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

I have to believe that the founders were probably more literate than I am, so I am going with the thought that the independant clause is what they fully intended, it stands alone, it really doesn’t need any further explanation – “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Look, it ended with a period! Case closed, no exceptions, no room for misinterpretation.

rgranger on December 26, 2012 at 6:06 PM

.
Well put.
.
My own take on the ‘full-auto’ issue is those types of weapons cannot be crontrolled precisely, as pertains to the rounds going down-range.
I’m fine with the licensing of ‘full-auto’ firearms, but it should be handled by the states, not the Fed.

As far as the Second Amendment ‘stating itself’, period, the libs got that covered with their “the Founding Fathers couldn’t have forseen the advances in weapons technology . . . . . ” reasoning.

Here is my take, the main clause: “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Wait, that really doesn’t need an explaining does it.

“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,” – I think this means that we should be able to bear any weapon that a regular GI would carry. I am willing to make an exception on the full-auto, because it was there before my time, but not budging from that any further.

I have to believe that the founders were probably more literate than I am, so I am going with the thought that the independant clause is what they fully intended, it stands alone, it really doesn’t need any further explanation – “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Look, it ended with a period! Case closed, no exceptions, no room for misinterpretation.

They reference ‘documentation’ we are not allowed access to. Just makes their story weaker.

I acknowledge the tragedy of the children dying, but I don’t accept the story as it’s being presented. Show us the facts, not the fiction.

xmanvietnam on December 24, 2012 at 6:05 PM

.
What ? ! !

You want REAL actual “journalism”?

Get in line, with the rest of us. Some of the ones at the head of the line have been waiting a looooong time, for that. : (

I suspect there are no automatic weapons fire ‘trails’ in the walls and each child was hit with one, or possibly two bullets.

They reference ‘documentation’ we are not allowed access to. Just makes their story weaker.

I acknowledge the tragedy of the children dying, but I don’t accept the story as it’s being presented. Show us the facts, not the fiction.

So a dead thread, verbaluce?

I guess it’s easier than defending flawed religious views, eh?

Well done.

rogerb on December 22, 2012 at 8:30 PM

.
Awww, gee whiz roger’ … you ran him (her?) off !

I was having such a great time, too … : )

So you don’t want provide the readers with the estimated number of crimes you’re going to prevent with a no-exceptions civilian ban on full auto weapons, verbaluce?
 
rogerb on December 22, 2012 at 4:42 AM

I guess not.
 
rogerb on December 22, 2012 at 10:01 AM

 
So a dead thread, verbaluce?
 
I guess it’s easier than defending flawed religious views, eh?
 
Well done.

I said it before and I’ll say it again.

This is nothing but an attempt at citizen control.

hillbillyjim on December 21, 2012 at 9:44 PM

.
True enough, ‘jim.

But citizen control is just a stepping stone toward the ultimate goal.

The common American citizen is the biggest obstacle to that goal.

It’s the Second Amendment that enables us to be this obstacle.

listens2glenn on December 21, 2012 at 10:36 PM

.

rogerb on December 22, 2012 at 4:42 AM

.
VERBALUCE ! … where are you ? ! !

So you support an absolute full auto ban, verbaluce ? Fair enough. Now tell us what it would prevent.

Only three cases have been documented where the owner of a registered machine gun has done anything illegal with one.

http://www.cheaperthandirt.com/mediapages/ArticleDetail.aspx?mediaid=159

rogerb on December 21, 2012 at 8:53 PM

So you don’t want provide the readers with the estimated number of crimes you’re going to prevent with a no-exceptions civilian ban on full auto weapons, verbaluce?

rogerb on December 22, 2012 at 4:42 AM

 
I guess not.
 
I suppose your 7:42 post this morning on your ha-ha-dead-children thread will do fine countering your semi-religious full-auto position in this thread:
 

Thing is though, your ‘beliefs’ are not what matters here.
 
verbaluce on December 22, 2012 at 7:42 AM

 
Well put, btw.

James Madison

The Second Amendment is a DOOMSDAY PROVISION, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed – where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their designs.
However these continencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a MISTAKE a free people get to make only once.

Alex Kosinski
Former Federal Appeals Judge
and immigrant from Eastern Europe

One either understands this or doesn’t. It’s a waste of time trying to convince others of these facts who refuse to listen. They are either willfully ignorant, mendacious or have nefarious plans of their own.

…but would you support/oppose making illegal the possession of fully automatic weapons*?
 
verbaluce on December 21, 2012 at 1:08 PM

So you support an absolute full auto ban, verbaluce ? Fair enough. Now tell us what it would prevent.
 

Only three cases have been documented where the owner of a registered machine gun has done anything illegal with one.
 
http://www.cheaperthandirt.com/mediapages/ArticleDetail.aspx?mediaid=159

 
rogerb on December 21, 2012 at 8:53 PM

 
So you don’t want provide the readers with the estimated number of crimes you’re going to prevent with a no-exceptions civilian ban on full auto weapons, verbaluce?

