We Should RESPECT This Man. He Wore The Uniform: Letter From U.S. Marine To Dianne Feinstein About His Guns Goes Viral (enemies, Obama)

[didee]

Originally Posted by lifeexplorer

When do you realize it is not about guns? It is about rights and about staying true to the constitution. By the way it is your rights too.

No, it really IS about guns...

[BruSan]

Originally Posted by california-jewel

And i don't care if they do or don't my life is not run by what others think. Also not everyone on this board have had a realitive murdered in their own home.

I do know know that both my family members, never expressed to be murdered in the privacy of their own home. By thugs.

And that is not my point, criminal element, thugs, punks, gang bangers, mafiaso types, murderers, burglars, will always have guns, no matter what. To think not is plain freaking ingorant.

My definiation of responsible are people i know who have owned guns, from the time they were little, and now in their fifties sixties, never once an accident, or handling of the gun in a inmature childish, dangerous manner.

Once again I see your reasoning.

NO ONE ON HERE has ever stated that the criminal element will forego their access to weapons of any type; that is indeed what makes them criminals. We agree, so stop with the "freak'n ignorant" stuff.

Some of us choose to not have weapns in the house REGARDLESS of crime and criminals!

Your definition of responsible is good so far as it goes but I've known far too many of you who never once had an accident through what I would term irresponsible handling that were merely lucky.

I've had some hand me their weapon to allow me to look at it with one up the spout and no safety engaged. I had a friend who had misplaced his weapon and was relieved when my foot touched it under the front seat of his car. I had to drop the mag and eject a round AGAIN with no safety engaged before handing the thing to him over the back of the seat. Another time I borrowed a car from a friend and was stopped at a holiday DUI check point and when I was asked for title papers, there's his Colt Defender in the glove box. After some tense discussion with the trooper I was allowed to proceed but his weapon was not, as I could not produce any paperwork related to the pistol. Returned the car and and received an "oh chit, I forgot that thing was in there!" That car had gone into the dealership for service no less than three times while that firearm resided in that glove box ~ FUDG'N retarded!

You might be responsible but your familiarity with your firarm will eventually lead to taking it for granted at some point in time and that might be the time that proves deadly.

I'm encouraged by yourself and those who take routine refresher training and qualifying exercises: millions do not.

[Mellowmike]

Originally Posted by lifeexplorer

When do you realize it is not about guns? It is about rights and about staying true to the constitution. By the way it is your rights too.

"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose" ~Anthony Scalia~ Heller v DC.

Even though I don't share his ideology, I believe he's studied the Constitution more than either you or me.
If you want to continue arguing as to whether he's "true to the Constitution" is up to you.

[AnonymouseX]

Originally Posted by burdell

Typically hypocritical self-Righteous whiners who cuddle up to the law of the land when it suits them (2nd Amendment) yet proclaim themselves above the law when it doesn't.


Pick a side you cowards, get off the damn fence and decide whether the law matters or it doesn't.

If a law is unconstitutional then it is no law to me...

[Glitch]

Originally Posted by Mellowmike

"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose" ~Anthony Scalia~ Heller v DC.

Even though I don't share his ideology, I believe he's studied the Constitution more than either you or me.
If you want to continue arguing as to whether he's "true to the Constitution" is up to you.

Justice Scalia is correct, of course. As the adage goes, "your rights end at my nose." Nobody has the inherent individual right to cause harm to another, financially or physically. The inherent individual right to free speech is tempered by tort laws prohibiting libel and slander. The inherent individual right "to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures" is tempered by probable cause or a court-issued warrant. No inherent individual right is absolute. The same is also true for the Second Amendment.

Keep in mind, however, that nobody is demanding that we abolish the inherent individual right to free speech, and nobody is demanding that we abolish our inherent individual right "to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures". But there ARE many, including Senators Feinstein and Schumer, among others, that are calling for the abolishment of our inherent individual right to bear arms.

As for the Second Amendment and the restrictions already applied, you need look no further than the National Firearms Act of 1934, the Gun Control At of 1968, and what is left of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1994 after the Supreme Court threw out the unfunded State mandate provisions in Printz v. United States, 521 US 898 (1997).

