Marine To feinstein: I Will Not Register My Weapons

[Incorruptible]

Former Marine Joshua Boston has sent a letter to diane feinstein saying he will not register his weapons even if the "assault weapons" ban passes. He tells that her that he has the right to own firearms and he served 8 years in order to defend her and the freedom of everyone else. He points out her hypocrisy since she carries a gun but wants to ban his.

As well he points that with registration its much easier for the government to take away guns.

This guy is a true American patriot and more people need to say no to their politicians like this guy.

I would like to see the gun control advocates go up against this guy

Do you agree that he did the right thing in sending the letter and he should not have to register/give up his firearms?

No ma'am.

By joshdb50 | Posted December 27, 2012




CNN PRODUCER NOTE joshdb50 wrote a letter to California Senator Dianne Feinstein saying that he would not register his weapons with the government even if the Assault Weapons Bill is passed in his state. Senator Feinstein introduced the Assault Weapons Bill after the Newtown school shooting. The bill aims to reinstate and strengthen the expired 1994 Assault Weapons Ban. It also aims to stop the sales, importation and manufacturing of military-style firearms.

As a former Marine who was deployed to Afghanistan between the years of 2004 through 2005, joshdb50 says he has the right to own his firearms. Although he is no longer in the military, he acknowledges that he owns guns. He says he does not believe the government needs to know what guns he owns because he believes registration would lead to confiscation.

He says the laws that are already set in place for gun control are plenty, adding that more laws will remove a means of defense for people. 'I own the guns I own because I acknowledge mankind's shortcomings instead of pretending like they don't exist. There are evil men in this world and there just may be a time when I need to do the unthinkable to protect me or my family,' he said.

This story started on CNN iReport and is part of a larger conversation on CNN on gun control.

Read why some people choose to own military-style weapons, and watch gun owners debate stricter gun control in the wake of mass shootings in America.
- Jareen, CNN iReport producer


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

http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-902515?hpt=hp_bn1

 

[lotus503]

Former Marine Joshua Boston has sent a letter to diane feinstein saying he will not register his weapons even if the "assault weapons" ban passes. He tells that her that he has the right to own firearms and he served 8 years in order to defend her and the freedom of everyone else. He points out her hypocrisy since she carries a gun but wants to ban his.

As well he points that with registration its much easier for the government to take away guns.

This guy is a true American patriot and more people need to say no to their politicians like this guy.

I would like to see the gun control advocates go up against this guy

Do you agree that he did the right thing in sending the letter and he should not have to register/give up his firearms?

http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-902515?hpt=hp_bn1

he is free to exercise his right to free speech, I think sending the letter was a good thing, its the right way to express an initial grievance.

If they pass it as law and he refuses to follow the law then he is free to suffer the consequences of breaking said law.

 

[ivwshane]

Yes a real patriot. And if he had the opposite view would you have still called him a true patriot? Or are true patriots only those that agree with you and not those that want what they think will make America better?

 

[glenn1]

While I agree with the sentiment, he must not have been much of a marine to have spent 8 years in the service and left a corporal.

 

[soundforbjt]

Do you agree that he did the right thing in sending the letter

He can send any letter (within reason) he wants.

He points out her hypocrisy since she carries a gun but wants to ban his.

Does she carry an "assault rifle" ? Hypocrisy not found.

 

[Incorruptible]

he is free to exercise his right to free speech, I think sending the letter was a good thing, its the right way to express an initial grievance.

If they pass it as law and he refuses to follow the law then he is free to suffer the consequences of breaking said law.

Why should he suffer the consequences of breaking an unjust law? A law that violates his rights?

 

[lotus503]

Why should he suffer the consequences of breaking an unjust law? A law that violates his rights?

That's kind of the problem, you elect lawmakers to determine what is law.

If I decide the law on murder is unjust and go around killing people. should I suffer the consequences of breaking that law? of course this is an extreme example but it highlights that you do not determine what is unjust.

elected officials do and if the law is unjust it wont become law, is how its supposed to work.

 

[Puddle Jumper]

elected officials do and if the law is unjust it wont become law, is how its supposed to work.

So you consider Jim Crow laws just then? They were put in place by elected officials after all.

 

[JoLLyRoGer]

Why should he suffer the consequences of breaking an unjust law? A law that violates his rights?

Umm... Because it's the fucking LAW!??? What's difficult about this equation?..

That's kind of the problem, you elect lawmakers to determine what is law.
...
you do not determine what is unjust.
...
elected officials do....

^^ This

Don't like it?... Then wake up and STOP ELECTING SHITBAGS that get this garbage passed!!!

 

[lotus503]

So you consider Jim Crow laws just then? They were put in place by elected officials after all.

No I don't, however they are no longer law, and you bet your ass people who broke those laws payed for those crimes when it was law.

That's the thing unless you want the consequences you follow the law.

Just or not.

Some people have opted rightfully so to break unjust laws and suffer the consequences and its that suffering of consequences for unjust laws that usually lead to reform of said laws.

