A Letter From The Special Forces Community Concerning The Second Amendment

I received this letter from members of the SOF community on their concerns for America and the Second Amendment. This letter was signed by over 1100 members of the SOF community, of which the names will not be published as this is Active and Retired members.

Whether you agree with it or not, it is well worth the read.

29 Jan 2013
Page 1 of 3

Protecting the Second Amendment – Why all Americans Should Be Concerned

We are current or former Army Reserve, National Guard, and active duty US Army Special Forces soldiers (Green Berets). We have all taken an oath to “…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.…” The Constitution of the United States is without a doubt the single greatest document in the history of mankind, codifying the fundamental principle of governmental power and authority being derived from and granted through the consent of the governed. Our Constitution established a system of governance that preserves, protects, and holds sacrosanct the individual rights and primacy of the governed as well as providing for the explicit protection of the governed from governmental tyranny and/or oppression. We have witnessed the insidious and iniquitous effects of tyranny and oppression on people all over the world. We and our forebears have embodied and personified our organizational motto, De Oppresso Liber [To Free the Oppressed], for more than a half century as we have fought, shed blood, and died in the pursuit of freedom for the oppressed.

Like you, we are also loving and caring fathers and grandfathers. Like you, we have been stunned, horrified, and angered by the tragedies of Columbine, Virginia Tech, Aurora, Fort Hood, and Sandy Hook; and like you, we are searching for solutions to the problem of gun-related crimes in our society. Many of us are educators in our second careers and have a special interest to find a solution to this problem. However, unlike much of the current vox populi reactions to this tragedy, we offer a different perspective.

First, we need to set the record straight on a few things. The current debate is over so-called “assault weapons” and high capacity magazines. The terms “assault weapon” and “assault rifle” are often confused. According to Bruce H. Kobayashi and Joseph E. Olson, writing in the Stanford Law and Policy Review, “Prior to 1989, the term ‘assault weapon’ did not exist in the lexicon of firearms. It is a political term [underline added for emphasis], developed by anti-gun publicists to expand the category of assault rifles.”

The M4A1 carbine is a U.S. military service rifle – it is an assault rifle. The AR-15 is not an assault rifle. The “AR” in its name does not stand for “Assault Rifle” – it is the designation from the first two letters of the manufacturer’s name – ArmaLite Corporation. The AR-15 is designed so that it cosmetically looks like the M4A1 carbine assault rifle, but it is impossible to configure the AR-15 to be a fully automatic assault rifle. It is a single shot semi-automatic rifle that can fire between 45 and 60 rounds per minute depending on the skill of the operator. The M4A1 can fire up to 950 rounds per minute. In 1986, the federal government banned the import or manufacture of new fully automatic firearms for sale to civilians. Therefore, the sale of assault rifles are already banned or heavily restricted!

The second part of the current debate is over “high capacity magazines” capable of holding more than 10 rounds in the magazine. As experts in military weapons of all types, it is our considered opinion that reducing magazine capacity from 30 rounds to 10 rounds will only require an additional 6 -8 seconds to change two empty 10 round magazines with full magazines. Would an increase of 6 –8 seconds make any real difference to the outcome in a mass shooting incident? In our opinion it would not. Outlawing such “high capacity magazines” would, however, outlaw a class of firearms that are “in common use”. As such this would be in contravention to the opinion expressed by the U.S. Supreme Court recent decisions.

Moreover, when the Federal Assault Weapons Ban became law in 1994, manufacturers began retooling to produce firearms and magazines that were compliant. One of those ban-compliant firearms was the Hi-Point 995, which was sold with ten-round magazines. In 1999, five years into the Federal Assault Weapons Ban, the Columbine High School massacre occurred. One of the perpetrators, Eric Harris, was armed with a Hi-Point 995. Undeterred by the ten-round capacity of his magazines, Harris simply brought more of them: thirteen magazines would be found in the massacre’s aftermath. Harris fired 96 rounds before killing himself.

