Joshua Boston, Marine answers Feinstein

| January 5, 2013 | 38 Comments

We saw the open letter that Joshua Boston wrote to Dianne Feinstein and was posted on CNN iReports a few weeks ago. Boston is a real Marine veteran (it’s sad that I have to say that), we checked him out when the ladies of Victory Girls asked us if he was real and it turns out that he served with our own StrikeFO.

But, the basics of his letter is that he considers unconstitutional Feinstein’s proposal to ban those weapons that she considers to be “assault weapons” and force those of us who already own scary-looking guns to register them and be fingerprinted. Boston says that he won’t register his weapons.

He holds up very well against an obvious onslaught from the CNN reporter this morning;

The Huffington Post provides a mixed bag of comments in regards to Boston’s open letter.

But it illustrates what is at stake here. Americans who believe that the Constitution protects us from government will suddenly find themselves considered to be criminals in the eyes of their representatives.

The fact that Democrats have had to keep their mouths shut about gun control since the 1994 midterm elections in order to keep their jobs, demonstrates that the majority of Americans don’t want to restrict gun ownership more than it’s been restricted already.

If their so-called assault weapon ban is passed, Democrats will suffer in the midterms again. That’s why there’s so much confusing information coming from the investigation of the Connecticut school shooting – to keep the electorate ignorant.

Boston makes an excellent point that we don’t have to worry about violating Feinstein’s ban because no one is interested in enforcing the law in regards to David Gregory’s blatant violation of DC’s gun laws, so no one is going to enforce laws against the rest of us, right?

Category: Gun Grabbing Fascists, Veterans Issues

Loading Facebook Comments ...

Comments (40)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. NR Pax says:

    The media is getting more and more desperate. They know that they have lost the debate and their only hope is marginalizing people like Joshua. The fact that he’s not cowering or being frightened is the worst possible news for news creatures like the woman.

  2. 2-17 Air Cav says:

    He did well. The chicklet was clueless but cute. His best point was that he doesn’t recall seeing hunting or sporting arms distinguished from other arms anywhere in the Constitution.

  3. Just an Old Dog says:

    “Unconstitutional Laws Aren’t Laws”,,,Bingo. As for the good Senator saying ” these laws wont apply to people who already lawfully have those weapons” all I have to say is what if we passed a law that said “Freedom of speech will only apply to those born before Jan 2013, all others will not have that right”

  4. Rob says:

    I’m sick of being lectured to by these politicians that see us as their subjects. I live near Cpl. Boston, and I will stand with him, as will most of KY, I’m sure.

  5. UpNorth says:

    @#3. Feinstein was lying, her lips were moving. I like your analogy. Maybe our very own rock-climbing hero, Joey, will show up and explain why we all need to give up our weapons, again.

  6. Rob says:

    @3 Agreed. Or what about a law that says only those who already exercise their right to free speech can keep it, provided the outlet (such as a blog) is registered with the federal govt?

    She can take her bill and shove it up her ass.

  7. Old Trooper says:

    The AWB worked so well the first time it was implemented that we should all be for it! (that’s sarcasm, people)

    Also, DiFi is a lying buttmunch by saying that she’s heard from a lot of gun owners that support her bullshit.

    As a side: If you bought your scary black rifle from a gun shop, then it is already registered, so that’s a moot point.

  8. pete says:

    this young veteran is why i still have hope for our nation but,
    he is now on the commies radar and we need too watch his 6.

  9. Old Trooper says:

    @8: Agreed

  10. Joe Williams says:

    When they talk about turning in our firearms are they going to pay us fair value for them ? I have a sizable bit of money invested in my collection. Each my collection increases in value more than CDs,401Ks,does not rise and fall like the stock market. Has anyone throught of that aspect? Joe

  11. He was correct in saying unconstitutional laws aren’t laws.

    However, he was WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! to tell her we get our rights from the Constitution and the Second Amendment!!!

    We were born with our UNALIENABLE rights, and the Constitution exists primarily to impose strict limitations on the powers of the federal government.

    At least, that’s how it’s SUPPOSED to work.

  12. FatCircles0311 says:

    Shall not be infringed.

    These politicians are illiterate. Perhaps we should send these people to Afghanistan to be among their illiterate brethren.

  13. FatCircles0311 says:

    Is this CNN’s next smug, snarky, pompous, condescending, and obnoxious “journalist” to fill the void of that cunt Solidad Obrien?

  14. Anonymous says:

    Please tell me how an AR-15 can be considered safe…it can be easily modified to fire multiple shots with a single pull of the trigger. Only law enforcement and the military needs this type of weaponry.

    You don’t like the laws here, Josh, you can always move elsewhere.

  15. Virtual Insanity says:

    #14…you don’t like the laws here, Anonymous, you can always move elsewhere.

    2nd Amendment is law. DiFi’s bloviating is an attempt tp “infringe.”

    Why is that difficult to understand?

    BTW, MANY weapons can be modified to fire multiple shots with one pull of the trigger. You want to ban all that *could* be? And, finally, in historical context, the fact that military and police have that kind of weaponry is exactly why most of us bitter clingers want it, too.

