Marine Tells Di Feinstein, ‘No Ma’am’ Over Gun Grabbing

Joshua Boston, a retired Corporal in the U.S. Marine Corps, has a message for Senator Dianne Feinstein (D, CA) concerning her newest gun banning bill. Corporal Boston says, “No Ma’Am.”

Boston posted an open letter to Senator Feinstein at CNN’s ireport site on December 27 to let DiFi know that he, at least, would not submit to the government denuding him of his Second Amendment rights.

Boston informed Sen. Feinstein that he will not register his weapons nor does he believe the Senator or anyone else in government has the right to require him to do so. Boston also scoffed at someone proclaiming “the evil of an inanimate object” even as she bestows upon herself the ability to carry a gun in contravention to her own proclamations.

“I am not your subject,” Boston insists. “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 will not be disarmed to suit the fear that has been established by the media and your misinformation campaign against the American public.

Mr. Boston’s message intrigues and he has even more to say than his open letter reveals. I took the occasion of his open letter to reach out to this brave member of our military. Here is our conversation:

Warner Todd Huston: What drove you to post this reply to Senator Feinstein?

Joshua Boston: I’ve been seeing this nonsense about gun control in the news since forever. Senator Feinstein regularly touts the effectiveness of the first Assault Weapons Ban while pointing out the “loopholes.” So she proposes this new ban legislation. Given the tragedy that happened recently it has considerably more traction with folks, most who rely in some major way on emotions and what they’re being told by the media about these “Weapons of Mass Destruction.” My Windham Weaponry SRC sits in my home loaded and ready to be used should the need ever arise. It does not make me a criminal.

I’m sick of being told by people in Washington D.C. what is okay for me to own for my own personal defense while they enjoy the safety of many armed guards with better firearms than I have access to. It’s hypocritical.

WTH: In your opinion, what do you think the Second Amendment is for?

JB: Looking at the founder’s times and what they had just gone through, it was something they put in there for us should we ever find ourselves in their shoes and have to reassert, because of whatever manifestation of tyranny, our inherent right to freedom and liberty.

WTH: Do you support concealed carry laws?

JB: I hold a CHL with the state of Texas. I would prefer there not be a bureaucratic apparatus whose hoops I have to jump through so that I may defend myself should the need ever arise outside of my home. Who are these legislators to tell me that I may not defend myself outside of my home because they don’t have my fingerprints on file?

WTH: Do you believe in any sort of gun restrictions?

JB: The only gun restriction I would favor is one in which only VIOLENT felons are prevented from purchasing or possessing a firearm. Other than that, why does the government or the police need them if I am not allowed to have one?

WTH: Some liberals say regular Americans shouldn’t be allowed to have guns because they aren’t trained. As a trained member of the military yourself, do you think average citizens have the ability to use guns correctly?

JB: Despite the training I received while in the Marines, I am a regular American. I am not exceptional. I am not superior. I am an American just like any other citizen. I’ve seen “average citizens” use guns extraordinarily efficiently when I go to the range. This is because they are responsible people who seek knowledge when they don’t know something. So yes they have the ability, and they should be able to purchase whatever weapons they deem sufficient for their needs.

WTH: Some people fear that government will use the military to forcibly disarm the public if gun banning laws get passed. What is your sense of your fellows in the armed forces. Do you think they’d follow orders to forcibly disarm the public?

JB: In my 8 years of service I could probably count on one hand the number of people that I met who would forcibly disarm the American public. The vast majority of American service members that I know and that I served with recognize that the Constitution is what we pledge to obey.

WTH: Do you feel that there will be any retaliation by the Marines for having posted your reply?

JB: I was honorably discharged on July 31st of this year. I’d certainly hope they wouldn’t “retaliate” in any way because I am doing my civic duty and keeping myself informed. I think that would go against our motto: “Honor Courage and Commitment”

WTH: Any other thoughts?

JB: I just hope that our elected representatives do not vote for this heinous attempt to make me and my fellow Americans defenseless against predators and criminals.

We salute Joshua Boston and hope that he is not uncommon among the members of our illustrious armed forces.