Now that we have those facts straight, in our opinion, it is too easy to conclude that the problem is guns and that the solution to the problem is more and stricter gun control laws. For politicians, it is politically expedient to take that position and pass more gun control laws and then claim to constituents that they have done the right thing in the interest of protecting our children. Who can argue with that? Of course we all want to find a solution. But, is the problem really guns? Would increasing gun regulation solve the problem? Did we outlaw cars to combat drunk driving?

What can we learn from experiences with this issue elsewhere? We cite the experience in Great Britain. Despite the absence of a “gun culture”, Great Britain, with one-fifth the population of the U.S., has experienced mass shootings that are eerily similar to those we have experienced in recent years. In 1987 a lone gunman killed 18 people in Hungerford. What followed was the Firearms Act of 1988 making registration mandatory and banning semi-automatic guns and pump-action shotguns. Despite this ban, on March 13, 1996 a disturbed 43-year old former scout leader, Thomas Hamilton, murdered 16 school children aged five and six and a teacher at a primary school in Dunblane, Scotland. Within a year and a half the Firearms Act was amended to ban all private ownership of hand guns. After both shootings there were amnesty periods resulting in the surrender of thousands of firearms and ammunition. Despite having the toughest gun control laws in the world, gun related crimes increased in 2003 by 35% over the previous year with firearms used in 9,974 recorded crimes in the preceding 12 months. Gun related homicides were up 32% over the same period. Overall, gun related crime had increased 65% since the Dunblane massacre and implementation of the toughest gun control laws in the developed world. In contrast, in 2009 (5 years after the Federal Assault Weapons Ban expired) total firearm related homicides in the U.S. declined by 9% from the 2005 high (Source: “FBI Uniform Crime Reporting Master File, Table 310, Murder Victims – Circumstances and Weapons Used or Cause of Death: 2000-2009”).

Protecting the Second Amendment – Why all Americans Should Be Concerned
29 Jan 2013
Page 2 of 3

Are there unintended consequences to stricter gun control laws and the politically expedient path that we have started down?

In a recent op-ed piece in the San Francisco Chronicle, Brett Joshpe stated that “Gun advocates will be hard-pressed to explain why the average American citizen needs an assault weapon with a high-capacity magazine other than for recreational purposes.”We agree with Kevin D. Williamson (National Review Online, December 28, 2012): “The problem with this argument is that there is no legitimate exception to the Second Amendment right that excludes military-style weapons, because military-style weapons are precisely what the Second Amendment guarantees our right to keep and bear.”

“The purpose of the Second Amendment is to secure our ability to oppose enemies foreign and domestic, a guarantee against disorder and tyranny. Consider the words of Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story”: ‘The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defense of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.’

The Second Amendment has been ruled to specifically extend to firearms “in common use” by the military by the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in U.S. v Miller (1939). In Printz v U.S. (1997) Justice Thomas wrote: “In Miller we determined that the Second Amendment did not guarantee a citizen’s right to possess a sawed-off shot gun because that weapon had not been shown to be “ordinary military equipment” that could “could contribute to the common defense”.

A citizen’s right to keep and bear arms for personal defense unconnected with service in a militia has been reaffirmed in the U.S. Supreme Court decision (District of Columbia, et al. v Heller, 2008). The Court Justice Scalia wrote in the majority opinion: “The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.“. Justice Scalia went on to define a militia as “… comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense ….”
“The Anti-Federalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved.” he explained.

On September 13, 1994, the Federal Assault Weapons Ban went into effect. A Washington Post editorial published two days later was candid about the ban’s real purpose:“[N]o one should have any illusions about what was accomplished [by the ban]. Assault weapons play a part in only a small percentage of crime. The provision is mainly symbolic; its virtue will be if it turns out to be, as hoped, a stepping stone to broader gun control.”

In a challenge to the authority of the Federal government to require State and Local Law Enforcement to enforce Federal Law (Printz v United States) the U.S. Supreme Court rendered a decision in 1997. For the majority opinion Justice Scalia wrote: “…. this Court never has sanctioned explicitly a federal command to the States to promulgate and enforce laws and regulations When we were at last confronted squarely with a federal statute that unambiguously required the States to enact or administer a federal regulatory program, our decision should have come as no surprise….. It is an essential attribute of the States’ retained sovereignty that they remain independent and autonomous within their proper sphere of authority.”