Cars, pools, and even dogs are subject to more registration, safety regulations,and permitting.
 
So there’s that.
 
verbaluce on December 21, 2012 at 10:21 PM

 
The post in which you yourself admit that even highly-micromanaged registration, safety regulations (many of them extremely local), and permits can’t prevent the vast majority of tragedies.
 
So there’s that.
 
Well done.

We established however some, although not all its [self-government] important principles . The constitutions of most of our States assert, that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, in all cases to which they think themselves competent, (as in electing their functionaries executive and legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves, in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved,) or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed;
—Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824. Memorial Edition 16:45, Lipscomb and Bergh, editors.

No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms.
—Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution, 1776.

Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive.
—Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787).

Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American…[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.
—Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

[W]hen the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually…I ask, who are the militia? They consist of now of the whole people, except a few public officers. But I cannot say who will be the militia of the future day. If that paper on the table gets no alteration, the militia of the future day may not consist of all classes, high and low, and rich and poor…
—George Mason

“And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; …”
Samuel Adams
quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, “Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State”

“Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that’s good.”
George Washington
First President of the United States

“What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms.”
Thomas Jefferson
to James Madison

I do not understand that hypocrisy. If you are going to name the tyrant name the means to stop him.

Are you going to respond to this or not?

How does taking away someone’s right of self defense protect them?

Galt2009 on December 21, 2012 at 10:21 AM
.

How are any of the hypothetical proposals presumed to do that?

verbaluce on December 21, 2012 at 10:23 AM

.
Are there or are there not proposals to ban private ownership of civilian (semi-auto) models of military (full-auto) rifles, and carbines?

listens2glenn on December 21, 2012 at 1:17 PM
.

Is this for me?
Yes, that seems to be the essence of what’s be proposed.
Again.

verbaluce on December 21, 2012 at 1:31 PM

.
If you’re acknowledging this, then it’s hardly “hypothetical”.
The Second Amendment is FIRST, about self defense against a Tyranical government. Common criminals come after that.
Then dangerous/nuisance animals … and so on.

Citizens should be allowed to possess the same weaponry as your local and state police. Anything less than that, means your ability to defend yourself against a tyrannical government is compromised. Period.
.
My 1:24 PM comment is for you, as well. Reposting:

verbaluce on December 21, 2012 at 1:12 PM

.
For full-auto, I’m for licensing. Should licensing be Federal or State controlled? That’s another argument.

Civilian (semi-auto) models of fully-auto military rifles and carbines should be no more restricted than a breech loading single shot .22LR.
listens2glenn on December 21, 2012 at 1:24 PM

As a gun owner, you are significantly more likely to come to harm than I am.
verbaluce on December 21, 2012 at 3:12 PM
You are quite full of horse hockey. Gee, so with that logic, YOU since you have a car, are more likely to kill your child with your car because you drive the child around in a car? right ?
And, you are more likely to drown in a pool if you have one?
And more likely to trip over your dog and fall into the pool if you have a dog and a pool?
Shut up.
TX-96 on December 21, 2012 at 7:35 PM

Actually…
Cars, pools, and even dogs are subject to more registration, safety regulations,and permitting.
So there’s that.
But I suppose as I support that you’d offer I am for ‘banning’ cars, pools, and dogs.
(To be honest…not really much of a dog guy.)

Myself and others prefer other contingency plans. How dare you try to push legislation that would allow the federal government to dictate how I choose to defend my family.
ROCnPhilly on December 21, 2012 at 4:37 PM

How many contingency plans do you have?
Surely not enough…right?

This is nothing but an attempt at citizen control.

I understand it’s a question maybe best avoided answering here (gotta keep your gun cred!), but would you support/oppose making illegal the possession of fully automatic weapons*?
 
(*As defined by listens2glenn as ‘A firearm that fires rounds continuously as long as the trigger is depressed.’)
 
verbaluce on December 21, 2012 at 1:08 PM

 
So you support an absolute full auto ban, verbaluce ? Fair enough. Now tell us what it would prevent.
 
Get specific and provide numbers. Numbers like “3″:
 

Only three cases have been documented where the owner of a registered machine gun has done anything illegal with one.
 
http://www.cheaperthandirt.com/mediapages/ArticleDetail.aspx?mediaid=159

As a gun owner, you are significantly more likely to come to harm than I am.

verbaluce on December 21, 2012 at 3:12 PM

You are quite full of horse hockey. Gee, so with that logic, YOU since you have a car, are more likely to kill your child with your car because you drive the child around in a car? right ?

And, you are more likely to drown in a pool if you have one?

And more likely to trip over your dog and fall into the pool if you have a dog and a pool?

Shut up.