Below is the full text of Corporal Boston’s original open letter:

Senator Dianne Feinstein,

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

Shortlink:

Posted by on January 2, 2013.
Filed under Constitutional Issues, Culture Of Corruption, Democrats, Gun control, Liberals.
Warner Todd Huston is a Chicago-based freelance writer, has been writing opinion editorials and social criticism since early 2001 and is featured on many websites such as Andrew Breitbart's BigGovernment.com and BigJournalism.com, RightWingNews.com, CanadaFreePress.com, RightPundits.com, StoptheACLU.com, Human Events Magazine, among many, many others. Additionally, he has been a frequent guest on talk-radio programs to discuss his opinion editorials and current events. He has also written for several history magazines and appears in the new book "Americans on Politics, Policy and Pop Culture" which can be purchased on amazon.com. He is also the owner and operator of PubliusForum.com. Feel free to contact him with any comments or questions, EMAIL Warner Todd Huston: igcolonel .at. hotmail.com "The only end of writing is to enable the reader better to enjoy life, or better to endure it." --Samuel Johnson

You can leave a response or trackback to this entry
  • MunDane68

    Pssst…It was the other doofus from California that was “Senator Ma’am”, Sen. Boxer.

    Other than that, nice shooting Tex!

    I really wish someone in her office would be aware of the world outside Washington DC and SanFran, but that ain’t gonna happen.

    • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

      He was being polite. I would have done the same – because if I didn’t, I’d have called her quite a few impolite things, starting with “Look, you ignorant know-nothing sorry excuse for a legislator” and rapidly devolve from that.

      I’m really feeling a lot less respect for our ‘elected elite’ as times goes on. I used to think they were at least well-meaning, but with the internet exposing just how venal and self-serving they are on a continuing basis, I’ve been disabused of that quite thouroughly.

      And the wierd thing is, they SHOULD be able to understand they’re under a spotlight with cameras on all sides, with a whole lot of hostile eyes watching and criticising their every move. So you think they’d compose themselves and do what is evidently the right things, eh? Make a budget, get spending under control, avoid opining on subjects that they don’t know about… and actually RESEARCH the issues that are hot, instead of going with emotional responses to try to whip up support from their voter base.

      No such luck, though. They are mostly, indeed, willing to screw us over to get face time on TV. Fire the lot of ‘em, and get a new group in.

  • John

    I am for the second amendment, but we need to stick up for the whole bill of rights and everyone, evens those we don’t like!

    This is why the think they can get away with treating gun owners like Sex Offenders;

    This is the attitude of our politicians in terms of trampling on our rights now “You always start with sex offenders because nobody is going to stick up for sex offenders,” State Rep. Chip Baltimore (R-Boone) America wake up and start depending everyone’s rights

    Maybe it’s time you stopped being hypocritical and stuck up for every one, even those who are Scarlet Lettered today. Take away some peoples rights it leads to all our rights being limited or taken from us.

    Ben Franklin said in a letter;

    “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little

    temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” Once a

    Right is gone, it is gone.

  • jim_m

    Illinois is bidding to pass Sen Ferinstein in being anti-2nd amendment:

    Cullerton hopes to ramrod the bill through and get it to Governor Quinn for signature by Friday. If he is successful at doing so, nearly every gun you currently own will be banned and will be subject to confiscation by the Illinois State Police. Based on what we know about Cullerton’s bill, firearms that would be banned include all semiautomatic rifles, pistols, and shotguns. Pump action shotguns would be banned as well. This would be a very comprehensive ban that would include not only so-called “assault weapons” but also such classics as M1 Garands and 1911-based pistols. There would be no exemptions and no grandfathering. You would have a very short window to turn in your guns to the State Police to avoid prosecution.

    The bill would restrict about 75 percent of handguns and 50 percent of
    long guns in circulation today.

    National Rifle Association lobbyist Todd Vandermyde said, “I’ve never seen a piece of legislation that tramples on so many court decisions.”

    • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

      And then they’ll be shocked, SHOCKED! when crime goes up in Illinois.

      Man, I’m glad I’m long out of that state.

