Marine Writes Letter to Sen. Dianne Feinstein: ‘I will not be disarmed’ (VIDEO)

A letter written by an 8-year Marine veteran to U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein, the architect of the comprehensive 2013 Assault Weapons Ban, has gone viral.

The author of the letter, Cpl. Joshua Boston who was deployed to Afghanistan between 2004-05, told CNN that he opposes gun registration because it will lead to confiscation.  Moreover, that passing more gun control laws will only serve to disarm law-abiding citizens, leaving them defenseless.
“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,” Boston said.
Here is the letter Boston wrote, courtesy of CNN’s 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

Very well said.  Particularly the point about “We deserve better than you.”  It’s not clear as to whether Sen. Feinstein has actually seen this letter.
Nevertheless, it stands to reason that the majority of the 5.1 million Post 9/11 veterans, many returning from combat deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan, feel the way Cpl. Boston does.  In fact, it stands to reason that the majority of all veterans identify with Cpl. Boston’s letter.
We often hear politicians, on both sides of the aisle, say we need to “support the troops” – well, the question needs to be asked, how does stripping our veterans of their Constitutional right to keep and bear arms via an AWB fit within that popular meme?
Brave men and women put their lives on the line to protect and defend this country and its founding principles yet politicians are going to repay these heroes by gutting their Second Amendment rights?
Any logical person would admit that that’s not supporting the troops; that’s spurning the troops and the sacrifices they made for this country.
Though, given Sen. Feinstein’s past remarks about guns, it’s clear we’re not dealing with a logical individual (see video).
Here is a brief recap of Sen. Feinstein’s 2013 AWB (for a more detailed version, click here).

• 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.
• Protects legitimate hunters and the rights of existing gun owners by:
o Grandfathering weapons legally possessed on the date of enactment;
o Exempting over 900 specifically-named weapons used for hunting or sporting purposes; and
o Exempting antique, manually-operated, and permanently disabled weapons.
• Requires that grandfathered weapons be registered under the National Firearms Act, to include:
o Background check of owner and any transferee;
o Type and serial number of the firearm;
o Positive identification, including photograph and fingerprint;
o Certification from local law enforcement of identity and that possession would not violate State or local law; and
o Dedicated funding for ATF to implement registration.
Video Link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=blXkl9YVoHo

 

UN Gun Grab Follows State Department Plan

 1961! Really? Are we so bland that  we have to drag stuff in from that far back! his is getting out of hand! There is tsill a law on the books that you can beat your wife except on sundays, should we start doing that too?! 

I dont even own a gun, but I am heading to walmart today to buy one, because I am starting to get scared that only the governement and the crooks will have something to protect them selves with!!

Please share if your scared!

INFOWARS/The UN Arms Trade Treaty that has been identified by observers as a flagrant threat to the second amendment and which Barack Obama is determined to sign has its roots in a 1961 State Department memorandum which explains how the United Nations will oversee “complete disarmament” of the American people under the ruse of preventing war.

The UN Arms Treaty has caused so much controversy because it outlines a plan to target “all types of conventional weapons, notably including small arms and light weapons,” according to Forbes’ Larry Bell.
Former US Ambassador to the UN John Bolton also warns that the agreement “is trying to act as though this is really just a treaty about international arms trade between nation states, but there is no doubt that the real agenda here is domestic firearms control.”
A letter sent last month by 130 Republican House members to President Obama argued that the treaty should be rejected because it infringes on the “fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms”. The letter adds that “…the U.N.’s actions to date indicate that the ATT is likely to pose significant threats to our national security, foreign policy, and economic interests as well as our constitutional rights.”
Using the rhetoric of the threat post by terrorists, insurgents and “international crime syndicates,” the UN is busy trying to imply that all weapons are somehow involved in illegal activity on a global scale and should therefore be controlled and regulated by a global authority.
This is precisely the same language used in a 1961 U.S. State Department briefing which outlined a long term agenda to carry out a “Program for General and Complete Disarmament in a Peaceful World.”
Invoking the threat of nuclear warfare, the document spells out a plan to create a “United Nations Peace Force” that would “enforce the peace as the disarmament process proceeds.”
While the document initially focuses on scrapping nuclear weapons, it later makes it clear that the only groups allowed to own weapons of any kind would be governing authorities, “for the purpose of maintaining internal order,” and the UN “peacekeeping” force itself, which would require “agreed manpower.”
“The manufacture of armaments would be prohibited except for those of agreed types and quantities to be used by the U.N. Peace Force and those required to maintain internal order. All other armaments would be destroyed or converted to peaceful purposes,” states the document.

• A d v e r t i s e m e n t

While the memorandum outlines a broader mandate to destroy national sovereignty, eviscerate national armies and institute the UN as the planet’s supreme authority with a world army, the document serves as a stark reminder that the plan for the United Nations to oversee the abolition of the second amendment has been in the works for decades.
As Bell points out in his Forbes article, the threat of the Obama administration relying on a UN treaty to do what successive administrations have tried but failed to accomplish – taking a huge bite out of the second amendment – is by no means far fetched.
After all, a plethora of UN treaties and international agreements have already stripped the United States of its sovereignty and its power to decide its own laws. The power to authorize U.S. involvement in wars and conflicts has now been almost completely stripped from Congress and handed to the United Nations.
Following Barack Obama’s arrogant rebuff of Congress in seeking approval to strike Libya, during which he churlishly remarked, “I don’t even have to get to the Constitutional question,” Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta affirmed that the U.S. now requires “international permission” before deciding on its military policy.
Other Obama-endorsed UN power grabs like the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST) as well as Agenda 21 and sustainable development are also serving to decimate national sovereignty and remain almost completely under the radar.
You only need to look at the European Union, which now crafts around 50 per cent of the laws made in member states like Britain, to understand how unelected global institutions can and have dictated policy on a national level.
The UN Arms Trade Treaty presents an existential threat to the guns rights of American citizens and should be rejected for what it is – yet another attempt by the Obama administration, in the aftermath of the Fast and Furious scandal, to abolish the second amendment by stealth.