    Think about it.

  16. Virtual Insanity says:

    While we’re at it, who the hell said any firearm is “safe?”

  17. Comrades in Arms:
    _________________________

    # 14, ANONYMOUS, wrote:

    “Only law enforcement and the military needs this type of weaponry.”
    _________________________

    Whoa, there, Nellie!

    You’ve got the purpose of our divinely inspired Declaration of Independence, Constitution of the United States of America, and Bill of Rights all wrong!

    Please remember that our rights as individual citizens are UNALIENABLE and deliberately unnumerated.

    Therefore, the sole and primary purpose of our divinely inspired Constitution of the United States of America is to impose strict limitations on the powers of our federal government.

    When we enlisted or were drafted into my beloved United States Army, each and every one of us solemnly and publicly swore a sacred oath before our Almighty God to uphold and defend our divinely inspired Constitution of the United States of America, and in spite of honorable discharge or career retirement, none of us have EVER been released from the legal obligations of our individually sworn vows.

    The sole and primary purpose of Amendment II to our divinely inspired Constitution of the United States of America is to insure that in the event unfortunate event that it becomes necessary (such as now), we the people, will always have the practical means to rise up in a horribly bloody armed revolt against our own government.

    We, the people, MUST be armed with basic individual weapons and personal protective equipment that are, at the very least, equivalent to what the soldiers and the police are using, for undoubtedly, we will probably be compelled by circumstances to fight against them.

    Unlike you, I will NOT be timidly “anonymous”, but when publicly posting my own personal opinion, I am bound by principle to sign my name and give my location, regardless of risk.

    It’s only what any ordinary (former) noncommissioned officer of my beloved United States Army should do, don’t you reckon?

    Thank you.

    John Robert Mallernee
    Armed Forces Retirement Home
    Gulfport, Mississippi 39507

  18. Just an Old Dog says:

    @14 A firearm, much like a car, knife or hammer is only as safe as the person who uses it. A computer with internet access can only be used to express an intelligent comment if the person behind it has knowledge of the subject matter. In your case there seems to be an idiot behind the keyboard.

  19. Nik says:

    @6

    She can take her bill and shove it up her ass.

    Ugh. While I will happy chip in on the plunger and the lube, I don’t want to be witness to the installation process. I have a strong stomach, but…yuck.

    @14

    Please tell me how an AR-15 can be considered safe

    Your question isn’t logical. The AR-15 is neither safe nor unsafe. It only finds itself in safe or unsafe hands.

  20. SGT Ted says:

    Please tell me how an AR-15 can be considered safe.

    Safety on, barrel pointed away from people, unless you need to shoot them.

    That was easy.

    Got any other easy ones?

  21. Puff357 says:

    Dianne Feinstein is telling that favorite of political lies, the lie of omishion. She is sure to tell of
    “She has heard from thousands of people — including many gun owners — who support her plan” but she doesn’t mention the thousands of people she’s heard from with the oposit point of view including non gun owners” I would like to know how many are on each side?

  22. Spade says:

    @14: “Please tell me how an AR-15 can be considered safe…it can be easily modified to fire multiple shots with a single pull of the trigger.”

    Easily? Huh, mine has a shelf built into it designed to prevent that.

    Also, easily modifying it would be, gasp, illegal! Are you telling me that people might not follow one federal law so what we need is ANOTHER federal law? Surely just one more law will stop all the bad people!

  23. Joe Williams says:

    @22,Spade you forgot that one needs certain parts to be installed So that is two and that too is legal .

  24. SFC Holland says:

    Spot on comments as always. Good points that more Americans should hear. The media is directing the conversation to limit that. The next 20 years are going to be very interesting indeed. The makers versus the takers, and the real possibility of a war of words and ideas becoming something more.

  25. Ex-PH2 says:

    @14, a crossbow can be modified to fire multiple arrows.

    Get your head out of your behind. Your brains are becoming oxygen-deprived.

    Besides, my ancestors came here to get away from maroons like you. If you don’t like it here, YOU CAN LEAVE. NO ONE WILL STOP YOU.

    Was I loud enough on that?

  26. Twist says:

    “Please tell me how an AR-15 can be considered safe”

    It’s called muzzle awareness.

  27. Matt wright says:

    My ancestors came here to live free, not to live in terror, and have to listen to this 2nd Amend BS. I’d be surprised If any off these morons knew what any of the other amendments are. Here’s the facts you assult rifles guys, are going to lose. And how about this tough guys,learn to shoot better, if you need 30 shots, you’re a lousy shooter, Maybe you need Grenades. I listened to poor Joshua, and sadly these ill informed people, are just increasing profit for gun manufactors, they’re pawns. Joshua may I suggest your leave your children, books, something useful. Other than your assualt rifle?

  28. NHSparky says:

    Goody, another “swoop and poop” poster.

    Do yourself a favor, scooter, and Google “mad minute”, and tell me with a little training a decent rifleman can’t do the same.

