Gun owners push back: a former Marine's letter to Dianne Feinstein

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

http://news.yahoo.com/gun-owners-push-back-former-marines-letter-dianne-210043517.html

Sen. Dianne Feinstein is proposing an assault weapons ban, but many Americans are ready to defend the Second Amendment at all costs. A former Marine's open letter provides a window into the heated debate taking place

By Patrik Jonsson | Christian Science Monitor – 13 hrs ago

Talk of reviving an assault weapons ban and creating a national gun registry in the wake of the Newtown, Conn., school massacre is touching a deep nerve in America, epitomized this week by debate over a stern open letter to Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D) from a former Marine.

After Adam Lanza used a semiautomatic assault-style rifle to kill 20 students and six school staff Dec. 14, Senator Feinstein of California has said she will try to revive the 1994 assault weapons ban, which sunsetted in 2004. She would also push for Americans to be required to register "grandfathered" weapons.

But the open letter from Joshua Boston, which has caused a raucous online debate after being posted on CNN's iReport website on Dec. 27, is a reminder of the huge stakes involved. Namely, many of America's 80 million gun owners are liable to balk at having to register their weapons, raising the potential for confrontations with federal authorities.

Addressing Feinstein directly, Mr. Boston, who served tours in Afghanistan and Iraq, says he'll refuse to register his weapons and writes, "You ma'am have overstepped a line that is not your domain."

"I am not your subject," he continues. "I am the man who keeps you free. I am not your servant. I am the person whom you serve. I am not your peasant."

As Democrats, led by President Obama, have pushed to expand the purview of the federal government in recent years, a recoil has ensued – on display in the rise of the tea party, a massive run on guns, and an explosion in the number of concealed-weapons permits. At times, the recoil has taken on tones of warning and alarm. Many in this camp, especially in the wake of several mass shootings last year, fear that America is entering a post-constitutional era where basic precepts like the Second Amendment are curtailed by a central authority.

"If you take out the heat and the emotion of this [Connecticut] tragedy, the reaction is an interesting case study in public versus individual rights," says James Wright, a sociologist at the University of Central Florida in Orlando. "It puts the issue on a knife point in a way that a lot of other issues don't. It's hard to deny the public interest in gun crimes, but at the same time there's that old Second Amendment, and it's hard to deny what it seems to imply."

Indeed, what it implies for some Americans, including many in the so-called warrior class – hundreds of thousands of retired soldiers – is that an armed population is an essential guarantee against centralized tyranny. The lobbying of the National Rifle Association and the expansion of gun rights by federal courts have tended to further the idea that the Second Amendment is a safeguard against tyranny, as well as a key to personally protecting oneself against crime.

Feinstein's office replied to Boston's letter this past week, pointing out that there's another side to the argument – the millions of Americans who worry about US society becoming militarized through the expansion of weaponry. What's more, Feinstein says, the law won't affect Americans’ basic right to purchase and use weapons.

"Senator Feinstein respects Cpl. Boston's service. She has heard from thousands of people – including many gun owners – who support her plan to stop the sale, transfer, importation and manufacturing of assault weapons and large capacity magazines, strips and drums that hold more than 10 rounds,” the statement from Feinstein’s office read. “As Senator Feinstein has said, the legislation will be carefully focused to protect the rights of existing gun owners by exempting hundreds of weapons used for hunting and sporting purposes."

In response to Boston's letter, a commenter on the iReport website suggested that the former Marine, by refusing to comply with a law, would be going against the Constitution.

"Ms. Feinstein is an elected official who was selected by voters to represent their interests in a governing body," YankCT wrote. "She has the authority and responsibility to do just that until the people whom she represents decide otherwise through their votes. This gentleman believes that he is above the law. This is untrue; in fact, my guess is that he swore to defend the country and respect its laws when he entered the Marines."

One point Boston makes in his letter is that many of the 120 guns that would be banned under Feinstein's bill are cosmetic variations of standard semiautomatic hunting rifles. Boston says he's angered by "the fact that I'm supposed to be punished for doing nothing more than owning a rifle that looks scary because its stock isn't made out of wood," he said.

Feinstein contends that America should "put weapons under some kind of appropriate authority," as she recently told Fox News. Yet many gun owners believe there is already an authority in place – the Constitution.

"With everything that has happened these last four years under President Obama and with the fresh attacks on the Second Amendment by gun grabbers like Dianne Feinstein (and David Gregory and Piers Morgan and Nanny Bloomberg, plus dozens more) I can safely [say that] yes we do live in a post constitutional Republic, and that is very troubling," writes Ulysses Arn on the RedState blog.