      • jim_m

        I think that a lack of grandfathering would violate the 5th amendment right to not be deprived of one’s property without due process.

        • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

          I don’t think it’s got a chance of passing – but it’s pretty clear that emotional appeals (“We have to do this for the CHILDREN! Do you want them to DIE?!”) have a lot more pull than a rational assessment of the problem.

        • Evil Otto

          Well, they’re not overly concerned with the 2nd, so why should the 5th bother them?

        • herddog505

          The Illinois state constitution (perhaps a slightly less musty document than the federal Constitution and probably NOT written by slaveholders, but I’m sure that lefties hate it, too) has this to say:

          SECTION 15. RIGHT OF EMINENT DOMAIN

          Private property shall not be taken or damaged for public use without just compensation as provided by law. Such compensation shall be determined by a jury as provided by law.

          http://www.ilga.gov/commission/lrb/con1.htm

          Now, what remains to be seen is whether the legislature’s lawful banning of an object voids this concept: one can’t keep as property something that is illegal, and if it isn’t property, the state can take it without due process. For example, when slavery was outlawed, did the federal government have to compensate those slaveholders who voluntarily manumitted their former “property”? When liquor became illegal during Prohibition (lefties never learn, do they?), did Uncle Sam have to compensate bar owners, distributors and distillery / brewery owners? I don’t know, but my guess is “no”.

          At any rate, I suppose that the state can establish what “just compensation” is by law: “Oh, we’ll pay you as much as $10 for every gun you turn in! O’ course, if you don’t want the $10, we’ll be happy to send a SWAT team to murder you to get them…”
          If they pay actual market value, I wouldn’t be surprised to see burglaries skyrocket as every crackhead in the state starts robbing houses to get guns he can LEGALLY turn in for cash.

          • jim_m

            I think the answer would be that people are not and never were property even if they were treated as such. It would be difficult to make the same ruling for inanimate objects because to do so would be to invalidate the whole of the due process clause.

            In prohibition were bar owners required to turn their alcohol in to the state? I don’t know what the answer to that is. Illinois is asking for gun confiscation.

        • herddog505

          It is of some interest to examine the decision in HAYNES v. UNITED STATES, 390 U.S. 85 (1968), which I believe may have been brought up already.

          In brief, Haynes was a convicted felon in possession of a firearm regulated under the National Firearms Act of 1934. Understandably, he was reluctant to bring this to the attention of the authorities, who in due course found out about it and charged him for violating the NFA. The court ruled that he could not be so charged as, had he turned himself in, he would effectively been testifying against himself in violation of the Fifth Amendment.

          We hold that a proper claim of the constitutional privilege against self-incrimination provides a full defense to prosecutions either for failure to register a firearm under 5841 or for possession of an unregistered firearm under 5851.

          O’ course, what the courts decide is lawful or constitutional today, they can decide is UNlawful or UNconstitutional tomorrow. Living Constitution, you know…

          At any rate, my guess is that, even if the libs get their way and pass such a law, most gun owners will quietly refuse to obey, which will likely lead to the state trying to prosecute for illegal possession people who use a gun to defend themselves.

          Good luck with that.

          ===

          http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=390&invol=85

          • jim_m

            Actually, Steve Crickmore brought it up in the context of saying that the Haynes decision had rendered the entirety of the NFA unenforceable.

            I think that the issue would be that the state could prosecute you for illegal possession of the weapon but they could not prosecute you for failure to register an illegal weapon. If the law were to require gun owners to turn in their guns then registration would not be an issue, just the possession of them.

            The concern is that in Illinois one needs a Firearm Owners ID (FOID) card to purchase guns or ammunition. Would the state or local police consider having a FOID card to be sufficient probable cause for a search warrant of your home and property?

            My bet is that in Illinois the answer is yes.

          • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

            That’s one messed up state…

            My son mentioned going to college in Chicago one time. It ain’t gonna happen…

        • BobbyLisaCunninghamm

          Her ‘grandfather’ will make most semi-auto handguns classified as machine guns. Good luck with that.

      • retired.military

        No they will blame it on the fact that some folks still ahve guns.

