Former U.S.M.C. Joshua Boston's letter to Feinstein
 

So how many have already seen this letter? It's from former marine Joshua Boston and he sent it to Feinsten. It's on CNN where it started. Evidently it's gone viral. I like the letter. Here it is. No response from Feinstein, but I would be willing to bet a couple bucks that she's now aware of it. And the attention it's getting.

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

Concise, to the point, and not beating around the bush. Just what I'd expect from a Marine.

I can think of a few things I could respond to in that letter, but I'm frankly more interested in creating and editing pages on the wiki than getting involved in a potential flame war on the forums. I also don't know whether the forum administrators are likely to ban users who don't fit their political views.

It gets a little esoteric when one thinks that most of the weapons on the wiki would be banned under that bill...or have already been regulated to the point where the proletariat can't own one.

We are not going to ban you for having views different from our own. Personally, I am here to talk about PROP weapons. Not to debate the use of real weapons. You guys are welcome to discuss your personal opinions and views, whether we (the admins) agree with them or not. AS LONG AS it is done in a civil manner. Everyone has their own opinion. So long as that is respected, all is well. I would, however, encourage everyone to remember that this is a site about PROP weapons. Debates about gun legislation and the use of guns might be better placed on a site such as the AR15 forum (www.ar15.com).

Bottom line, keep it civil. Just cause Bob wants more gun control, doesn't mean he hates guns. Maybe he just wants to help prevent more gun deaths. Just cause Joe is anti gun control, doesn't mean he's a southern red-neck who doesn't care. Maybe he just likes to collect firearms. Keep it civil and all is good.

-Z

To my knowledge there hasn't been a single member ever banned solely for his political views.

I am an administrator and I started this thread.

You can ask any of the long time members here about me. I do not ban people for differing political opinions and I don't flame them. Former members who have been banned in the past are folks who do flame and go out of their way to start fights because they think it's funny.

The whole idea of the forum is for the members to share ideas, information, ask questions, get answers so on and so forth. I found the letter to be interesting. Yes there are a few points in the letter that I found myself looking at as well, but it's getting a lot of attention and it is something that I believe many of the members here would find interesting - whether they agree with it or not. It's relevant.

So feel free to express your opinion. If I didn't want any responses I would have posted it as a sticky and nobody would have an opportunity to respond. Just keep it civil.

I apologize for the unwarranted lack of confidence, then. I guess I'm too used to private blogs and forums where administrator(s) can ban users and/or censor any whiff of dissent from their "official ideology" with impunity, often giving an impression of absolute support amongst the content that remains. Those private internet "ideological fiefdoms" are too common. I'll write a response to the letter some time later.

Personally, I'd hate to have my pages on this wiki deleted or kept and falsely attributed just for speaking my mind in a reasonable fashion.

I understand. I've experienced that myself. One of them I left for almost two years, but I have gone back to in the past year -seems like some of the old administration is gone. But there are a couple other forums that I left and I won't go back to. Here on imfdb we try to be a little more reasonable. I have to admit it is easier to be so reasonable becasue we have a fairly low membership and we aren't swamped with postings.

Yeah, the internet (like television before it) was once touted by the overly-optimistic as a technology that would "unite humanity." Instead, people on the internet gravitate to others who mirror their own biases, so in fact it's divided us into ever-smaller niches.

I'm sure the membership here would be much higher if the requirements weren't so strict, but it's better that they're strict than to suffer an influx of spammers, fanboys, and know-nothings.

Okay, here's my attempt at stirring the pot here. Makes me wonder if the pot will turn out to be full of Nitroglycerin.

----

(As a disclaimer, I am of the opinion that there is "no silver bullet" with regards to gun control, and that the assault weapons ban is based on a mistaken definition--why couldn't they have called them "military-grade" features? Mind you, I don't think that things like a pistol grip or bayonet mount count as military-grade features.)