So why should non-gun owners, a majority of Americans, care about maintaining the 2nd Amendment right for citizens to bear arms of any kind?

The answer is “The Battle of Athens, TN”. The Cantrell family had controlled the economy and politics of McMinn County, Tennessee since the 1930s. Paul Cantrell had been Sheriff from 1936 -1940 and in 1942 was elected to the State Senate. His chief deputy, Paul Mansfield, was subsequently elected to two terms as Sheriff. In 1946 returning WWII veterans put up a popular candidate for Sheriff. On August 1 Sheriff Mansfield and 200 “deputies” stormed the post office polling place to take control of the ballot boxes wounding an objecting observer in the process. The veterans bearing military style weapons, laid siege to the Sheriff’s office demanding return of the ballot boxes for public counting of the votes as prescribed in Tennessee law. After exchange of gun fire and blowing open the locked doors, the veterans secured the ballot boxes thereby protecting the integrity of the election. And this is precisely why all Americans should be concerned about protecting all of our right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed by the Second Amendment!

Throughout history, disarming the populace has always preceded tyrants’ accession of power. Hitler, Stalin, and Mao all disarmed their citizens prior to installing their murderous regimes. At the beginning of our own nation’s revolution, one of the first moves made by the British government was an attempt to disarm our citizens. When our Founding Fathers ensured that the 2nd Amendment was made a part of our Constitution, they were not just wasting ink. They were acting to ensure our present security was never forcibly endangered by tyrants, foreign or domestic.

If there is a staggering legal precedent to protect our 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms and if stricter gun control laws are not likely to reduce gun related crime, why are we having this debate? Other than making us and our elected representatives feel better because we think that we are doing something to protect our children, these actions will have no effect and will only provide us with a false sense of security.

Protecting the Second Amendment – Why all Americans Should Be Concerned
29 Jan 2013
Page 3 of 3

So, what do we believe will be effective? First, it is important that we recognize that this is not a gun control problem; it is a complex sociological problem. No single course of action will solve the problem. Therefore, it is our recommendation that a series of diverse steps be undertaken, the implementation of which will require patience and diligence to realize an effect. These are as follows:

1. First and foremost we support our Second Amendment right in that “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”.

2. We support State and Local School Boards in their efforts to establish security protocols in whatever manner and form that they deem necessary and adequate. One of the great strengths of our Republic is that State and Local governments can be creative in solving problems. Things that work can be shared. Our point is that no one knows what will work and there is no one single solution, so let’s allow the State and Local governments with the input of the citizens to make the decisions. Most recently the Cleburne Independent School District will become the first district in North Texas to consider allowing some teachers to carry concealed guns. We do not opine as to the appropriateness of this decision, but we do support their right to make this decision for themselves.

3. We recommend that Assisted Outpatient Treatment (AOT) laws be passed in every State. AOT is formerly known as Involuntary Outpatient Commitment (IOC) and allows the courts to order certain individuals with mental disorders to comply with treatment while living in the community. In each of the mass shooting incidents the perpetrator was mentally unstable. We also believe that people who have been adjudicated as incompetent should be simultaneously examined to determine whether they should be allowed the right to retain/purchase firearms.

4. We support the return of firearm safety programs to schools along the lines of the successful “Eddie the Eagle” program, which can be taught in schools by Peace Officers or other trained professionals.

5. Recent social psychology research clearly indicates that there is a direct relationship between gratuitously violent movies/video games and desensitization to real violence and increased aggressive behavior particularly in children and young adults (See Nicholas L. Carnagey, et al. 2007. “The effect of video game violence on physiological desensitization to real-life violence” and the references therein. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 43:489-496). Therefore, we strongly recommend that gratuitous violence in movies and video games be discouraged. War and war-like behavior should not be glorified. Hollywood and video game producers are exploiting something they know nothing about. General Sherman famously said “War is Hell!” Leave war to the Professionals. War is not a game and should not be “sold” as entertainment to our children.