    • LiberalNightmare

      With a law like that on the books, there is no reason that chicago cant exceed 1000 murders in 2013.

      GO CHICAGO!

  • herddog505

    I am not your subject.

    I think that many people in DC would agree to disagree about that!

    • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

      And they’d like to force that ‘agreement’ on us.

      I’m really thinking term limits is the way to go. 20 years, and you’re out, with a mandatory retirement age of 65. No political dynasties, no staying in office until you drop dead of old age at your desk.

      • fkrkfllr

        How about no pensions or healthcare,no travel perks etc.

        • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

          2.5% of their pay for every year in office – so when they get booted at 20 they get half their pay, just like the military does for folks who retire at 20 years. And let them use the VA system for medical both during AND after they retire. I’ll grant ‘em a travel allowance of full-fare coach – if they want to upgrade to first class, it’s their nickle.

          • Vagabond661

            And they must use Obamacare.

          • herddog505

            Look, let’s not go overboard on this thing: members of Congress ought to have GOOD healthcare!

            /sarc

          • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

            I’m thinking they deserve the whole package… they stuck it to us, they can get stuck with it too.

      • Vagabond661

        Term limits IS the answer. Getting it passed…well that’s another thing.

        • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

          Might as well ask the cat to put on it’s own bell before letting it outside…

        • BobbyLisaCunninghamm

          Pay for performance – balance the budget & reduce national debt – or congress pay is all set and limited to minimum wage, max 40 hours pay a week.

      • Gmacr1

        You will not need term limits if DF’s bill is passed.
        PS… No ‘retirement packages’, at all. Let them ride on the Social Security and Medicare bus like the rest of their subjects.

  • TopAssistant

    We need an honest discussion concerning our rights to own weapons. We need our government to name our enemy. We need to identify the documents and plan our enemy intends to use to destroy us. What is the real purpose of the 2nd
    amendment and our right to bear arms? What is the history of nations giving up
    their weapons? Please research for a list of nations that submitted to gun
    control. What is the history of gun control in the world? Go to Gun Control
    & Genocide and there is a list and I imagine it is not complete. Down
    through history, governments have disarmed their citizens only to tyrannize
    those citizens once they were disarmed.

    The following chart documents just a few examples from recent history where
    “gun control” laws were enacted and then tyranny by the government
    proceeded.
    *Click on a country in the chart in order to learn about what occurred in that
    country.

    GOVERNMENT
    GENOCIDE CAMPAIGNS AND THE

    “GUN CONTROL” LAWS THAT HELPED SLAUGHTER 56 MILLION PEOPLE

    http://www.mercyseat.net/gun_genocide.html

    When one is required to make a decision on anything we must have all the facts and we have not had the facts laid upon the table so all America can review them.
    Not enough room here but go to YouTube and watch some excellent video briefings by Stephen Coughlin. Start with the one I was watching when Pres. Obama, Sec. of State Clinton, Amb. Rice and former CIA Dir. Petraeous went on record claiming a video caused the deaths fo foru Americans in Libya. Ask yourself if our enemy is Shariah/Islamic law and the Muslim Brotherhood. Go to YouTube and watch:
    The Organization of Islamic Cooperation and its Role in Enforcing …
    Take the time to review a letter written in 1786 and ask yourself if this is exactly what we are now facing with the Muslim Brotherhood taking the lead to form a global Caliphate ruled by Shariah/Islamic law and Obama is helping them. Please review a letter from John Adams and Thomas Jefferson date March 28, 1786.

    “The Ambassador answered us that it was founded on the Laws of their prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every musselman [muslim] who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise.”
    See actual letter
    here: http://memory.loc.gov/master/mss/mtj/mtj1/005/0400/0430.jpg

    This is the typed version: http://freepages.misc.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~argyll/From%20JOHN%20ADAMS%20And%20THOMAS%20JEFFERSON.pdf

    • Commander_Chico

      O-tay.

      • lasveraneras

        From the Urban Dictionary, the definition of “otay” is “a thing that stupid girls say when they think they’re being cute in saying it.” Uhm, rest assured no one considers you to be “cute.” Racist, yes, but cute… nah.