Isn't Senator Feinstein as much a public servant as Cpl. Boston was? In fact, everyone in the USA who pays taxes paid in some part for his salary, upkeep, equipment, etc. Feinstein is out to represent those people who've been paying Cpl. Boston who have become concerned, and deserves as much respect as Boston demands.

The first thing I think Cpl. Boston is missing is the fact that everyone needs to be held accountable in a civil society, especially with regards to weapons that are lethally effective at great distances against which the vast majority of people have no effective defense. To put it in a military context I'm sure Cpl. Boston would have been familiar with, everyone in the military had to be accountable with their weapons to prevent unauthorized use or to prevent the wrong people from obtaining military-grade weaponry. Boston himself would have had to turn in his weaponry if he were found to be unfit for duty for whatever reason while still in the military. We regulate cars in the same manner by requiring licenses and driving tests, and revoking such licenses if the user is found to be unfit to drive.

The civilian registration of weaponry is a logical extension of this accountability--registering weapons will allow law enforcement to (confidentially) track who owns what so as to keep track of when guns go missing or end up in the wrong hands (a common way criminals become armed). This will help hold the original purchasers accountable for any wrongdoings.

Another problem is the way Cpl. Boston uses the term "American," as though that automatically included anyone who responsibly uses firearms and excluded anyone who didn't (and possibly anyone within America who didn't agree with the user's ideology). It reminds me of the way people use the term "law-abiding citizen" when it comes to who should and shouldn't be allowed to use firearms.

The problem with both those terms is that they are more or less a blank check, because they have no prognostic (predictive) value and don't dig deep enough. Just stepping on a scale will tell you your weight, but without a more thorough examination from a GP, you can't tell what you're at risk for. Similarly, the term "law-abiding citizen" tells us nothing about what the person being referred to is likely to do in the future, or if s/he is likely to be of unsound mind around his/her weaponry. The Sandy Hook massacre (and the Fort Hood massacre before it) throws that problem into stark relief.

Something perhaps Cpl. Boston should have learned (had he deployed to counterinsurgency areas and had to mingle with civilians of dubious allegiance and intentions) is that the enemy can be closer than you think. Captain Trevor Greene of the Canadian forces sat down one fateful day in 2006 to sit down and have a talk with Afghan village elders, and got an axe in his head for his trouble when he took off his helmet to show respect. While I daresay that "I thought he was green" attacks are quickly becoming old hat in military circles (just look at the recent shootings of Coalition personnel from Afghan/Iraqi army personnel), the problem is also present in civilian shooting attacks.

Adam Lanza was a law-abiding citizen up until it was too late. Better regulation, qualification, and enforcement would help to reduce the chances of the next Adam Lanza, or Dylan Klebold, or Eric Harris, or Dedrick Owens (the 6-year old shooter who shot and killed one of his classmates after telling her "I don't like you") from arising. Sadly the human mind is a fragile thing and it doesn't take much in the form of bad genes/experiences/ideas to turn someone into a despondent wreck, or a paranoid schizophrenic, or a deeply-humiliated-and-vengeful-person-with-weaponry. I would think that Cpl. Boston would at least be passingly familiar with how many of his comrades-in-arms are suffering from mental illness or substance abuse problems brought on by PTSD.

If we could charge a "state premium" of sorts on "military-grade magazines" and semiautomatic weaponry, as well as requiring mandatory secure storage (including ensuring that no one potentially unstable knows how to access weapons at home), "one gun a month" regulations, mandatory mental health screenings, mandatory and regular qualifications to ensure a user knows how to safely use and store a firearm, including possible suspension/disqualification if a license-holder picks up a substance abuse habit or acquires a mental illness (perhaps like how a driver's license is suspended if someone starts to abuse alcohol?), then we would have a standard by which to measure and disqualify responsible firearms owners. We certainly don't need more Nancy Lanzas (who enabled her son's rampage by stockpiling weaponry that was not properly secured, as well as training her son in the use the guns) or straw purchasers around.
-----