6. We support repeal of the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990. This may sound counter-intuitive, but it obviously isn’t working. It is our opinion that “Gun-Free Zones” anywhere are too tempting of an environment for the mentally disturbed individual to inflict their brand of horror with little fear of interference. While governmental and non-governmental organizations, businesses, and individuals should be free to implement a Gun-Free Zone if they so choose, they should also assume Tort liability for that decision.

7. We believe that border states should take responsibility for implementation of border control laws to prevent illegal shipments of firearms and drugs. Drugs have been illegal in this country for a long, long time yet the Federal Government manages to seize only an estimated 10% of this contraband at our borders. Given this dismal performance record that is misguided and inept (“Fast and Furious”), we believe that border States will be far more competent at this mission.

8. This is our country, these are our rights. We believe that it is time that we take personal responsibility for our choices and actions rather than abdicate that responsibility to someone else under the illusion that we have done something that will make us all safer. We have a responsibility to stand by our principles and act in accordance with them. Our children are watching and they will follow the example we set.

The undersigned Quiet Professionals hereby humbly stand ever present, ever ready, and ever vigilant.

1100 Green Berets Signed this Letter

We have a list of all their names and unlike any MSM outlets we can confirm that over 1100 Green Berets did sign. The list includes Special Forces Major Generals & Special Forces Command Sergeants Major down to the lowest ranking “Green Beret”.

The letter stands for itself.

Read it and send it everywhere.

 

 

We have a PDF copy if anyone wants it, we will email it to you if you contact us as adding it here will use to much bandwidth.

Source for this letter is the SOF community at Professional Soldiers.Com “Quiet Professionals”

UPDATE: For those that had questions to its authenticity, it was just posted on Military.com. Green Beret Group Lobbies Against Gun Control

Comments

comments

330 comments on “A Letter From The Special Forces Community Concerning The Second Amendment
    • The intellectual disconnect is astonishing. This screed states “We support State and Local School Boards in their efforts to establish security protocols in whatever manner and form that they deem necessary and adequate” – and then explicitly calls for them to do as the NRA says and gun-up. Give the locals control UNLESS THEY CHOOSE TO RESTRICT GUNS.

      GET OVER YOUR “SLIPPERY SLOPE” PARANOIA. No one is taking your reasonable personal protection, hunting or collector’s guns. Unless you are crazy or a violent felon, in which case you think Green Beret would WANT those types to not have guns.

      • You will make a nice slave, don’t worry about you not having a gun, those of us with guns will not be made slaves and we will probably have to free your oppressed ass… Clearly you miss the point, so maybe when history repeats, AND IT ALWAYS REPEATS, you’ll learn something this time…

        • Gummint-loving drones like him will look good dangling at the end of a rope when The War begins. Let these traitors spout for now. It’scalled giving them enough rope–your should forgive the pun.

      • It is not about “hunting guns or collectors guns” it is about the Second Amendment of the US. You either uphold it or you don’t. If you don’t then you do not up hold the rest of the Constitution. In that case I respectfully request that you find a country that does have a Constitution that you can fully believe in.

        P.S. Bozo is an apt name.

      • bozo, you are mis-characterizing what the letter says. the call is (a) to remove the FEDERAL act of 1990, (b) to allow states and local jurisdictions their sovereign right to experiment and decide for themselves how to protect their children (which COULD) be a gun-free zone program if that is what the local citizens or state government decides, and (c) to consider arming up as the OPTION the letter signers advise.

        But, bozo, advising is not requiring. how about dealing with the actual content, rather than misrepresenting in order to smear?

      • you really are a bozo..your wrong we are on a slippery slope..they want our guns PERIOD..and the 2nd ammendment is NOT about hunting or collecting..its about us having a fighting chance to fight back tyranny witch is just about here..BOZO

        • What tyranny? Where were you when Bush invaded everyone’s privacy during a war started on false pretenses. That was tyranny. Do you honestly think that during a time when weapons were fired at a rate of two to four shots a minute by an experienced shooter is equivalent to the types of weapons today? The NRA pushed for registration of all weapons in any and all transactions in 1999 – LaPierre himself spoke before a congressional hearing. Now he and the NRA have done a complete 180. Who in their right mind thinks the government is going to go door to door to take everyone’s guns. The government can barely get enough volunteers to complete a census every decade. Stop making people who own guns and use them correctly, sound like idiotic, end of the world morons…give us a fighting chance. This is without question not the Grand Old Party anymore.

