Mac, you really need to add to your repertoire. When faced with something you choose not to believe, you discredit the messenger. In the context of this thread, the credibility of the Marine (if he is/was one) isn't really the subject. I happen to agree with what was stated, whether it was an authentic Marine, or Little Johnny.
What, exactly, DOES make Dianne Feinstein superior to you or I, that she may decide the course our life takes? Why is SHE one of the chosen few in California who can carry a concealed weapon?
Our freedoms, and liberties, are guaranteed by the same Constitution that Dianne Feinstein serves under, and has sworn to uphold. When we break the law, we must pay the price. To dole out punishment in anticipation of a crime is not provided for by the Constitution, or anything else.

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

Interesting read................


"Vermont State Rep. Fred Maslack has read the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution as well as Vermont's own Constitution very carefully and his strict interpretation of these documents is popping some eyeballs in New England and elsewhere.

Maslack recently proposed a bill to register "non-gun-owners" and require them to pay a $500 fee to the state. Thus Vermont would become the first state to require a permit for the luxury of going about unarmed and assess a fee of $500 for the privilege of not owning a gun. Maslack read the "militia" phrase of the Second Amendment as not only the right of the individual citizen to bear arms, but as 'a clear mandate to do so'. He believes that universal gun ownership was advocated by the Framers of the Constitution as an antidote to a "monopoly of force" by the government as well as criminals. Vermont's constitution states explicitly that "the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the State" and those persons who are "conscientiously scrupulous of bearing arms" shall be required to "pay such equivalent.." Clearly, says Maslack, Vermonters have a constitutional obligation to arm themselves, so that they are capable of
responding to "any situation that may arise."

Under the bill, adults who choose not to own a firearm would be required to register their name, address,Social Security Number, and driver's license number with the state. "There is a legitimate government interest in knowing who is not prepared to defend the state should they be asked to do so," Maslack says.

Vermont already boasts a high rate of gun ownership along with the least restrictive laws of any state. It's currently the only state that allows a citizen to carry a concealed firearm without a permit. This combination of plenty of guns and few laws regulating them has resulted in a crime rate that is the third lowest in the nation.

"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards." This makes sense! There is no reason why gun owners should have to pay taxes to support police protection for people not wanting to own guns. Let them contribute their fair share and pay their own way. Sounds reasonable to me! Non-gun owners require more police to protect them and this fee should go to paying for their defense!"