Elitist commissioners would disregard individual rights of law abiding citizens | Eastern North Carolina Now

    Publisher's Note: This article originally appeared in the Beaufort Observer.

News and Commentary

    What started out as a discussion of whether the boycott of the January 18, 2013 special meeting by the Democrat members of the Board of Commissioners (Langley, Booth, Belcher) was legal, turned out to be a raucous discussion of gun control. What was revealed was the ignorance of the Democrats on both the resolution acted on in the special meeting and on the constitutions of the United States and North Carolina. But most importantly, what came across loud and clear is that the three Democrats do not believe honest, law abiding citizens should be able to decide what kind of weapons they will use to protect themselves and their families, if need be. These Elitists believe they (the government) should decide for the rest of us, or worse still they would let Barack Obama decide.

    The uproar began when Stan Deatherage asked the County Attorney for a legal ruling on the legality of the three commissioners refusing to attend the special meeting. The attorney reviewed the board's Rules of Procedure and state statutes. Turns out the boycott was a violation of the boards Rules of Procedure which say, among other things: "It is the duty of each member to vote unless excused by a majority vote according to law." But the attorney ruled that since they were not present there was no violation. But he did cite N.C.G.S 153A-44 which provides that if a "member has withdrawn without being excused by a majority vote of the remaining members present he shall be counted as present for the purposes of determining whether a quorum is present. The board may compel the attendance of an absent member by ordering the sheriff to take the member into custody." Clearly, the intent of the law is that every commissioner attend any meeting unless excused by a majority vote and if in attendance they must vote unless excused from doing so. That's where the train wreck came in the discussion.

    Robert Belcher launched into an emotional attack on guns. "More people are killed by gun violence in America than were killed in Iraq!" he exclaimed (without explaining that there are many more people in America than were in Iraq). "Something's got to be done." Belcher in toned. Jerry Langley then used the Democrat Talking Point that hunters don't need large capacity magazines.

    The absurdity of the arguments was that the resolution presented and adopted at the special meeting did not address gun control per se but rather which level of government should regulate firearms. The resolution called upon the state to nullify "any infringement on our Second Amendment rights..." by the Federal government and for the convening of a constitutional convention to strengthen the Second and Tenth Amendments.

    As Stan Deatherage pointed out to Langley, "the Second Amendment is not about hunting, it is about self-defense...protecting ourselves, our families and our nation." And Belcher's basic premise for outlawing "assault weapons" and requiring "universal background checks" falls apart when he cannot present any valid or reliable research to show that outlawing guns accomplishes the objective of reducing gun violence. The fact is, the places with the strictest gun control laws have more, not less, gun violence. The fact is also that the shootings he mentioned were prohibited by law but happened anyway and none of the proposed new regulations would have prevented the shooters from having the weapons they had.

    Moreover, his call for "universal background" checks is just as specious simply because there is no such thing as "universal" background checks. Criminals are going to buy, trade or steal guns without background checks so there is no such thing as "universal" background checks. Background checks work only on law abiding citizens. Belcher also failed to acknowledge that individuals who may give, trade or sell a gun to another individual do not have access to the Federal data bases with which they could do background checks. Imagine a parent giving a son/daughter a shotgun for their sixteenth birthday. Belcher does not explain how the parent's going to run a background check on his son/daughter. But then we all know background checks is not what "universal" is all about. It is about creating a national gun registry so they can confiscate our guns when they get ready to do so.

    What was most enlightening was the virtual disregard by the three Democrats for the inalienable right to keep and bear arms guaranteed by both the federal and state constitutions, with roots all the way back to the 1600's in England. Their arguments ignore the simple fact that most gun owners are honest, law abiding citizens who have a right to possess weapons to defend themselves, their family, home and business. They ignore the fact that severe restrictions impact honest people much more than they do the bad guys. Belcher and Langley would take our inalienable right away because some people violate the laws we already have that don't stop them from using guns illegally. So the restrictions Belcher touts would affect only the law-abiding citizens while doing nothing to stop the Bad Guys.

    But the bottom line in the discussion was the division between the liberals (Belcher, Langley, Booth) and the conservatives, was the elitism of the liberals that it is they/the government that should decide what kind of weapons law abiding citizens can have. Deatherage and Richardson argued that individual rights of law-abiding citizens trump the liberals' elitism that they know what's best for the rest of us. We wonder if former principal Belcher supported teachers punishing the whole class because a couple of students in the class misbehaved.

    But most of this discussion missed the point of what the resolution actually said. It simply called upon the Legislature to nullify any unconstitutional infringement by the Federal Government of our right to keep and bear arms. Of course, since Belcher, Langley and Booth were not at the special meeting maybe we can't expect them to know what the resolution was all about.

    What is it about this statement that these elitists don't understand: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

    And we find it hypocritical that these three men sat there and argued for more laws to try to make people do what the three think they should do when each of them violated their own "law" that makes it their duty to attend meetings and vote on items before the board.

    You can watch the action below:



    Finally, as for Robert Belcher's asinine argument that most people are in favor of gun control, it should be noted that the source he cited (Public Policy Polling) is one of the most left wing polling operations in the nation, controlled entirely by radical Democrats...and usually wrong. They are notorious for over sampling left-wing elements of the Democrat Party. For example, in the same survey Belcher cites PPP says that 64% favor illegal aliens being offered a chance to apply for citizenship. Of course more people would say to would offer them "a chance" but if you believe 2 out of 3 people favor amnesty we have a bridge in Brooklyn for sale that you'll love the deal we'll make you on it.

    We'd love to hear Mr. Belcher explain this poll: NewsMax.com ran an online poll and found that 71% said the Federal government should not regulate guns of any type, 77% said Congress should no ban semi-automatic weapons, 79% oppose Obama using executive orders to ban semi-automatic weapons and 81% agree the Second Amendment gives Americans the right on own and bear arms without infringement. Click here to go to the original source.

    Looks like Mr. Belcher needs to do his homework a little better next time.

poll#35

poll#33