When I read about the open letter that former Marine Joshua Boston sent to Sen. Dianne Feinstein regarding his gun rights, I couldn’t help but feel temporarily ashamed of also sharing the title of former Marine.
While you may have felt shame, I think that is a reflection on you and not Mr. Boston Sir. I am an Air Force veteran, father of a Marine veteran and a currently serving Marine. I feel his letter accurately reflected the values of honor, integrity and yes even respect prized by the Corps.
Boston defiantly refuses to register his guns even if laws are passed requiring him to do so. In this refusal, he comes off as tone-deaf and unsympathetic to the victims of mass shootings in Newtown, Aurora, and so many other places.
His ranting letter is paranoid exhibition of one concerned not with preventing the deaths of more innocents, but of maintaining his rights to own devices of war. I want to set the record straight, not all Marines are so insensitive to the recent tragedies, or ignorant about the need for arms restrictions.
Seems like you are living proof that those who
forget deliberately deny and distort history are doomed to repeat it. History is rife with examples of those who first required registration then confiscated firearms. The current news is filled with people calling for the confiscation of firearms today; yet you call Mr. Boston Paranoid?
The first Marines served with the ‘devices of war’ that were no different from what they carried before they enlisted. The Marine Corps currently uses a ‘device of war’ that was developed from a civilian rifle. What ‘weapon’ isn’t a device of war? Millions of people own and shoot this firearms without going on murderous rampages. Why should those people be forced to register there firearms ? You own a camera and a computer I would wager Sir; just like many pedophiles. Are you going to be insensitive to the horrific crimes of child porn and not give up or register your devices?
While I did not experience combat, I served in Afghanistan as a Marine, exiting the service as a Sergeant in 2008 to enter college. My experiences in the Marine Corps of course led me to train with semi and fully automatic weapons, and yet, I have no desire to own these weapons now that I am out of the service.
I thank you for your service to our country. That is said in all sincerity and truthfulness. I also served, from 1981 to 1985, and after I was honorably discharged had no desire to own or train with weapons. But I do now. Here is a simple and hard truth, just because you have no desire to own something does not mean you should have the power to restrict others’ ownership.
I can’t see why any civilian needs semi-automatic, high-capacity weapons designed to kill as many people as quickly as possible, and I support a ban of future sales in addition to a retroactive ban that would force Joshua Boston to relinquish his weapons.
Great, thanks for sharing; now go away please. Frankly your ignorance and desire to deprive people of their rights is embarrassing. You freely admit that you are willing to violate the oath you swore to uphold the Constitution; showing you learned nothing from you time in the Corps or in college.
Boston’s attitude towards authority is frankly disgusting and his open letter is wrong in both its assumptions about why the gun-control debate has become heated, and the reasons why we should care about his opinions at all.
Hmm, Mr. Boston the gun control debate has become heated because jack-wagons are calling for the confiscation of our legally owned property and the restriction of our rights– and you say he is wrong in a letter calling for the confiscation of our legally owned property and restriction of our rights. Did you actually think that through?
It implies that because he served in Iraq and Afghanistan as a Marine, that he can choose which laws to obey while at home. This is of course, incorrect, and gives other veterans a bad name.
Logical thinking isn’t your strong suit obviously. Mr. Boston clearly stated unconstitutional laws aren’t laws a fact you seem to overlook despite your ‘advanced education’.
The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be In agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:
The General rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of it’s enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed
Or how about something you should be familiar with?
“I,____________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to the regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God”
The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) 809.ART.90 (20), makes it clear that military personnel need to obey the “lawful command of his superior officer,” 891.ART.91 (2), the “lawful order of a warrant officer”, 892.ART.92 (1) the “lawful general order”, 892.ART.92 (2) “lawful order”. In each case, military personnel have an obligation and a duty to only obey Lawful orders and indeed have an obligation to disobey Unlawful orders, including orders by the president that do not comply with the UCMJ. The moral and legal obligation is to the U.S. Constitution and not to those who would issue unlawful orders, especially if those orders are in direct violation of the Constitution and the UCMJ.
Mr. Boston has stated it correctly; he isn’t just ‘choosing’ which law he will obey, he is reminding people like you the Constitution is still the ultimate law of the land. And in case you forgot Sir, that Constitution was written to limit the powers of the government to repress a people who had just fought a war of independence.
Regardless of his personal beliefs about gun-control, Boston should obey the law, or stop using the title of Marine veteran so proudly.
Look in the mirror Sir.
Perhaps my criticism of Boston seems harsh. This is as intended, for in speaking out as he did, Boston revealed a profound ignorance to the pain suffered in Newtown. The survivors lives will never be the same, and the reason for that is because a deranged individual had access to a weapon that shouldn’t be accessible by the general populace.
No one is ignorant of the pain suffered by the people of the country; it isn’t just limited to Newtown either. But you Sir are ignoring the person to focus on the tool. I find it sad that you call out Mr. Boston for his views but believe your views should be respected to the point of a law being passed.
I speak out also because, as a former Marine Sergeant, I abhor any action that tarnishes the name of the Marine Corps. Boston has done that with his letter, and he should apologize to every veteran who obeys the law in good faith and intends to do so in the future.
I believe that Mr. Boston did not tarnish the name of the Corps, he exemplifies those in the best possible way. Do you even remember the values taught by the Corps?
Honor Courage Commitment
I think Mr. Boston said it well to Ms. Feinstein and and say it to you as well:
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.
Please join the discussion.