God Bless this patriot! Joshua Boston, the Marine vet who penned the viral letter to Dianne Feinstein, sat down with Piers Morgan to educate him on how the Second Amendment works in the good ole USofA:
Joshua also schooled this CNN anchor:
You know, I’m getting real fed up with this crap coming from the left. The fact of the matter is the Second Amendment guarantees every citizen the right to bear arms. Why an American citizen would ever want to give up that right, regardless of whether one wanted a gun or not, is beyond me.
No, Piers et al., the Second Amendment was not included in the Bill of Rights to protect the rights of hunters and target plinkers only; its purpose is to allow the private citizen to defend themselves from a tyrannical government, or any other enemy, for that matter, that may pose a lethal threat to their existence.
I’m real fed up with hearing the lefties trying to dictate what sort of arms they believe Americans should be allowed to own, when it is obvious that most of them do not understand the difference between a civilian and military model firearm.
For example, many on the left make the silly argument that the Founders were simply referring to muskets, not AR-15 rifles, when they wrote the Second Amendment. NONSENSE! That’s why they referred to the right to bear arms, not muskets. I have no doubt they knew arms would evolve over time; that’s why they called them arms!
I can’t say it better than Carol Roth did. We have the right to bear arms, period! The people have the right to the same arms “used by those from whom they might need protection.” That right shall not be infringed!
I used to be part of WWII historical reenactment group years ago. Our unit, was primarily responsible for the automatic weapons that were used during the reenactments. These weapons were legally obtained because members of the group had the proper FFL and SOT licensing that was required to own fully-automatic, military-style weapons.
I, myself, would sometimes play the part of a German MG gunner. I carried an actual MG-42 belt-fed machine gun that fired blanks. The MG-42 had a rate of fire around 1,200-1,500 rounds per minute. The gun could jam in about seven different ways (which I learned all about on a number of occasions). I was properly trained on the MG-42’s operation, so to speak (never fired live rounds), by a member of the Indiana National Guard, who was fully-licensed to own the weapon.
Now, according to people like Piers Morgan, since I’m not in law enforcement or the military, I shouldn’t be allowed to even touch a weapon like the MG-42. Well, I have. And I was quite competent and attentive to its use and operation, thank you very much, Piers.
My whole point in bringing the reenactment experience up is to show that Americans can bear automatic, military-style arms, but it is well-regulated, and well out of the reach for most Americans. Most people who have gone through the trouble to obtain the proper class federal firearms license are not going to risk doing anything to screw it up.
The fact of the matter is fully-automatic, military-style assault rifles are not available to the general public without possession of a proper FFL license, and that’s going to cost ya! What is available to the general public are semi-automatic rifles, like the civilian model AR-15—the modern-day musket.
Listen, there are folks in this country who own fully-operational tanks and modern artillery. Once again, it’s well-regulated.
And let’s just look at the statistics that folks like Piers keep bringing up in this recent debate concerning control of guns. Australia keeps being brought up by the anti-gun crowd as an example that banning guns works. According to cited crime statistics, there have been no mass-shootings since the gun ban has gone into effect in Australia. Well, that may be true, but armed-robbery has increased by 69%, assault with guns up by 28%, home invasions up by 21%, and gun murders up by 19%.
You can view a video of the failure of Australia’s gun control laws here. Additionally, gun control advocates heap praise on the strict gun control laws enacted in the U.K., but, once again, gun crime statistics do not back up their claims.
Not all of Piers Morgan’s English brethren agree with his brand of anti-gun fanaticism. As a matter of fact, there are those in the U.K. who are warning Americans to never give up their arms—Russians too.
But the left will still attempt to paint Australia’s and the U.K.’s gun bans as successes because, even though gun murders increased overall, they didn’t die all in one spot at once … or something. Tell that crap to all the extra dead and their loved ones.
No, this all about control when it comes to gun control. For if it was truly about reducing violence and bloodshed, why do we only hear about measures to reduce “gun violence,” and not violence overall? Particularly when one considers that there were more killed by baseball bats and hammers than by AR-15 rifles.