When U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) said she would introduce legislation to place a ban on assault weapons, former U.S. Marine Cpl. Joshua Boston did not sit idly by. Instead he penned an open letter to the Senator that has gone viral gaining mass attention.
In response to Boston’s letter, Feinstein released this statement:
“Senator Feinstein respects Cpl. Boston’s service. She has heard from thousands of people — including many gun owners — who support her plan to stop the sale, transfer, importation and manufacturing of assault weapons and large capacity magazines, strips and drums that hold more than 10 rounds. As Senator Feinstein has said, the legislation will be carefully focused to protect the rights of existing gun owners by exempting hundreds of weapons used for hunting and sporting purposes.”
On Monday, Cpl. Boston spoke out on Fox News about why he wrote the letter. While he said he has received generally positive support, he finds it disturbing that some are “calling for my death because I am member of the NRA.”
RELATED POST:
‘No ma’am’: Letter from U.S. Marine to Dianne Feinstein goes viral
About Cheryl Carpenter Klimek
Loading ...
Feinstein is a liar, she was caught on tape supporting a total gun ban. No matter what she gets today she will be back for more tomorrow.
what does hunting and sports shooting have to do with it,the second amendment is for us American citizens to fight back against tyranny, besides feinstein is like obama can’t tell the truth,always telling a lie!!
I’m shocked! Shocked! That he would be on FOX to air his viewpoints supporting pro gun rights.
That Marine should just tell Senator Feinstein, “Don’t worry, I’m a Mexican Drug Lord, so the government should supply me with weapons.”
If she’s never heard of Obama’s operation Fast+Furious, the Marine should change his story to, “Don’t worry, I’m a Moslem Brotherhood terrorist, and Obama supplies them with weapons funneled thru our Benghazi consulate.”
Owning weapons is great, according to Omoslem — as long as you’re a drug lord, or moslem terrorist. Otraitor only arms likely FOREIGN murderers — not law-abiding citizens.
This is because Obamatollah hates the USA, hates our 2nd Amendment, and believes we are evil and in the wrong, while drug cartels and terrorists are “noble.”
Good post Barry!! My thought exactly!!
Truthful Post… All those Fanatical Marxists Anti-Gunners, Feinstein, Boxer, Reid, Baldwin, Bloomberg, Emanuel all think it is OK for Obama, Holder to supply Guns to all Terrorists, Drug Cartels and agree that all Law Abiding Americans should be totally disarmed and defenseless, helpless, being at the mercy of, Terrorists and Drug Cartels, who are heavily armed.
Ms Feinstein, how bout when you were videoed stating that “I have a concealed carry permit and I carry everywhere I go”? Huh, huh, huh? Forgot about that didn’t ya?!?!?!?!?!?
Just few points. Ms Feinstein is supporting an assault gun ban. Whether or not she “comes back for more”, or not is a big maybe. To ASS-U-ME that the ban get extended to anything else does just that, assume. Since this dust up seems to be the assault weapons ban question, is it that some of you actually think that its OK have your neighbor play with his assault weapon in his bedroom, which is right accross from your kids’ bedroom? Hey, that piece makes him feel like he is the star in HALO or that new special ops video. Now, what if this person has been determined to have PTSD from his time in Vietnam, Iraq or Afghanistan? Should he be given access to assault weapons just because he has his rights to these high velocity, high magazine capacity weapons because of his service? Isn’t it because we have this access to these weapons that we even have to have “gun free zones”? Personal carry weapons are a completely different question than assault weapons. Just as access to armor piercing ammunition raises questions. Do you really need these types of bullets to feel “whole”? I served more than 20 years in the military. Not as a Marine. But I have been trained in most infantry weapons, and I think that the preoccupation with these weapons being even wanted by the general public is obscence. I have worked with some very experienced Marines. Most don’t see these weapons romantically. They are meant to kill. I think Mr Boston enbarrasses himself by stating publically that he intends to violate any future law on assault weapons. The correct way to stop any law is to work against its enactment. Mr Boston maybe should have paid more attention in his civics class. In my book, he did his duty, but he is looking stupid and does nothing for the image of the US Marines.
Sorry for the duplicate reply, but I wanted to make sure it stayed with correct post.
Ted, What is the definition of “Assault Weapon”?
Don’t try to look it up from somewhere, because you know weapons so well.
Now, if you do answer that, what is government’s definition? If you are against a person’s right to defend themselves against all enemies, then the definitions probably match.
How about this, a hammer is not a weapon. Someone may use it as one. If I assault someone with a hammer, then it was used as a weapon. A weapon that assaulted someone. I guess a hammer is an “Assault Weapon”.
Stupid point, right?
Not as stupid as making a “law” that disarms law abiding citizens to stop criminals from using a gun to commit the “crime” of murder.
I guess all the criminals will say “Man, they made guns illegal. Now I can’t use a gun to rob someone or kill someone.”
In the real world, they will say “Nobody can defend themselves, so now I can do what I what to whom I what. Thanks, anti-gunners, I love you. Now give me your Money!!!”
When you belittle CPL Boston for stating the obvious, it seems to me, that you are oblivious to the intention of all liberal/progressives. They want to effectively disarm the populace so they can enhance their dictatorial powers. If you are former military, I would respectfully suggest that you reread the constitution and the 2nd amendment. It doesn’t say some guns, it says all arms, period. This amendment was written by George Mason with the approval of Thomas Jefferson, because they recognized that the situation we have today, where the people fear the government, is called tyrany. The ownership of arms gives the people the ability to rebel. Ted you might just ask yourself why the government is buying millions of rounds and distributing then to the likes of the SS administration. While completely agree that drum magazines have no place in public hands. Ms. Feinsten has an agenda to remove all, I repeat all, semiautomatic weapons from public hands.It is only a matter of time before we have a rebellion from this dictatorial gov’t.
If you would bother to look at the statistics, gun owners, by and large, don’t commit crimes. Rather it is the unbalancerd or emotionally disturbed who do. No legislation will prevent people who wish to obtain guns or explosives from getting them. It will only prevent honest people from protecting themselves. Remember this: Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6!!!! Obama, Feinstein, Emanuel, all want to emasculate the public so they can rule rather than govern!!!
I have never seen a gun pull its’ own trigger, have you? Be carefule, very careful!!! This government is lying to the public all over the place. Don’t forget the actions of Hitler, Stalin, & Chavez and so on. This government is going to try to make law abiding citizens give up their 2nd amendment rights and it is and already has violated the constitution all over the place!!!
A patriot!!
Also ex military
Why should you be so concerned about whether or not your neighbor happens to own an AR15? Shouldn’t you keep your nose in your own business? If he’s a law abiding citizen who has done no wrong, it wouldn’t be your place to question him anyway. It’s not about seeing these weapons as “romantic”, it’s about being prepared and taking advantage of our rights to protect our homes and our families from ALL enemies, whether it be a robber or our own government. And if you don’t get that, please take your anti-gun agenda and your commie buddies with you to China or some other place where you enjoy dictatorship.
Sorry, Ted, but it’s not your business how many weapons I have, nor where I got them. And NO, this marine does not look stupid, he looks brave, because he spoke out, spoke his mind honestly, and told this crazy Marxist whose FULL INTENT, just like her comrades, to disarm Americans. We all know it. It’s as obvious as the nose on your face. But the dumb and dumber that keep electing these Marxists haven’t a clue that they’re bringing commumism right into our government houses. Disarming the law-abiding citizens has resulted in millions and millions of dead populations on this planet. And if you had any worth in your life, you would be able to see it. The idol worship of these Marxists by their supporters PROVES how dumb one/half of our population has gotten. You’ve obviously never read world history, or even your own country’s history. Crack a book once in awhile.
ed, you are a good little follower, drinker of koolaid, and I am pretty sure swallower of Feinstein’s seed. Before you tell a Marine to read civics… try reading the constitution. There is nothing in there about sporting and hunting. That’s what is going to get you sheep killed and anyone that makes a play for our guns. The over privileged left better start looking at themselves, because WE THE PEOPLE are sick of their crap.
So because I have PTSD i should have a right to own a weapon? Why dont you do some research before you type. Having PTSD does not make you a wreckless murderer.
ted… you are an idiot. even thinking that feinstein is being honest about her intentions shows just how much of an imbicile you really are. be a typical liberal, you contradict yourself by stating that someone with post tramatic stress disorder should not be allowed to own a firearm. well if you truely wish to keep weapons out of the hands of such people then why dont you and your liberal brethren pass a law requireing psychiatric evaluations before someone can buy a firearm? no no its better to just ban gun ownership as a whole. so much easier. dumbass! and then you state assault weapons are the reason we have gunfree zones and that conceal carry weapons are intirely different than assault weapons. if they are so different then why cant you carry a concealed carry weapon in gun free zones? dumbass! the government does not distinguish between firearms. they dont care! and as corporal boston stated: gun free zones DO NOT WORK! the second amendment has nothing to do with hunting. the first 4 words describe its purpose: a well regulated militia. do you know what a militia is? you know all about the military so you should. but i will tell you anyways: a militia is a military arm that consist of civilian volunteers supplying their own weapons and equipment and do not take compensation. dont you think a branch of the military should have military equipment? no? dumbass! and the most desturbing thing is that you, a 20 year veteran, who swore an oath to support and defend the constitution, are violating that oath. dumbass! we the people place you at the same level as feinstein and obama: a traitor.
signed, a watchman, MMM southern sierra
Maybe you remember this phrase Mr. Ted. “You are in need of a plexiglass bellybutton mister, with your head so far up your ( ! ) you’ll never see the light of day without a porthole”. So when you crash and burn, remember someone told you so.
Well there Ted in my opinion you show about as much intelligence as a wad of belly button lent! The second amendment had nothing to do with hunting or target shooting. It was writen to assure that we would be able to overthrough a corrupt Government such as the one we have right now. So simple logic wich I don’t think you or any of the gun control idiot’s have would state that we would need any and all the armes and armament that our corrupt Government has in order to protect our freedom and our Constitution.
Ted, What is the definition of “Assault Weapon”?
Don’t try to look it up from somewhere, because you know weapons so well.
Now, if you do answer that, what is government’s definition? If you are against a person’s right to defend themselves against all enemies, then the definitions probably match.
How about this, a hammer is not a weapon. Someone may use it as one. If I assault someone with a hammer, then it was used as a weapon. A weapon that assaulted someone. I guess a hammer is an “Assault Weapon”.
Stupid point, right?
Not as stupid as making a “law” that disarms law abiding citizens to stop criminals from using a gun to commit the “crime” of murder.
I guess all the criminals will say “Man, they made guns illegal. Now I can’t use a gun to rob someone or kill someone.”
In the real world, they will say “Nobody can defend themselves, so now I can do what I what to whom I what. Thanks, anti-gunners, I love you. Now give me your Money!!!”
Seriously!!!! Who cannot see what is coming down the line with this “we only want assault weapons banned” line of BS!! Folks, if we fool ourselves into thinking it’s ok to ban a weapon because they labeled it an “assault weapon”, then we have succeeded at completely disarming America..If you assault someone with any gun, then it would be considered an assault with a deadly weapon, therefore labeling any and every gun an “assault weapon” since every kind of gun has been used by some idiot at one time or another to “assault” someone…Folks, we can’t keep making laws against stupidity, if that were the case we wouldn’t have liberal left wing commy socialists in our government, they would all be in prison…Hmm, there’s a thought!
Ted- because you overly generalized all gun owners as gamers that don’t know weapons safety and want to feel like they are in a movie, let me give you the same respect… You were a pog……because you were “trained” in most infantry weapons doesn’t mean diddly, you probably used your weapon once a year to qual and when you used the big boy weapons you used it at your basic infantry course 1 time early in your career in those 20 years of yours. If you aren’t infantry, you solely exist to support it, ie: you were a jock strap for 20 years, congrats. thank you for filing my paper work, you really did your country proud. Now, speaking as someone with ptsd….. there are checks and balances when you get out, you have to get cleared to leave, but your a pog, you should know that. there are very few that slip through the cracks, and when they do, the media does a real good job of airing all that dirty laundry. millions of american troops have come back from those wars and less then 1% have done heinous crimes. moving on, your telling me gun free zones are because of veterans with ptsd that have high cap mags and assault rifles (armor piercing rounds are already illegal fyi dumbass). Chicago has the highest rates of murder in the world, 1st in the USA, and its a gun free zone. so that statement is preposterous. You need to go back to school and learn how to analyze true statistics from credible resources. And i feel completely safe knowing that my neighbor “plays with his guns in the privacy of his own home, its better then him playing with little boys and girls.
GhettoBlaster0341, I could not have said it better myself. I was just wondering about the child molester next door, if he would want me playing video games or cleaning my AR-15. But hey, we already know the answer to that. Yet I have seen so many posts by ex-military in favor of AWB 2013, and like you I know the closest they have every come to weapons training was basic…as you said support personnel are not versed in weapons handling. Just like every police officer is not by virtue a firearms expert.
Good to go blaster! Light em up and smoke em like cheap Havanna wannabe!
by definition, ANY weapon…gun, knife, baseball bat…if used in an assault, IS an assault weapon…using that [correct] definition, once a law is passed, if specific arms are not named, but just “assault weapons”…ALL guns [not to mention knives, baseball bats, et cetera] would be made illegal…i’ve heard it said, and i agree, that gun control is a steady hand and a good eye
I stand with this Marine. Two points here. 1. The second amendment is not relative to hunting or sporting. 2. I am no more a gun “enthusiast” than I am a hammer “enthusiast.” Both are tools that if used properly are no threat to someone who poses no threat. Both could be used to defend against such threat.
I can see the logical point of any weapon used to assault someone can be called an assault weapon, but I was taught in the Corps, many years ago (69-71), assault weapon is one that has select-fire capability to full auto, or is full auto, which the AR-15 is NOT! Fiensteins reply mentions excluding weapons for hunting or sporting functions, what can be more fun/sporting than using a 30 rd mag to see how many clay pigons you can hit at a measured distance in competition with other sportsmen at a range under safe conditions, and just WHO will determine what is sporting and what is not?