  29. teddy996 says:

    @29- I’ll give mine up when the cops, secret service, FBI, and ATF give theirs up. After all, numbnuts, why do they need them if they don’t intend on mass murder?

    You and your ancestors can go fuck yourselves for attempting to limit my rights.

  30. Twist says:

    Yeah our ancestors threw off the yoke of tyrany with children’s books.

  31. Hondo says:

    Comment 29 is to be expected, folks. Wright-boy is commenting from the greater LA area in Kalifornia, the Granola State.

  32. Old Trooper says:

    @29: A couple of questions for you, Matt: What is this “terror” you speak of? Why is it you talk of freedom in one sentence, then talk about denying rights in the next? How is it that you can talk about freedom and denial of freedoms on the same subject and not see how stupid your argument is?

  33. cannoncocker says:

    @14 Anonymous

    I just watched a movie where only police and military had guns. It was called “Schindler’s List”. Dingus.

  34. cannoncocker says:

    @29 Matt wright

    Wow, I’m not even sure where to begin. I think a good start for you would be Hooked on Phonics. Your gratuitous use of commas is quite painful to decipher.

    On to business. Harping on about living free while immediately advocating eliminating those freedoms is pure lunacy. I don’t live in terror. Why do you? And challenging us to learn to shoot better? Who are you and what does marksmanship have to do with anything?

    Increasing profit for gun manufacturers? Who do you think has directly contributed to increased gun sales; Joshua Boston or Diane Feinstein? Answer this question honestly please. Those are your two choices, CPL Boston or Feinstein. Who has directly affected gun sales?

  35. Old Trooper says:

    @14: You can move, too. Also, did you know that during the first “assault weapon” ban hearings in the California State Assembly, the testimony from cops in LA stated that of all the weapons they confiscated, including those that were named to be banned, they found none that were converted to full auto. That included all they confiscated from gang members, drug dealers, etc. That’s right; they found ZERO that had been converted. I think you have been watching too many tv shows and movies. Also, your ignorance of weapons shows in another area, since an AR-15 is not easily converted and to get the parts needed to do so are very tightly controlled (look up Seer for automatic fire in the AR-15 parts catalog and I bet you will see what everyone else sees). I think you need to untwist your underoos and get educated by other than the anti-gun lobby, before coming on a website where pretty much everyone knows about weapons.

  36. cannoncocker says:

    I’m not an armorer, so if this information is incomplete or incorrect please let me know. But talking to some of my armorer buddies I was able to gather this about the difference between M4 and AR-15;

    1. The bolt carrier assembly is machined different from the M4 to AR-15. There is an oblong oval shaped hole in the bottom of the bolt carrier, which pulls the hammer back down as the bolt assembly travels to the rear to eject the spent casing. This resets the hammer for semi-auto firing. The AR-15 has this hole machined a lot farther down the bolt carrier than the M4 does, so to make the AR-15 bolt carrier identical to the M4 you would have to add metal, which is not really possible. So you would have to have the bolt carrier out of an M4 to begin an AR-15 conversion.

    2. The M4 has a few pieces in the lower receiver that the AR-15 does not, particularly a small machined metal piece held in by a pin and spring loaded with a coil spring. This is to reset the sear after every shot for full auto capability. From what I understand, it is illegal to even possess the blueprints for this particular piece, lest some machinist fabricate one in a machine shop.

    I challenge any one of our gun-grabbing trolls to tell me what ANY of the above means. Of course I know they have no clue.

  37. Veritas Omnia Vincit says:

    Matt Wright, my ancestors came here to live free as well. They got here in 1899, one of the most appealing parts of being free to them was being free of an oppressive government that could on a whim arrest people and have them killed because they had disarmed the populace. That populace could be forced to do whatever they leadership wanted on pain of death.

    The idea that America allowed them to possess the means of their own defense, of their person, property, and liberty was enough for them to sell everything they owned to be here.

    The hardest part for folks like you to understand is not that the Bill of Rights are rights the government is giving us, it’s that the Bill of Rights is designed to protect us from folks like you would take away the rights the founding fathers believed we were born with. They considered the right to speak your mind without fear of government reprisal so important they made it number one, and the ability to defend that right so important it is number two.

  38. BK says:

    Parts of my dad’s side of the family came over on one of the first ships after the Mayflower, fought King Philip. Some of the Germanic settlers on that side also settled parts of the Poconos, to the point where there’s a town named after them. They all served in the well-organized milita because it provided their own security where there was no government available to, well before it was codified into an essential liberty.

    My mother’s side of the family were completely unarmed and at the mercy of the Cossacks or the Czar, and were armed only with Torah and their traditions.

    I’d rather have the amalgam of both, guns and tradition. Both are curiously under assault by various progressive forces. As national budgets get tighter, we may evaluate that since we have volunteer fire companies. volunteer ambulance companies, etc., that it may, too, be prudent to consider volunteer regulars to keep the peace. When they go and consolidate rural and suburban police departments under one banner, or shut them down entirely and lean on the state police, the 2nd Amendment seems far less anachronistic. It’s worth considering.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *