Skip to comments.Marine Writes Letter to Sen. Dianne Feinstein: ‘I will not be disarmed’
Posted on 01/04/2013 5:17:30 AM PST by maddog55
A letter written by an 8-year Marine veteran to U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein. I own the guns I own because I acknowledge mankinds shortcomings instead of pretending like they dont exist. There are evil men in this world and there just may be a time when I need to do the unthinkable to protect me or my family, Boston said.
Senator Dianne Feinstein,
I will not register my weapons should this bill be passed, as I do not believe it is the governments 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 maam 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.
Cpl, United States Marine Corps
(Excerpt) Read more at guns.com ...
The second American civil war has begun.
When we start tar and feathering these traitors in public, THEN the second American civil war will begin.
Until then, it’s just words on a screen.
DiFi needs to propose amending the Second amendment to reflect current liberal think and see how far it goes...
“... a Federal Government controlled Militia, the right of the subjects to keep and bear a muscat shall be subject to the will of the President.”
....But it does start somewhere.
The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)
Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says: The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.
Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 242 (1830)
Ann Scott was born in South Carolina before the American revolution, and her father adhered to the American cause and remained and was at his death a citizen of South Carolina. There is no dispute that his daughter Ann, at the time of the Revolution and afterwards, remained in South Carolina until December, 1782. Whether she was of age during this time does not appear. If she was, then her birth and residence might be deemed to constitute her by election a citizen of South Carolina. If she was not of age, then she might well be deemed under the circumstances of this case to hold the citizenship of her father, for children born in a country, continuing while under age in the family of the father, partake of his national character as a citizen of that country. Her citizenship, then, being prima facie established, and indeed this is admitted in the pleadings, has it ever been lost, or was it lost before the death of her father, so that the estate in question was, upon the descent cast, incapable of vesting in her? Upon the facts stated, it appears to us that it was not lost and that she was capable of taking it at the time of the descent cast.
Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857)
The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As society cannot perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their parents, and succeed to all their rights.' Again: 'I say, to be of the country, it is necessary to be born of a person who is a citizen; for if he be born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country. . . .
Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875)
The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children, born in a country of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.
Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939),
Was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that a child born in the United States to naturalized parents on U.S. soil is a natural born citizen and that the child's natural born citizenship is not lost if the child is taken to and raised in the country of the parents' origin, provided that upon attaining the age of majority, the child elects to retain U.S. citizenship "and to return to the United States to assume its duties." Not only did the court rule that she did not lose her native born Citizenship but it upheld the lower courts decision that she is a "natural born Citizen of the United States" because she was born in the USA to two naturalized U.S. Citizens.
But the Secretary of State, according to the allegation of the bill of complaint, had refused to issue a passport to Miss Elg 'solely on the ground that she had lost her native born American citizenship.' The court below, properly recognizing the existence of an actual controversy with the defendants [307 U.S. 325, 350] (Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U.S. 227 , 57 S.Ct. 461, 108 A.L.R. 1000), declared Miss Elg 'to be a natural born citizen of the United States' (99 F.2d 414) and we think that the decree should include the Secretary of State as well as the other defendants. The decree in that sense would in no way interfere with the exercise of the Secretary's discretion with respect to the issue of a passport but would simply preclude the denial of a passport on the sole ground that Miss Elg had lost her American citizenship."
The Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term natural born citizen to any other category than those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof.
My thoughts exactly. I will NEVER register my guns. Registration is step #1 to CONFISCATION. If and when revolution occurs, I will need my guns to help take my country back, the REAL reason for the second amendment.
I agree. Unfortunately I don’t know if the populace has the courage to stand up for what is right. We already lost an important election and that was a shocker considering how everything was going to crap with the big O at the helm.
loboinok: "Then try serving God and a Constitution that protects the rights and liberties He gave you! "
Godebert: "My rights and liberties were given by God, not by some teenaged mercenary in the Usurper's army."
Thank you. I just did a paraphrase. I didn’t ‘decide to remove’ anything.
The reason the liberals want to take our guns is so they can come and steal what we have left after all their taxes.
The bill is H.R.138 - Latest Title: To prohibit the transfer or possession of large capacity ammunition feeding devices, and for other purposes. Introduced by Rep McCarthy, Carolyn [NY-4]. Rep DeGette, Diana [CO-1] was a co-sponser.
This bill has gone to the Judiciary committee which is headed by Lamar Smith of Texas. http://lamarsmith.house.gov/
You should see the list of usual suspects who are on that committee: http://judiciary.house.gov/about/members.html
I would think this would be the place to start our resistance - if it never gets out of committee, it can never be voted on. Carry on!
she doesn’t give a hoot what his opinion is—as far as she is concerned, he is a potential terrorist. He is kidding himself if he thinks his service to the country is worth anything to these devils
Writing his letter got decent attention on the internet. It might wake some citizens up. Surely it’s better than just bitching online...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.