  • Wild_Willie

    I live in the great state of Texas. I am quite sure whether democrat or republican, guns will be available to me and my family. Our government is incrementally ‘fearing’ the citizens in the need to give up our rights. The brain dead, who do not think for themselves, allow them to. Not me. No way. ww

  • Ronald Buckley

    “We the people deserve better than you.” You got that right!

  • Shooty McBang

    Di Fi needs a big clear marble to stick in her belly button so she can see where she is going while her head is stuck up her ass!

    • http://www.traveLightgame.com/ ljcarolyne

      Oh just let her fall on her fat A$$, the devil with her and Obummer!

  • http://www.facebook.com/bosweeney3 Bo Sweeney

    the whole political process needs to be, uh oh, gotta go,homeland security is here.
    holy shit!

  • TwisTTooL

    Gotta love the marines… with all that tact, he still says “F*** Y**”!
    Army guy, I don’t have any guns, and as far as I’m concerned.. my daughter is NOT going to train with them, nor will she have them when I’m NOT shot for “passively” not protecting my 2A. PS! I HATE YOU GUN OWNERS!.. you know how friggin much I had to NOT spend to get my gun that I wasnt saving for 3 months!. and that evil 55gr ammo, guess I’ll have to throw out the old ammo reloader, thanks FiDi for showing me the errors of my EVIL WAYS.

  • Joshua

    The people of America have their Constitution and Bill Of Rights to constrain the Government, not the other way around that is being pushed by the Marxists in Office.

    • herddog505

      Hear him! Hear him!

  • jim_m

    Illinois is not a complete lefty black hole (at least not yet)

    SPRINGFIELD — There’s not enough support in the Illinois Senate to impose tough new restrictions on semiautomatic weapons and high-capacity ammunition clips.

    In a setback for gun control advocates in the wake of the murder of school children in Connecticut, the Illinois Senate was poised to adjourn Thursday without voting on two pieces of legislation aimed at limiting access to certain kinds of weapons and bullets.

    Although the two proposals could emerge again when the legislature reconvenes next week, the lack of action shows the General Assembly remains divided on how to balance Second Amendment issues.

    A spokeswoman for Senate President John Cullerton, D-Chicago, offered no
    timetable for when the gun safety proposals might surface again.

    Like all these efforts they rely upon sneaking ill considered legislation by appealing to emotion rather than rational thinking. Once time to actually think about the legislation is obtained these efforts fail.

    • herddog505

      Notice that it’s framed as a “setback for gun control advocates”, not a “victory for supporters of civil rights”.

      Why, yes, lefties: the right to keep and bear arms IS a civil right, #2 on the list, as a matter of fact (well, #6 if one wants to be a bit more precise).

      And good luck maintaining all the others without it.

      • jim_m

        And good luck maintaining all the others without it.

        Well that is the point isn’t it? It’s a heck of a lot easier to impose whatever tyranny you want when the public can’t resist it.

  • Bimbam

    The arrogance displayed in Washington is ASTONISHING!

    Even barry saetoro should step down knowing he is unqualified and maybe even illegal for the job. He displays no integrity at all!

    • http://www.traveLightgame.com/ ljcarolyne

      NONE! Obummer is a lying hateful idiot!

  • retired.military

    What I find funny is that most .50 cal sniper rifles dont fit the definition of what they are trying to ban.

    Most are single shot, bolt action, less than 10 round clip and not automatic.

    Only thing is it is designed to kill you from more than 1000 yards with one shot.

    • jim_m

      It gets down to what some of the pro gun control people here have described as a “threatening looking weapon”. When people do not understand what a gun is and what it does they assume that the appearance correlates to performance. Most gun control legislation is founded in ignorance. Then again, most legislation coming from the left is founded in ignorance.

  • EJ

    Oath of Enlistment

    I, do solemnly swear 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 regulations and the Uniform
    Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

    So what do I do if
    the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the
    officers appointed over me go against supporting and defending the
    Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and
    domestic, which in turn become the President of the United States and
    the officers appointed over me???

