Newspaper Publishes Gun Owners' Names and Addresses

Lau2046 said:
Joshua Boston, Former Marine, Pens Response To Dianne Feinstein Gun Control Bill: 'I Am Not Your Servant'

The Huffington Post | By Cavan Sieczkowski Posted: 01/04/2013 12:59 pm EST | Updated: 01/04/2013 7:57 pm EST






r-JOSHUA-BOSTON-GUN-CONTROL-DIANNE-FEINSTEIN-large570.jpg






A United States Marine veteran has penned a response to California Sen. Dianne Feinstein's gun control proposal, saying the government has no right to take away his weapon: "I am not your servant. I am the person whom you serve."
Former U.S. Marines Cpl. Joshua Boston wrote a letter to Feinstein regarding her assault weapons ban, a proposal announced in the wake of the Newtown, Conn., shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School that left 20 children, aged 6 and 7, dead.
The letter written by Boston, who was deployed to Afghanistan in 2004, was first posted on CNN's iReport on Dec. 27.
Via CNN iReport:

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.​
Boston goes on to say that he is not a "subject," "servant" or "peasant" and should not be punished because of the acts of an 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," he writes.
Boston's anti-gun control letter has since gone viral, but he is not alone in his pro-Second Amendment sentiment.
"This gun grab, this attack on the Second Amendment, is just the latest in a long list of usurpations of our Constitution," RedState blogger Ulysses Arn writes. Alex Jones of InfoWars calls it "the effective END of the Second Amendment in America."
Feinstein's bill would ban the sale of semi-automatic weapons, strengthen the 1994 "Assault Weapons Ban" and tighten regulations for grandfathered weapons. “When you have someone walking in and slaying, in the most brutal way, 6-year-olds, something is really wrong,” she told Fox News Sunday last month. “This is one effort and other things we should do to try to put weapons under some kind of appropriate authority."
Click to expand...

Jiro posted same story.
http://www.alldeaf.com/2138610-post294.html
 
CrazyPaul said:
Are you fucking blind? See my like at post #70. I oppose her action because the newspaper let criminals/burglars know who don't have gun permits in those areas.
Click to expand...

that's not what I asked.
 
Jiro said:
that's not what I asked.
Click to expand...
WTF do you want? As for the newspaper to publish public records legally, there's nothing we can do about it. However, it can cause a problem because it tells who don't have gun(s).
 
CrazyPaul said:
WTF do you want? As for the newspaper to publish public records legally, there's nothing we can do about it. However, it can cause a problem because it tells who don't have gun(s).
Click to expand...

nope that's not what I asked.

see Post #73. do you agree?
 
Using public records in such a callous and contentious way does not help the situation. There is a specific situation here that has caused this. If the wacko had not gunned the children and their teachers this would not be happening. Unfortunately the response by Ms. Hasson makes it so the media can use her activities as a target. This in turn takes the public eye off into a different area of the the same subject stirring up controversy that takes heat off the real problem.
She is a unparalleled dumbass. There is a real problem and a whole lot of us have reached the end of the b.s. about it. Wackos with assault rifles gunning down innocents just because they feel like it.
It is not something to go oh well it is just a fact of life in modern America. I refuse this as a new normal. Somehow rational people can develop some ways to limit this.
 
I agree that it's none of our business to know who owns a gun legally. However, I think whoever owns a gun legally must have a good anger management. A link has been posted about a guy who was a legal gun owner shot his neighbor for telling the gun owner's dog to shut up because it was barking all day long. That's a poor anger management on the gun owner's side. It was no self-defense at all. I bet that he's currently in jail now.

As I said before, I was afraid of my friend since he's hot-tempered. He kept talking about wishing to kill his ex-girlfriend whom he called a bitch a million times. Imagine, he's a legal gun owner. Thank God that he moved to another state. So my question is what can we do about legal gun owners who have poor anger management (I am not talking about you, Jiro)?
 
CrazyPaul said:
I agree that it's none of our business to know who owns a gun legally. However, I think whoever owns a gun legally must have a good anger management. A link has been posted about a guy who was a legal gun owner shot his neighbor for telling the gun owner's dog to shut up because it was barking all day long. That's a poor anger management on the gun owner's side. It was no self-defense at all. I bet that he's currently in jail now.

As I said before, I was afraid of my friend since he's hot-tempered. He kept talking about wishing to kill his ex-girlfriend whom he called a bitch a million times. Imagine, he's a legal gun owner. Thank God that he moved to another state.
Click to expand...

but... your friend doesn't own a gun so your point's moot.

CrazyPaul said:
So my question is what can we do about legal gun owners who have poor anger management (I am not talking about you, Jiro)?
Click to expand...
isn't it obvious? arrest them just like anybody else.

beside... lot of victims were killed by angry people with cars or knives or fists. why are you so specifically fearful of guns when in fact, it's statistically insignificant compared to say... drunk driving? it's mind-boggling.
 
CrazyPaul said:
He's a legal gun owner.
Click to expand...

but you said "Imagine, he's a legal gun owner."

why imagine then if he owns a gun legally? are you imagining up a bunch of silly things that never happened?
 
Jiro said:
but you said "Imagine, he's a legal gun owner."

why imagine then if he owns a gun legally? are you imagining up a bunch of silly things that never happened?
Click to expand...
No, I didn't say "if". I meant that "can you imagine that he's a legal gun owner?" I didn't imagine that he talked about wishing to kill the bitch. He told me himself many times because he hated her so much. I asked him if he has a gun license and he said yes. Poor anger management + owning a gun legally = dangerous. Drunk driving, etc are off point.
 
CrazyPaul said:
No, I didn't say "if". I meant that "can you imagine that he's a legal gun owner?"
Click to expand...
no... I was asking if he has a gun or not. When you say "Imagine he's a legal gun owner".... that means he doesn't have a gun. and now you're saying he does have a gun. otherwise what's the point of saying "imagine if he's a gun owner" when he is actually a gun owner?

very confusing.

CrazyPaul said:
I didn't imagine that he talked about wishing to kill the bitch. He told me himself many times because he hated her so much. I asked him if he has a gun license and he said yes.
Click to expand...
ok so... nothing happened then.

CrazyPaul said:
Poor anger management + owning a gun legally = dangerous. Drunk driving, etc are off point.
Click to expand...
no that's not what I'm saying. what I'm saying is you are imagining way too many things such as gun owners = anger issue, me = cop hater, assault weapon = an epidemic in America, a person earning $250,000/year is a millionaire.

yep quite an imagination you have there. only a matter of time till two male nurses strap a straitjacket on you.
 
Jiro said:
no... I was asking if he has a gun or not. When you say "Imagine he's a legal gun owner".... that means he doesn't have a gun. and now you're saying he does have a gun. otherwise what's the point of saying "imagine if he's a gun owner" when he is actually a gun owner?

very confusing.
Click to expand...
One of the definitions for "imagine" is to form a mental picture or image of. Deaf people usually sign "Imagine, ....." like "Imagine, I met your friend yesterday and he looks so fucking fat."
 
CrazyPaul said:
One of the definitions for "imagine" is to form a mental picture or image of. Deaf people usually sign "Imagine, ....." like "Imagine, I met your friend yesterday and he looks so fucking fat."
Click to expand...
I understood you. It's like, "This guy has an awful temper and he threatens violence--now, picture this--he's also a legal gun owner!"
 
This the most insane thing ever I heard of ! Now criminals will break into gun owner homes to steal their guns. How the HELL is going to stop mass shooting??? I thinks the gun owners should file a class suit action against the newspaper .
 
Back
Top