"Sharing can be a way of healing. Grief and loss can isolate,
anger even alienate. Shared with others, emotions unite
as we see we aren't alone. We realize others weep with us."
~Susan Wittig Albert

Through our writing, we walk out of the darkness into the light
together, one small step at a time, recording history, educating
America, and we are healing.
~CJ/Todd Dierdorff

Wednesday, October 22, 2014

A Worthy Rebuttal to Mr. Garrison: by Frank Fox

Frank Fox
I am shocked and appalled at Mr. Garrison's dissertation, "America: A Constitutional Republic". A bigger tub of venomous slop I have never read. 

He takes the very thread of our Democracy, (I know he is like many others and hates the term), throws it on the floor, and weaves his own caustic fabric of untruths. 

He takes many quotes from the early age of this great Democracy and bends them into a nest of snarling and gnashing teeth against our Freedoms.

I remember when Democracy and God were used in the framework of our country to describe what we believed and what we stood for. Now days, Democracy and God are being taken away by those like Mr. Garrison, who say, "We need to kill anyone who tries to take away our guns." 

Why does anyone have to die? We have to have law and order.

Mr. Garrison is supporting status quo. Do nothing and we will continue to lead the world in senseless killings, but we will be able to continue to leave guns unlocked and loaded? We will buy weapons that have no place, except on a battlefield, and say they are for sport.

He twists what the Constitution means with regards to "Our Right to Bear Arms". When that portion of the Constitution was written, it applied to folks who had black powder muskets behind their back doors for providing food for the table and the militia (family men who may band together in the absence of law enforcement and a military force to protect property and their families).

Now we have an organized police force and trained military. He doesn't trust you, or me. He wants to shoot and kill anyone who doesn't vote his way. He is right though, but it's closer to say that 90% of Americans want gun legislation, not 99%.

Guns are as safe as hammers, if in the hands of the right people. Mr. Garrison wants the status quo of anybody who can pick one up can have one. It is the people who are bad, not the gun. So, what we need is legislation to prevent them (the bad ones) from having them.

We also need legislation to restrict the high kill rate weapons from getting into the wrong hands. The government doesn't mind anyone having a hunting weapon, like many available in various calibers, or the shotguns. However, they should be in a safe place, not leaning against the wall loaded for children to pick up.

We need legislation to have serious consequences for violation of guns laws. We must not let a small group dictate to the majority what is good for all of us. Mr. Garrison tries to make it sound noble, but he is far, far from it. If I were his neighbor and we disagreed on the subject, he may decide I am someone who needs to be killed some night during one of his rants.

We need to preserve Democracy and God in our everyday life.

Garrison doesn't give us a chance to explore how Franklin, Washington, or others, might feel today about gun ownership, since they are not here. To suppose he can, would be to say he is as smart as they are, and I don't see that. He is just afraid someone will take his toys, something that makes him feel equal to others. People like Jefferson, Washington, Franklin were armed with intelligence, hence the pen truly is mightier than the sword.

Please don't confuse real American contributors with lobbyist and PAC's. I would ask that, if you were a Conservative, you would deny it and say you are a libertarian, or worse yet, a member of the T-Party. To follow you and your ilk would be to take us to a path of slavery over and again. Then who do we kill?

I'm sorry, but his rant is just too offensive. I own a 9mm weapon. It is legal, locked up and unloaded, at this time. The government is not opposed to people like me owning a weapon. However, it does have an issue with folks who sell guns to drug cartels, and will have to find another legal way of making a living. It also has an issue with guns being able to get into the wrong hands.

To do it your way, Garrison, would only insure that American will lead the world in violent deaths from illegal guns held by illegal owners ...

Frank Fox
Combat Medic
Sea/Air Rescue
US Navy with USMC
August 1964 – August 1970 (6 years 1 month)

More Articles by Frank Fox:

The Marine and the Cure
More Thoughts on War and Youth
Opinions, Thoughts and Feelings
A Different Perspective

“I am only one, but I am one. I can't do everything, but I can do something. The something I ought to do, I can do, and by the grace of God, I will.” ~Everett Hale

Add your opinion, thought, or comment, about this post. You are also invited to write about anything you want to share. Send it to me in an e-mail and I will be proud to post it for you.

Memoirs From Nam is YOUR blog and it needs YOU.


  1. Frank, I don't think Dean Garrison is a fanatic. He is a realist. He is not saying we are going to revolt against the government with guns. He is simply thinking about what has happened over and over again in history. To think about it is not to do it.

    We ARE a constitutional republic which is similar to democracy but different because it protects the rights of the minority. A democracy is as dangerous as anarchy because the majority by no matter by how much can run over the minority. Our popular election totals are by a democratic process where, traditionally, Presidents have won by small margins usually between about no more than 5 percentage points. But, the popular vote does not determine the winners... it only determines the majority as would a democracy. If the popular vote were to determine outcomes 51% of the people could dominate 49% of the people. So, we have a form of government that has the electoral college which allows the people by state to have a proportional say.

    The Constitution's Article I establishes the Congress which represents the people and states. Article II establishes the Executive branch, eg. the President. They were written in that order on purpose because the people are the government first and the President is the executor of the laws written by the Congress, the representatives of all the people. Article III was written in that order to establish the Supreme Court which interprets the Constitution to be sure the laws are faithfully executed by the executive branch. In the same way the Bill of Rights were the first 10 amendments to the Constitution. The first amendment was to ensure the freedom of speech, religion, etc. The second amendment was the guarantee of the right to bear arms by individuals to protect the first. Again written in the order of priority and process.

    The people are all represented in the Constitutional Republic unlike a democracy where all the people aren't represented. The term Democracy is used incorrectly out of misunderstanding or ignorance.

    We have a serious problem in America today because our schools do not teach history or civics. History shows the nature of governments tendency toward tyranny and civics teaches the process in the United States that establishes our unique form of government and the way it is applicable to us today including the process whereby the Constitution can be amended. Many politicians do not like the amendment process because it protects the interests of the minority which is in conflict tyrannical ideologies. A pure democracy is a tyranical ideology. That is why the Founders were compelled to form our Constitutional Republic.

  2. James, can you cite a reference for your information. I studied the Constitution in College, but I never read a description such as you are proposing for the order in which you say it came about nor about the difference between in democracy and republic . Granted that was quite a few years ago, when I was in school. Thanks


Feel free to comment.