    HMMMmmm…

    • Olsoljer

      Good Question. However “POTUS and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the UCMJ” begs the question: Does Obama meet the criteria to hold the office? Would he be able to enlist in the military as an admitted cocaine user? Would he be able to pass a background check for a security clearance? Does he qualify to be a member of the military according to the regulations? I am surprised a miltary coup hasn’t occurred since so much of the Constitution is under attack. The entire DC/admin should be arrested and placed in those infamous Homeland Security Detention Centers pending investigation by independant investigators. Hold them accountable for their crimes, and hang those that have committed treason.

      • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

        While I agree that the current nonfunctional crap of politicians inside the Beltway needs to be hosed out – I don’t want at ALL to see any sort of military coup.

        That way lies banana-republic madness, political nepotism inside the military, and a rapid decline in ability and competency as the officer class turns into a political patronage system. Yeah, there’s politicking in the General officer ranks, but without actual leadership ability you don’t get up there, and (in my narrow, parochial view) when it comes to backing a particular political class or politician versus duty to the country – the country’s going to come out on top.

        As far as your other questions go…

        Criteria to hold office? Adequate, obviously.
        Enlist? No. Too old, drug use.
        Security Clearance? Unlikely – questionable associates, drug use.

        But it’s funny how becoming president sure gives you waivers on clearances…

        • Olsoljer

          I would put my trust in the military holding the current excuse for government under guard until the 50 states could elect replacements who demonstrably support and defend the Constitution. The other 2 alternatives are civil war in which millions will die, or continuation of a rapid transition to a socialist nation where the people are stripped of the means to resist and, essentially, reduced to servitude.

    • Ken in Camarillo

      In Basic Training you are taught that you are not to obey an illegal order, and naturally some references to the Nazi’s in World War II are used as examples. Thus if you are ordered to do something that would be contrary to the Constitution, it is an illegal order. Of course, you have to decide whether it really is an illegal order, and that you are willing to refuse the order and take all the crap that will result.

  • http://www.traveLightgame.com/ ljcarolyne

    Great Letter, glad to see this!
    We The People will stand with the Marine in this matter. D Feinstein can go jump, along with her devilish Usurper and anyone else that might make the stupid mistake to agree with her. We The People deserve better that Feinstien is right, which includes our lousy lying greedy government that cannot be trusted.
    The neighborhood sure has gone down since Obummer started living in the WH!

  • bret pool

    Stunning slam of Feinstein. Because I cannot pen such an impactful letter myself I have another idea.

    PLEASE copy that letter whole with Joshua’s sign-off, place it in a letter of your own. Tell your politicians that you agree wholeheartedly with Joshua’s position. Add nothing else. No personal insults. Keep it respectful.

    Send it to every Senator and Representative. At least to as many as you can afford to send. Mine will be in the mail this evening. Thank you Mr. Boston.

  • Gene

    I am an observer from N. of the 49th. I follow with great interest what happens state-side and I do have to say that I read ALOT about opinions and commentary regarding issues, both economic and otherwise, because typically what happens to my good friends and neighbors to the south will eventually come to roost here in the great white north.( I swear that obama and harper are twins.) What I am curious about is that NOBODY has yet mentioned the fact that this career minded woman who refers to herself as a senator must have taken an oath of office before slapping a title in front of her name. The thing that bothers me is that nobody in the various venues of information or (real) news sources that comment on these actions of your politicians, don’t speak of this oath that I am referring to. I have not read any comments that would create curiosity and interest to the probability that her actions by introducing this legislation, (correct me if I am wrong) I don’t want to assume anything at this particular time, however by introducing this bill, does it not directly contravene her oath that she swore to uphold? In my humble opinion, I believe that could be construed as treason.

  • BobbyLisaCunninghamm

    She should be investigated to see if she is working for a foreign government or subversive organization. American armed citizens are the last line of defense from foreign invasion, enemy conquest, and occupation. Her illegal writings are directly unconstitutional, and the USA shall never submit to U.N. gun ban laws. Citizens – NOT subjects. Be armed or be a victim – make the right choice for defending yourself and your family.

  • Pingback: Marine Tells Di Feinstein, ‘No Ma’am’ Over Gun Grabbing! | infowars2post