Having said all this, I wonder if any of these pro-gun-control senators realize just how willing some people are to bypass the limitations of their firearms technology. Any good fan of Westerns would probably have seen how the gunslingers of those days got lots of on-demand firepower before there was such a thing as a semiautomatic weapon, or even a double-action revolver. They used to fan their old six-shooters to get a faster rate of fire, or used lever-action rifles/shotguns to fire more quickly, or slam-fired their shotguns. Even users of single-shot black powder pistols either carried several for more quick shots (much like revolver users would later do), or used Duck's Foot multi-barrel pistols.

I'm sure no one here wants a return to the Roaring Twenties in America where drive-by shootings with fully-automatic tommy guns was "par for the course." But the more difficult we make it for the wrong people to obtain firearms and the more we weed out the wrong people with the right regulatory measures, the more we can ensure only the responsible people own and maintain firearms.

Okay, added my response to my previous post.

Your proposal still boils down to a tax on me, a law abiding citizen, who at 20 was entrusted with the ability to call on more firepower than most country's armies, who has never broken a law, never used a gun wrongfully, as punishment for the crimes of some nutjob.

And for the 100th time, the NFA wasn't at all about stopping crime, or reducing the ability of criminals to get BARs, it was a gun grab across the board by a Progressive president who had to keep a shit ton of revenue agents employed after the repeal of prohibition.

Reread the part in my post about how The Enemy Can be Closer than you Think, and how the label of "law-abiding citizen" is essentially a blank check. I don't know your personal criminal record if indeed you have one, but things can get worse much more easily than they can get better. It is not a crime to become an alcoholic, or to develop an anger/impulse control problem, or to develop a mental illness. But combining any of those conditions with easy accessibility to firearms makes the potential for maiming and lethalities all the more likely. That's why we need to start finding out who has and does not have a condition that will likely impair their judgement with a firearm better.

As for taxes, the right ones are the price of a civil society, and one of the best ways to fund a better background checking system (coupled with mental health checking) for firearms would be a tax on ammunition and "higher-class" firearms or firearms accessories (such as high-capacity magazines). Some years back there was a book called The Cost of Rights: Why Liberty Depends on Taxes by Stephen Holmes and Cass Sunstein, which found that in 1997, the US government spent $203 million on property records management (just to keep track of things), along with $6.5 billion to protect and enforce those rights. A tax on those aforementioned items, along with mandatory insurance for firearms owners (increasing the more firearms you own or the more "higher-class" firearms you have), could be one good way to fund such an enhanced background-and-mental-health checking system.

You got evidence for this? Or would you really like to return to Roaring-Twenties-style full-auto drive-by-shootings when full-auto firearms were easier to come by than today? There would have been no lack of things for revenue agents to keep track of even after Prohibition's repeal. In case you mean FBI agents, organized crime by no means collapsed in on itself after Prohibition ended, so I'm sure they still had plenty of work.

Yes, because imposing a mandatory tax on anyone who wants to exercise one of their rights as an American is in no way a means to restrict that right. As for the mental health check, what will happen when "ownership of a firearm" or "desire to own a firearm" are declared to be signs of mental instability?

The NFA didn't do a damn thing to stop them from acquiring fully automatic firearms, as criminals obviously don't care about obeying the law and were unlikely to purchase said firearms legally in the first place

Also, what are you going to do when you are denied affordable coverage, or any coverage at all, by the insurance company on the grounds that the ownership of a firearm is a form of "high risk behavior"?

Oh, maybe the fact that Prohibition was repealed in 1933 and the NFA didn't even reach Congress until 1934.

The NFA was the first of the political gun grabs, attempting to capitalize on sensational reporting of the "motorized bandits".

Hell, the original NFA even went after pistols.

So, let me get this straight, in essence, in order to prevent the possibility of future crime, that I may or may not do, or that someone else may or may not do, then we have to pay a tax on property already bought and paid for?