So, just after Christmas, an ex-marine named Joshua Boston posted the following open letter to Dianne Feinstein on CNN's attempt at social media, CNN iReport.
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
There. Now you have the backstory, in case you missed it.
_____________________
Mr Boston,
You don't know me, but, just like you, I was in the military. Unlike you, I did more than just two tours - I retired after 21 years. On the other hand, I only had two vacations in the Middle East, to your four. So, things even out, I guess.
I read your "open letter" on the CNN website with some interest. I get the general impression that you don't support the idea of gun control: if I'm wrong about that, please tell me.
Oh, and congratulations on learning to use Spellcheck: so many of your fellow lunatics can't manage even that much. But next letter, maybe you should see about getting somebody to help you with the punctuation. I know that's hard for a Marine (or even an ex-Marine), but we all need help sometimes.
I could argue with you on the subject of gun control - it's actually not that difficult to refute every one of the NRA's talking points. The hardest part of the debate is keeping you guys from yelling; you seem to feel that your arguments are more valid when they're louder.
Now, since then, you've become something of an internet celebrity. Your letter has gone viral. You've appeared on Fox News several times, you've been interviewed by Piers Morgan (that one seems particularly popular), and there seem to be people lighting candles and incense under your picture. You're another Internet celebrity. Enjoy it while it lasts, I guess - those 15 minutes die out pretty fast.
I'll tell you the truth, though: I'm not impressed. To be honest, other marines aren't impressed. But I'm not going to try to argue the Second Amendment with you, despite the fact that even the most extreme right-wing Supreme Court justice has said that it's not as all-encompassing as you seem to think.
I could even argue history with you. You seem to ignore the first half of the second amendment, because the full text is "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."
See, back then, every town had a militia. Where we've got the National Guard, they had the local militia. And when they said "well-regulated," they meant it. They had volumes of regulations covering the behavior of the militia.
The founders had a simple reason for curbing this right: Quakers and other religious pacifists were opposed to bearing arms, and wished to be exempt from an obligation that could be made incumbent on all male citizens at the time.Yeah, but, see, that kind of argument doesn't do much for you. Logic has left the building. The historical reasons for the Second Amendment don't matter so much as your ability to take out your automatic weapons and blow the shit out of everything in the neighborhood, does it?
When the Second Amendment is discussed today, we tend to think of those “militias” as just a bunch of ordinary guys with guns, empowering themselves to resist authority when and if necessary. Nothing could be further from the founders’ vision.
Militias were tightly controlled organizations legally defined and regulated by the individual colonies before the Revolution and, after independence, by the individual states. Militia laws ran on for pages and were some of the lengthiest pieces of legislation in the statute books. States kept track of who had guns, had the right to inspect them in private homes and could fine citizens for failing to report to a muster.
(Saul Cornell, author of "A Well-Regulated Militia:The Founding Fathers and the Origins of Gun Control in America")
I just want to point out a couple of little things you should consider, outside of the Freudian glories of firing off your boom-stick.
First off, Senator Feinstein doesn't carry her gun everywhere. She just happens to own one. That's not hypocritical: she isn't trying to ban all guns everywhere - she wants some simple, common-sense laws to be instituted. Are you aware that out of the 23 executive orders the president just signed into law (yes, they're legal and they're constitutional, despite what you'd like to believe), one of them made it legal once again for the CDC to look into gun violence?
Yes, did you know that the NRA had gotten some of their trained Congressional poodles to make it illegal to even examine one of the 15 most common causes of death in the US? That's how afraid they are of reality.
But, of course you'd see Senator Feinstein's actions in the worst possible light: after all, she's a woman, and I hate to break this to you, but you're sexist.
Yeah, I know. You'd like to deny it: either to call it a lie, or to attack the messenger (it's a pretty common tactic: "liberals always call conservatives racist," as if simply denying it makes it less true).
I mean, it's pretty obvious just from your choice of words. "I will not have some woman... tell me I may not have one," or "I am the man who keeps you free... I am the man who fought for my country. I am the man who learned."
Those are your own words. But that's just subtext, so maybe that's too subtle for you. Let's look at some of your other words. "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..."
That's adorable. Paranoid, but adorable. So I suppose that your car doesn't have a license plate, right?
Let me explain what you've done with your idiotic little rant. You made this statement on a nationally-read website. You told the American public that you weren't going to comply with the law. Now, hypothetically, some members of that same public might just work for the government. And they might just file your little letter away for future consideration.
And then, later, a couple of people might just knock on your door. With pictures of you at a shooting range, firing an unlicensed weapon. Since you aren't listed as owning, say, an AR-15, that could very well be considered "probable cause." And then you get a citation: even then, the government would be unlikely to confiscate your guns - they'd just take them as evidence, and you'd end up with a fine.