[lostinblue 1,989]

Senator Dianne Feinstein,

I will not register my weapons should this bill be passed, as I do not believe it is the government’s right to know what I own. Nor do I think it prudent to tell you what I own so that it may be taken from me by a group of people who enjoy armed protection yet decry me having the same [as being criminal]. You, ma’am, have overstepped a line that is not your domain. I am a Marine Corps Veteran of 8 years, and I will not have some woman who proclaims the evil of an inanimate object, yet carries one, tell me I may not have one.

I am not your subject. I am the man who keeps you free. I am not your servant. I am the person whom you serve. I am not your peasant. I am the flesh and blood of America.

I am the man who fought for my country. I am the man who learned. I am an American. You will not tell me that I must register my semi-automatic AR-15 because of the actions of some evil man.

I will not be disarmed to suit the fear that has been established by the media and your misinformation campaign against the American public.

We, the people, deserve better than you.

Respectfully Submitted,

Joshua Boston

Cpl, United States Marine Corps

2004-2012

.

[lostinblue 1,989]

Dianne Feinstein caught in a lie .

[spookyturtle 9,465]

An assault weapons ban is not much more than an effort at appeasing the public. But it's a lot easier than attacking the real problems, isn't it?

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

An assault weapons ban is not much more than an effort at appeasing the public. But it's a lot easier than attacking the real problems, isn't it?

Based on polls it would appease a minority while upsetting a majority. (Recent polls are running about 40-42% for and about 51-53% with the undecided under 7%)

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Based on polls it would appease a minority while upsetting a majority. (Recent polls are running about 40-42% for and about 51-53% with the undecided under 7%)

"Do you think allowing citizens to own assault weapons makes the country safer or more dangerous?" Options rotated

12/17-19/12
	  	 Safer	 More
                        dangerous  Unsure/Refused	  	  
	  	   %	    %	         %	  	  



                 21	   65	        13	

more poll data

http://www.pollingreport.com/guns.htm

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

"Do you think allowing citizens to own assault weapons makes the country safer or more dangerous?" Options rotated

12/17-19/12
	  	 Safer	 More
                        dangerous  Unsure/Refused	  	  
	  	   %	    %	         %	  	  



                 21	   65	        13	

more poll data

http://www.pollingreport.com/guns.htm

There is a direct question in that poll, 44 for 51 against.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

There is a direct question in that poll, 44 for 51 against.

...stricter gun laws, or 87 to 11 against less strict gun control. Depends where you put the folks that are unsure, or undecided.

[spookyturtle 9,465]

So the majority are happy with current laws. So they should stay as they are. Now lets get to the real cause of the violence.

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

So the majority are happy with current laws. So they should stay as they are. Now lets get to the real cause of the violence.

You mean actually do something positive about it? That would rock the boat and the Dems don't want that. That would mean they would have to admit to being wrong all these years. That and their voter base would be cut in half.

[spookyturtle 9,465]

You mean actually do something positive about it? That would rock the boat and the Dems don't want that. That would mean they would have to admit to being wrong all these years. That and their voter base would be cut in half.

Whatever it takes needs to be done. As I've said many times here, neither party has all the answers and they both put the Party ahead of the people. We need compromise and moderation. And we need to attack the problems at their source. It didn't happen overnight and it's not going to go away anytime soon. But you have to start somewhere. It took decades to reduce auto pollution and increase gas mileage but for the most part it has worked. If we had put our minds to becoming energy independent back in 1973, we would probably be there today instead of increasing our dependence. Rome wasn't built in a day, but it went down in a relatively short period of time.

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

Whatever it takes needs to be done. As I've said many times here, neither party has all the answers and they both put the Party ahead of the people. We need compromise and moderation. And we need to attack the problems at their source. It didn't happen overnight and it's not going to go away anytime soon. But you have to start somewhere. It took decades to reduce auto pollution and increase gas mileage but for the most part it has worked. If we had put our minds to becoming energy independent back in 1973, we would probably be there today instead of increasing our dependence. Rome wasn't built in a day, but it went down in a relatively short period of time.

Cut off the government handouts and don't play favorites in regards to tuition, SBA loans, Affirmative Action, etc.. Make the rules the same for everyone no matter what the sex and no matter what the race.

[lostinblue 1,989]

[SMR 368]

Anyone else find it odd that in a letter stating that he refuses to register his rifle, Joshua Boston states his name and what type of weapon he owns. He also presumably included a return address. I don't know what else would be required to register the gun, but it seems he did a pretty good job of getting the information out there anyways. And now, not only does the government know. Everyone knows.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Anyone else find it odd that in a letter stating that he refuses to register his rifle, Joshua Boston states his name and what type of weapon he owns. He also presumably included a return address. I don't know what else would be required to register the gun, but it seems he did a pretty good job of getting the information out there anyways. And now, not only does the government know. Everyone knows.

Marines are not known for being intelligent. Smart people join the Air Force or the Navy, the former if you are straight, the latter if you are gay. If you can't swim, or don't have any cool sun glasses, you join the Army.