The restrictions being discussed now is a means by which to make all privately owned firearms known to the government, and available to the public apparently. Large scale firearm registration will never happen in the US. There may be a small minority willing to provide that information to government, but certainly not the overwhelming vast majority.

That is no different than saying, "you can say anything you like, but you must obtain government approval before you say it." Or "of course you have the right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, once government inspects those persons, houses, papers, and effects and gives their approval."

Registration of firearms defeats the purpose and intent of the Second Amendment.

[Goodnight]

Originally Posted by AnonymouseX

If a law is unconstitutional then it is no law to me...

Then you don't need a constitution, make up your own laws or just decide which laws ones you chose to abide by, sounds like a plan.

[Goodnight]

Originally Posted by Glitch

Justice Scalia is correct, of course. As the adage goes, "your rights end at my nose." Nobody has the inherent individual right to cause harm to another, financially or physically. The inherent individual right to free speech is tempered by tort laws prohibiting libel and slander. The inherent individual right "to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures" is tempered by probable cause or a court-issued warrant. No inherent individual right is absolute. The same is also true for the Second Amendment.

Keep in mind, however, that nobody is demanding that we abolish the inherent individual right to free speech, and nobody is demanding that we abolish our inherent individual right "to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures". But there ARE many, including Senators Feinstein and Schumer, among others, that are calling for the abolishment of our inherent individual right to bear arms.

As for the Second Amendment and the restrictions already applied, you need look no further than the National Firearms Act of 1934, the Gun Control At of 1968, and what is left of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1994 after the Supreme Court threw out the unfunded State mandate provisions in Printz v. United States, 521 US 898 (1997).

The restrictions being discussed now is a means by which to make all privately owned firearms known to the government, and available to the public apparently. Large scale firearm registration will never happen in the US. There may be a small minority willing to provide that information to government, but certainly not the overwhelming vast majority.

That is no different than saying, "you can say anything you like, but you must obtain government approval before you say it." Or "of course you have the right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, once government inspects those persons, houses, papers, and effects and gives their approval."

Registration of firearms defeats the purpose and intent of the Second Amendment.

After reading you post I don't see how you jumped to the last sentence, how is registration an infringement especially since registration already exists for certain categories.

[AnonymouseX]

Originally Posted by Goodnight

Then you don't need a constitution, make up your own laws or just decide which laws ones you chose to abide by, sounds like a plan.

Interesting.

I'm glad our founding father's or the abolitionists weren't this asinine...



An unconstitutional law is by definition illegal and therefore not subject to being obeyed.

I'm VA where I live there are local laws banning guns in certain areas. The state however has a preemption law making it illegal for localities to make gun laws different from the state.

Shall I obey the illegal local laws?

NOPE!

[djacques]

Originally Posted by Old Army Soldier

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.

Actually, this constitutionally illiterate jarhead is a public servant, whose Commander in Chief is Barack H. Obama.

In our country, the military is under civilian control. Always has been, always will be. The pros or cons of any particular piece of firearms legislation aside, that fact is not going to change, no matter how much pouting there is from military goons.

[mwruckman]

Originally Posted by Old Army Soldier

As a former 20 year veteran of the U.S. Army, I have to agree with this U.S. Marine. His letter reflects what many members of the military agree with that I confer with on a daily basis. This Marine should be taken serious. His letter is to the point. This man should be respected to the fullest intent as all members of the armed services should past and present. Here is his letter to the un-American senator as well as all anti-gun proponents.

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

‘No ma’am’: Letter from U.S. Marine to Dianne Feinstein goes viral - BizPac Review

I don't accept your premise that a man who wears a certain uniform has certain superior quality that I have to respect. Is a US Marine deserving of any more respect than a similar man who wore a uniform in Hitler's Waffen SS or German Heer. How about a member of Stalin's Red Army or NKVD, or wehat about Francisco Franco's Guardia . These were all brave men who fought and died for what they believed. As far as I am concerned they were all brothers in arms and universal soldiers.