Of course, if you still didn't register your weapons, then they would be perfectly within their rights not to release the weapons back into your custody. Which may seem like "confiscation" to you, but it's something that they wouldn't be able to do if you'd just complied with the law.
I'm not saying that this is a likely scenario. I'm just pointing out the obvious flaw in your logic. The most likely way that your stubborn ignorance would turn around to bite you would be if you ended up arrested on, say, drug charges, or suspicion of being a terrorist: some charge that resulted in a search warrant against you.
Licensing your guns doesn't put you on a "confiscation list," despite what you read in The Turner Diaries. It just keeps you from getting further charges filed against you when the guns turn up in your possession.
But mostly, I'd like to thank you. When people see the immediate and illogical overreaction of people like you, to the mere suggestion of guns getting at least as much regulation as a car? It highlights the insanity of certain parts of the American public. And maybe suggests to them that there are some people who probably shouldn't be allowed access to firearms. People like you, Josh.
So thanks for your efforts to get some common-sense gun laws put into place.
Bill Minnich
TSgt, United States Air Force
1983-2004
Well said, well said. Some general remarks: what I find noteworthy about these guys is that when they talk about "self-defense," somehow they need an AR-15 or something similar. Why? I mean, how many enemies do they have -- a hundred-strong band of pillaging desperadoes? Do they think they might soon need to mow down The Men Who Just Jumped Out of Maobama's Black Helicopters? Are they expecting the Zombie Apocalypse or the simultaneous, coordinated coming-on of Godzilla, the Abominable Snowman and King Kong? It's just ridiculous.
ReplyDeleteI think a handgun or an ordinary rifle is quite enough -- indeed, I know from considerable movie-viewing experience that a skilled operator can take out quite a lot of zombies with a decent handgun, a shotgun, or even a blunt instrument. Sometimes it can even be done by hand-to-hand fighting, which is really impressive.
Particularly silly is the idea often set forth on the wing-Right that a bunch of mostly weekend warriors are going to halt an incursion of federal military forces. I don't deny that our own government could, at some point in our history, turn against the people, cancel national elections, and so forth. Democracies don't last forever -- they tend to crumble and give way to some kind of "-archy" when a bunch of complete idiots elect a smaller number of equally complete idiots to represent them. Even so, if such a disaster came to pass, the only way out of it would be for the people to stop business as usual in the economic sphere: a general strike -- not AR-15s -- would most likely stop the dictators in their tracks. The government's monopoly on the most lethal means of violence assures that they cannot be defeated by violence; violence would only "legitimize" further repression. To think otherwise is to indulge in a childish fantasy.
A very impressive letter, such a logical progression of addressing the paranoid rantings of Josh Boston and the rest of the gun extremists. I'm posting a link to this post on my Facebook wall.
ReplyDeleteYour review of th 2nd amendment is particularly impressive. One major factor that the extremist ignore is the introductory clause in the 2nd amendment. They have totally twisted the intent of the 2nd amendment and the purpose of a well regulated militia, declaring that they need to hold on to as many weapons as possible in order to be able to defend themselves against a government that becomes tyrannical. The reality is that those state militia's were tasked with the job of protecting the Union against rebellion. The Founding Fathers had no intent of subjecting the government to constant assaults by rebellious factions.
Of who invoke their Second Amendment rights as a hedge against tyranny (i.e. hyperbolic comparisons with Nazis), perhaps they should read further:
DeleteTreason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort (Article Three, Section Three).
When does lunatic rhetoric cross a threshold and meet the definition of organized conspiracy? Josh, by gosh, might look better in stripes.
8pus,
DeleteLunatic anti-government protest along with serious weaponry needs to be taken seriously even if it may be no more than street theater for many participants. The difference is small and the boundary is fragile. I don't know why we've forgotten the Oklahoma City terrorist bombing and think that stuff went away when we killed Tim McVeigh. Not likely! All that raving about secession and resistance, all those 'molon labe' t-shirts and Don't Tread On Me flags. One man's freedom fighter is another man's traitor.
I've also been arguing that talk about a violent overthrow, or perhaps resistance to government with violence meets the definition of treason, but I think such things are close enough for discomfort.
Of course the bozos who wave guns at political rallies are part of the clan who think it wasn't treason, but a struggle for freedom when they fired on Fort Sumter or that the Union was the aggressor and of course Wayne LaPierre never backed down on the statement that the OK city bombing was the government's just desserts, even with all the children killed there.
