Friday, January 25, 2013

The Continuation of Disarming American Citizens


United States Marine Corporal Joshua Boston recently penned a letter expressing his anger at Senator Dianne Feinstein which was posted in the CNN iReport last month on December 27.  It evidently got the attention and support of many Americans who felt similarly because it has since been widely circulated around social media sites.  Personally, I think Corporal Boston was right on the mark.  Considering the fact that the hypocritical Senator from the state of California is putting forth legislation to ban many firearms from being sold or even manufactured anymore in an effort to gain support with those that think that inanimate objects are what are responsible for killing people, I have to admit that I share Corporal Boston’s anger.



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 a crime. 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

Feinstein famously admitted to having a concealed carry permit and weapon as far back as 1995, and yet she wishes to deny that same right to other law abiding Americans, assuming that their choice of firearm doesn’t meet her criteria of what is acceptable and less scary to her.

“I know the sense of helplessness that people feel. I know the urge to arm yourself because that's what I did. I was trained in firearms. I'd walk to the hospital when my husband was sick. I carried a concealed weapon. I made the determination that if somebody was going to try to take me out, I was going to take them with me." 
           ~ Senator Feinstein 

Such is Senator Feinstein’s right to carry a weapon as an American citizen.  The fact that she would deny the rest of us that same right is shameful. 

Following is a summary of the gun control legislation she wishes to introduce now, which I pulled from her senate website:

Summary of 2013 legislation
Following is a summary of the 2013 legislation:
·         Bans the sale, transfer, importation, or manufacturing of:
o    120 specifically-named firearms;
o    Certain other semiautomatic rifles, handguns, shotguns that can accept a detachable magazine and have one or more military characteristics; and
o    Semiautomatic rifles and handguns with a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10 rounds.
·         Strengthens the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban and various state bans by:
o    Moving from a 2-characteristic test to a 1-characteristic test;
o    Eliminating the easy-to-remove bayonet mounts and flash suppressors from the characteristics test; and
o    Banning firearms with “thumbhole stocks” and “bullet buttons” to address attempts to “work around” prior bans.
·         Bans large-capacity ammunition feeding devices capable of accepting more than 10 rounds.

Yep, she touts that she exempts over 900 specific firearms from her ban as if that will pacify those that are okay with the “common sense” infringements on our 2nd amendment right.  Never mind the fact that those of us Americans that currently own any of the weapons on her “banned list” will be required to have another background check, be fingerprinted, register those weapons with the local and federal authorities and then pay a $200 tax per weapon.  Not going to happen for a lot of folks, I suspect. 

 Luckily, it is unlikely that this legislation will ever make it to the president’s desk, but then again I never expected to see Chief Justice Roberts declare Obamacare to be constitutional through his contortionist illogic, nor did I ever expect a majority of Americans to give up their liberties for free stuff and reelect Obama.  So what is foolish and patently unconstitutional legislation that should be killed quickly in congress, may indeed have a fighting chance if enough senators and congressmen fail to abide by their oaths to defend and protect the Constitution.  I’d hate to bet my life against our 2nd amendment rights being safe in their care anyway.

It really doesn’t affect them personally regardless though, including the pernicious and hypocritical Senator Feinstein.  She, like many other politicians, realize that the laws they pass are not intended to be applicable to those in the politburo (oops, I mean congress) but rather only to us comrade citizens.  I for one stand in solidarity with Corporal Boston, and I hope an overwhelming majority of Americans feel similarly on this matter.  We will all know very shortly.

9 comments:

Just the Facts! said...

I do not trust a government that funds the killing of it's own citizens while still in the womb. Why should I beleive they have my best self interests at heart?

T. Paine said...

A very good question, JTF. It is one that is begging for an answer.

John Myste said...

"Yep, she touts that she exempts over 900 specific firearms from her ban as if that will pacify those that are okay with the “common sense” infringements on our 2nd amendment right."

MR. Paine, can you point me to the text in the Constitution that prohibits this? I daresay, it is not there. Nothing in the Constitution says anything about the right to own assault weapons or the right to own any specific weapons. Additionally, are you not aware that the right to keep and bear arms, which is in the Constitution, is supported and defended by our current president? Obama will make sure these fanatics don't take our guns, God bless him!

T. Paine said...

Why yes I can answer your excellent question, Mr. Myste. “…the right of the people to keep and bear ARMS, shall NOT BE INFRINGED.” (emphasis is mine, but is supported by the Founders and any number of historical texts which I realize hold no sway over you, my friend.) Nowhere does the constitution categorize which arms can have ownership curtailed upon, and which categories of arms cannot.

Indeed, you are correct that the constitution does not list specific arms that are allowed or disallowed that the PEOPLE can keep and bear and not have this right subsequently infringed. That being the case, I think the tenth amendment would adequately address any further questions about this.

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

In other words, the inaccurately characterized “assault weapon ban” is unconstitutional, because it is not a power granted to the federal government to make such restrictions/infringements and therefore such rights reside with the people accordingly. By the way, for a weapon to actually be an “assault weapon” it must be fully automatic. Such weapons have not been allowed to be owned by the general public for many many decades already. In other words, that un-constitutional restriction is already in force.

As for our “skeet-shooting” president, I will trust his actions far more so than his words on this issue and any other for that matter. That said, he has said in the past before his presidency that he doesn’t think any civilian needs to own any gun. I see no pivot point in his recent past to suspect he has changed his mind on this issue, particularly in light of his desire to incrementally achieve such a desired all out ban. I think he is one of the fanatics that he must protect us from himself, as it were.

John Myste said...

Mr. Paine,

The right to keep and bear arms is not challenged. The second amendment is upheld.

Just the Facts! said...

"the right to keep and bear arms, which is in the Constitution, is supported and defended by our current president? Obama will make sure these fanatics don't take our guns, God bless him!"

MR Myste, President Obama has admitting to shooting skeet. Do you know if he prefers them broiled or fried when served for his dinner?

T. Paine said...

John, the right to keep and bear arms has not been challenged. *

*(caveat: except for those arms that progressives find to be particularly egregious. The right to keep and bear those arms is indeed being challenged for LAW ABIDING citizens.)

JTF, "boiled or fried"... I haven't laughed that hard in quite awhile. Thanks for the comedic relief! :)

Just the Facts! said...

Mr. Paine,
Since I am not a skeet shooter (don't like their taste no matter how they are cooked) maybe you know the answer to this.
The photo the White House released of Obama shooting skeet, are skeet shot that low to the ground? I don't shoot skeet so I don't know, but the photos shows the shotgun discharging almost parallel to the ground.
Help

T. Paine said...

JTF, your suspicions are correct. Our deceitful president is trying to pull another fast one. Someone even more knowledgeable than I am did a good job of analysis on this fraudulent picture. See here:

http://clashdaily.com/2013/02/photo-of-obama-shooting-skeet-complete-fraud-like-his-presidency/