January 15, 2013 6:56 AM

Common sense gun control doesn't mean "OBAMA'S GONNA GIT YER GUNS!!"


(apologies to Keith Olbermann)

Former U.S. Marine CPL Joshua Boston

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, like many Americans not wedded to their guns, make no bones about my desire for sensible gun control. I’m not proposing rolling back the 2nd Amendment (though I wouldn’t be upset were that to actually happen); I’m suggesting that weapons whose sole purpose is killing humans have no place in the hands of civilians. No, I’m not buying the “We need to be able to protect ourselves from a tyrannical government argument.” I choose not to inhabit a world defined by paranoia and conspiracy theories.

There’s absolutely no reason why a civilian should march through a residential neighborhood in Portland, ME, with an AR-15 slung over his shoulder. Assault weapons have no place on our streets, except in the hands of law enforcement officers and the National Guard. If you believe that you need an AR-15 to protect yourself from the government…well, Idaho is beautiful this time of year.

If you think you need to carry an AR-15, AK-47, or similar assault weapon in order to “protect your 2nd Amendment rights,” I’d submit that you have issues that should disqualify you from carrying said assault weapon. If you see no problem with turning America into a free-fire zone, you have no business anywhere near that much firepower. Joshua Boston would seem to fall into this category.

Boston has his panties in a wad because he thinks the assault weapons ban proposed by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) will strip him of his God-given right as an American to carry any weapons he see fit. Boston’s letter, in which he makes clear he is not a “subject,” “servant,” or “peasant,” is a truly paranoid delusion.

I will not be disarmed to suit the fear that has been established by the media and your misinformation campaign against the American public.

Right…but Boston’s misrepresentation and fear-mongering is perfectly acceptable because he’s defending his 2nd Amendment rights? Give me a break. Methinks someone might just be compensating.

First of all, no one, least of all Sen. Feinstein, is talking about taking away Boston’s guns. No one is advocating that only government should have the right to defend themselves, nor are they planning to turn American into a police state.

Second, what Feinstein is proposing is to ban the sale of semi-automatic weapons and to reinstate and strengthem the 1994 assault weapons ban. If anyone can make a convincing argument as to why American MUST be allowed to own assault weapons, I’m all ears. The problem, of course, is that there IS no convincing argument to be made. Assault weapons are instruments of mass murder- Columbine, Aurora, and Sandy Hook are but three of many examples of the senseless carnage that really is the only purpose assault weapons serve.

Feinstein’s bill is not a “gun grab,” nor is it “the effective END of the Second Amendment in America.” That’s just so much fear-mongering designed to camouflage the reality that gun nuts have no coherent, reasonable argument to present.

That any person could advocate for assault weapons in the wake of Sandy Hook is simply callous and inhuman. Twenty children and six adults were slaughtered by a mentally ill madman for no apparent reason. If assault weapons were illegal, there’s every possibility that we would never have heard of Sandy Hook Elementary School. All Feinstein is proposing is to introduce a sorely-needed degree of sanity to our gun laws. The ONLY people who have any reason at all to possess any type of assault weapon are law enforcement personnel and the military.

Joshua Boston’s 2nd Amendment rights are not inviolate, limitless, and subject to definition only by the NRA and their gun nut acolytes. Our elected leaders absolutely have the right and authority to propose (and hopefully pass) sensible gun control legislation designed to get weapons favored by mass murderers off our streets. Indeed, they would be derelict in their duties if they didn’t exercise that authority.

Boston can bleat about refusing to be a “subject,” “servant,” or “peasant” if that he so chooses; it means nothing. The simple fact is that his argument is a red herring. No one is proposing to legislate him into a powerless pawn unable to defend himself from the privations of Big Government. Nor is anyone proposing to take away all of his guns…though in Boston’s case, that might not be a bad idea.

It’s time for common sense and reason- things Joshua Boston seems to be completely devoid of- to prevail so that we won’t have to bury more of our sons and daughters.

If not now, when? How many more innocent civilians must die before Boston and his fellow gun nuts figure out that it’s not about them?

blog comments powered by Disqus


Technorati search

» Blogs that link here

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Jack Cluth published on January 15, 2013 6:56 AM.

We can't get through morning one school shooting before another happens? Thanks, NRA! was the previous entry in this blog.

The 2nd Amendment then and now...as defined by the NRA is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Contact Me

Powered by Movable Type 5.2.2