That fantasy of guerilla warfare against the Liberal Obamanite hordes lurks in all the dark places and I'm convinced that the public obsession with all the walking dead and zombie movies reflects that secret wish/fear.
Excellent, but I'm afraid it's much too rational for the paranoid Joshes of the world to comprehend. And, as you so accurately state, these are the very people who shouldn't be allowed access to guns. What's even more frightening, these are also the people who are most likely to fall through the cracks and never get a mental health evaluation. Think about it.
ReplyDeleteSo I wrote this long post and I wasn't signed in. I'm not writing it again. Here's a small part of it.
ReplyDeleteThe Second Amendment takes on an entirely different complexion when instead of being symbolized by a musket in the hands of the minutemen, it is associated with a musket in the hands of the slave holder.
You've heard of the 3/5ths compromise, NOW hear about the 2nd amendment compromise! http://livestre.am/4ieGH Time entries start 1:06:00 stop 1:16:00/ Start 1:20:06 - stop 1:27:57/ start 1:34:00 -stop 1:43:37
Marcia,
DeleteI'm not clear on what you're saying, but for the many Libertarians I know, the government is the slaveholder and that's just why they want to be armed. Others seem to fear a slave uprising or a class war. Even if they weren't nuts, I don't think our guns are going to help much.
The idea that the government is us seems to have gone away and many people seem to feel that we're under foreign occupation. Some of that alienation may be racism inspired but it's more than that. There are many cultural schisms in America obviously, and that e pluribus unum is just something you see on coins.
NC,
ReplyDeleteIt's refreshing to hear rational discourse on this. As I stated elsewhere, talk about guns is a bit like a barn dance -- it attracts all kinds of fringes.
The paranoid, neo-Confederate, anti-government virus is not to be underestimated and the purchase of guns of all types is exploding but particularly those "lets play soldier" de-fanged plastic thingies. I illustrated at Human Voices the other day how production of 75 or 100 round drum magazines has gone wild and catalogs are advertizing them for anything that accepts a removable magazine. Until now, I've never seen anything like it. Imagine a 25 pound drum magazine for a compact Glock pistol! It's bigger than the gun itself and I'd be hard pressed to hold it at arms length long enough to get off a shot. Useless.
These aren't sportsmen or hunters or people in bad areas trying to protect their homes, they are people terrified that "the Government" is going to round us up and tax us and enslave us and caught up in the hysteria scripted by cynical right wing entities. They plan to buy as much as they can in the hope that, like last time, it will be grandfathered in or they can hide it from the Gestapo. It's a giant windfall for sellers of guns and ammunition. Gun stores are opening up on every corner like Starbucks and Walgreens. In my county, applications for carry permits are up 300% in the last ten years and it's funny to talk about the ease of buying weapons when you can't get into the damned store because of the crowds.
Aiding in the hysteria is the counter-hysteria which is more often than not misinformed. Common sense? Yes please.
Sheria:
But as to the "well regulated militia" I agree completely and for our fledgeling nation, maintaining a standing army and moving such an army around on foot was impossible and so a militia was necessary. Well regulated means well regulated by the government, not some tin-horn war lord or street thug or Klansman who would like to establish his own tax-free, all white, Christian utopia (bed sheets optional and sold separately.)
I like to use Switzerland as an example. Nearly all males are in the militia and are required to have fully automatic weapons at home and receive military training. Everyone loves hunting and shooting and they don't have any crime worth mentioning. Are they a separate species or are they well regulated?
As to registration, I don't think it's unconstitutional, but I'm waiting for some evidence that it has any effect on crime in general and I can't imagine that there is any evidence that it would prevent anyone from grabbing someone's gun and going to school or the movies. I know it annoys some when I say it, but I think we have a mental health problem. Bank robbers and drug dealers aren't motivated in the same way that people who shoot up theaters and schools are nor inhibited by the same controls. I don't understand why so many are afraid to talk about why Miami is no longer the murder capitol and Chicago, with the strictest gun control is.
And Leslie, our Tea-guzzling Governor here in Florida gave us a law that forbids doctors or health care professionals to ask their patients if they own a gun. Isn't that special?
When I was a kid, the NRA was synonymous with gun safety, education, and responsibility. No longer. LaPierre and his cohorts hijacked it, led it far from its original mission and purpose, and misused its resources. When will the membership wise up and toss out these thugs!
ReplyDeleteActually, Cap't, the Swiss militia is pretty much the definition of "well-regulated."
ReplyDelete(Incidentally, in almost-unrelated trivia, you know the "corkscrew" in the Swiss Army Knife? That was originally a tool to clear a jammed ball from your rifle. It was years later that it began to be looked on as a way to open your wine. Just so you know.)