Its a weighted choice each law breaker makes, doesn't mean laws have no consequences.

 

[exdeath]

That's kind of the problem, you elect lawmakers to determine what is law.

Except I DID NOT elect or vote for that bitch.

 

[sigurros81]

Except I DID NOT elect or vote for that bitch.

Which means you're in the minority.

 

[ivwshane]

Except I DID NOT elect or vote for that bitch.

No but more people voted for her than against her. Sorry, you aren't the king, the majority rules.

 

[exdeath]

No I don't, however they are no longer law, and you bet your ass people who broke those laws payed for those crimes when it was law.

That's the thing unless you want the consequences you follow the law.

Just or not.

Some people have opted rightfully so to break unjust laws and suffer the consequences and its that suffering of consequences for unjust laws that usually lead to reform of said laws.

Its a weighted choice each law breaker makes, doesn't mean laws have no consequences.

After the fact. Oh well those people's lives were personally destroyed, but hey good news the law was abolished 40 years later! Oh sorry about that too little too late for you!

Personally I'm with Malcom X. Blacks should have taken up arms and defended themselves from their aggressors back then.

 

[exdeath]

No but more people voted for her that against her. Sorry, you aren't the king, the majority rules.

So what 51% says its ok to kill blacks or gays and make a law and its ok?

Majority rule with minority rights.

My individual liberty > any politician or law, sorry. The laws job is to preserve liberty and individual rights, not restrict them.

As long as I'm not depriving another person of their life liberty or property, Ill do as I please.

<^>

 

[ivwshane]

After the fact. Oh well those people's lives were personally destroyed, but hey good news the law was abolished 40 years later!

Personally I'm with Malcom X. Blacks should have taken up arms and defended themselves from their aggressors back then.

Sounds like you don't like the USA and the bad that sometimes goes with it. Let me know when you find that utopian country you think exists.

 

[Wreckem]

All this shit about gun grabbing is stupid.

There is no way it is going to pass, unless the GOP keeps shooting themselves in the foot and lose their House majority in 2014. Even then, I doubt the Senate would ever get close to 60 votes to get it to a vote on the floor.

 

[lotus503]

After the fact. Oh well those people's lives were personally destroyed, but hey good news the law was abolished 40 years later! Oh sorry about that too little too late for you!

Personally I'm with Malcom X. Blacks should have taken up arms and defended themselves from their aggressors back then.

Its a better alternative to people deciding to follow only the laws they personally see as just. It sometimes does suck to live in a society where what you want or think isn't always reflective of your personal views.

Blacks were wrongly persecuted for ages and lives were destroyed because of shitty laws and policy, but those personal sacrifices are exactly what changed the minds of the citizens of this country in equal rights.

the world sucks sometimes the US is no exception

 

[exdeath]

Sounds like you don't like the USA and the bad that sometimes goes with it. Let me know when you find that utopian country you think exists.

I make my own utopia wherever I happen to be.

I learned all there is to know about living in a society in kindergarten: keep your hands to youself and mind your own business. It has done me well, law or no law.

 

[exdeath]

All this shit about gun grabbing is stupid.

There is no way it is going to pass, unless the GOP keeps shooting themselves in the foot and lose their House majority in 2014. Even then, I doubt the Senate would ever get close to 60 votes to get it to a vote on the floor.

Tea party threatening republicans with consequences for raising taxes...lol what are they going to do, vote democrat and get more tax with no resistance to Obama at all by handing him both houses on a silver platter? That's brilliant.

Yeah that will teach those republicans.

God people are dumb.

 

[sigurros81]

So what 51% says its ok to kill blacks or gays and make a law and its ok?

<^>

I would like to see you propose that law and see if you get the majority vote. Failed slippery slope of an analogy.

 

[Matt1970]

Because clearly registering firearms will stop the senseless mass shootings. It worked rather well from keeping Jiverly Antares Wong from taking his 2 leaglly registered in New York pistols and killing 13 people in Binghamton NY.

 

[lotus503]

So what 51% says its ok to kill blacks or gays and make a law and its ok?

Majority rule with minority rights.

My individual liberty > any politician or law, sorry. The laws job is to preserve liberty and individual rights, not restrict them.

As long as I'm not depriving another person of their life liberty or property, Ill do as I please.

<^>

and the laws are created by lawmakers, who are elected to office by majority vote, if majority determine that you cant have assault weapons you are free to ignore those laws on principle, much the same as blacks did during the civil rights movement, then if enough of your fellow citizens think its unjust the law will be changed.

 

[ivwshane]

I make my own utopia wherever I happen to be.

I learned all there is to know about living in a society in kindergarten: keep your hands to youself and mind your own business. It has done me well, law or no law.

Yes, it appears that you do live in your own reality and it appears you never grew up, socially, either.

Thanks for the heads up

 

[JulesMaximus]

Why should he suffer the consequences of breaking an unjust law? A law that violates his rights?

What the hell does anyone need an assault rifle for?