or “swords only”, but The Founders knew that without parity of force with any tyranny the tyranny would always win. The people who had fought the British fought with similar (and in some cases superior) weapons. In a day when governments have tanks, drones, rocket launchers, bombers, fighters, smart bombs, dumb bombs, and blue water navies, a semi-automatic rifle is hardly the parity the founders envisioned. The Framers’ intent was that every adult, capable of defending their nation (the “militia”) should be allowed to own weapons giving them parity with any tyranny.
But why? Surely in our progressive, modern society with the protection of law enforcement and the military such weapons in the hands of the average citizen are simply unnecessary. The exact opposite is true.
Even only looking at the past 100 years of rule by Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, and others, the citizens were always disarmed into a coercive state and done so by law enforcement or the military. Disarming a populace is necessary to control them, whether by an internal force or an external one.
Even the Commander of the Japanese Navy understood this during World War II. He was adamantly opposed to any plans to try to invade the USA, stating “You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass.” He understood that the spirit of nationhood and independence of the average citizen, along with ready access to weapons would force such an invasion to fail.
What about self-defense? The Supreme Court has ruled repeatedly that law enforcement has no duty to or legal liability to protect any individual, just society in general. Translated that means if the police don’t get to your home when you call in time to save your life, they don’t have any liability. That’s just your bad luck. The right of self-defense has been steadily eroded since the early 1900’s in the US.
Many of these acts are clocked in the language of reform or hidden in other legislation. The Gun Control Act of 1968 prohibited the importation of inexpensive firearms, and further criteria were added over the years. The net effect is that if you’re poor, you’re simply out of luck finding a firearm selling new for less than about $300. While there was never any definitive link between less expensive weapons and crime, there firearms were labeled “Saturday Night Specials” and a media campaign was created to make them seem more dangerous that other firearms. This overlooks the fact that dead is dead.
Back to rights, it’s important to understand that in the eyes of The Founders the Constitution gives us nothing. It’s not a list of privileges the government bestows upon us. It’s a warning letter to future governments that this is the least we can expect. The Declaration of Independence made this clear, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” These rights were further enunciated in The Bill of Rights. Not rights granted by the state to individuals, but a warning to the state that these are the basic rights of any man.
But I don’t own a gun? Why should I care?
Do you pray? Why should we let someone worship a tree? Or any God other than a Christian God? Because that is their right as granted in The Bill of Rights. No religion can be promoted or suppressed by the government. That’s the right all citizens have to worship as they see fit without interference.
Have you every marched in a protest march or sued the government? Even in recent memory none of the changes of the 1960’s: the Civil Rights Act, the rise of gender equality and the end to the Vietnam war would have occurred without this right. All of those changes were gained by people protesting their government. A right guaranteed by the First Amendment.
Do you have problems with the government throwing you out of your home so they can house soldier there? Thank the 3rd Amendment. It seems silly now, but during the Civil War, the Federal Courts had to act to prevent the US Government from doing this.
It all comes down to what protects this country over the long term from tyranny and oppression. Every small step acting to limit the Second Amendment should be viewed as if it is an attack on the First Amendment. Let’s all look at it that way. A waiting period…… before you can speak your mind? A limit on the number of…….. arguments you can have about your government? A limit on the size of…… your churches’ congregation? It seems very different when viewed that way. (Weeks, 2013)
Detective Paige Anderson Weeks (Ret.)
Very inciteful comment . Thank you for reading and sharing your thoughts , please come back . Thoughtful commenters are always welcome here .
He’s my kind of man!