          • Don’t think the government won;t go door to door to confiscate guns? You better think again, it happened in Louisiana, idiot…

            Volunteers for a census is not even close to the same thing…

            I think you need to do some more research and studying….

          • Its not about how many rounds a weapon can fire! Its about my right to protect myself. You win fights with superior fire power and violence of action. If someone comes with a gun im going to come with a bigger gun that fires more rounds! When bad guy start carrying muskets again ill consider not needing a 30 round mag.

          • Weapons back in the day might have been slow to fire, but the colonists had the SAME weapons as the regular military. The Constitution is a living document that was made to be interpreted in and for any time frame which it exists in. Our government has belt-fed machine guns. Can we not have our semi-automatic sporting rifles because they are too advanced? Our government has Predator drones that are now approved for government use in the US. Can we not have our rifles because they aren’t muskets? The world changes. So must we, lest we fall by the wayside.

          • if you would check they are now finding the WMDs were moved io Syria who at this time is now using nerve gas! Bush was right!

          • True, there is a difference in the fire power held by the lawfully armed citizen between now and the past. They had muskets back then, now we have the good o’ AR-15. Even a breach action is faster to reload… however, there is also a disparity of force held by the government that even an RPG would scarcely contend with.

            In the past Uncle Sam’s greatest were the cannon, mounted cavalry, and the cannon. Now he has UAV’s that can fly anywhere and drop a bunker buster on any structure using the latest in heat seeking and infrared technology. They also have daisy cutter’s just in case your out in the open.

            Against that, an resistance to a tyrannical and murderous government would be stacking bodies like they did in Vietnam to take back our country using the weapons that are available now. If anything, there should be a movement to bring in more advanced weaponry for civilian use in order to even the playing field.

      • Bozo. How very appropriate.

        I can only guess that you’ve never heard the term “slippery slope”???

        Keep your fingers in your ears while chanting ‘la la la la la’. We’ll keep fighting for your rights even if you won’t.

      • The Constitution does not give you rights. The founders considered your rights to be “God-given” or “natural rights” — you are born with all your rights. The constitution does, however, protect your rights by:

        Limiting the powers of government by granting to it only those specific powers that are listed in the Constitution; (This has not proven to be effective of late.)
        Enumerating certain, specific rights which you retain. These are listed in the Bill of Rights.

        The rights deemed most important by the founders are specifically listed in the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights also says that, even though a particular right is not listed in the Bill of Rights, you still retain that right. Any powers not specifically delegated by the Constitution to the federal government are retained by the states and the people (you).

        • it is not effective because people don’t want the freedoms that the Constitution guarantees. They would rather have a false sense of security and follow THEIR elected officials like lemmings down a path that will eventually leave “We the People” defenseless and at the whim of whom ever is in power. Historically this is an accurate correlation to make. I am a student of History and it has happened to every culture where the populace has gotten to comfortable with the idea of being taken care of.

      • Text of the 2nd Amendment

        A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

      • My friend’s .22, short, single shot, bolt-action pistol, registered in 1958, was taken in 1966. after the Feds changed the law to make him & gun, a law-breaker. Tell me again to “GET OVER YOUR “SLIPPERY SLOPE” PARANOIA. No one is taking your reasonable personal protection, hunting or collector’s guns.” In 1968, the very same gun was found in a cache’ of weapons the Black Panthers in CA, had in their possession. How did it travel from Spokane to LA? OOps.

        • in Katrina Govt run national guard ran door to door confiscating firearms from people who didn’t use them in the riots. You say its paranoia? No its called being awake and aware our govt is screwing the sheep and this is a stepping stone towards an even more oppressive government. The only people “paranoid” are the gun grabbers who are scared of other people who might have a gun. You have no right to “feel safe” you do have the right to provide your own security and for the common defense of the nation and your community

      • Bozo,
        I am NOT a gun owner, but since the feds. can’t (or won’t) enforce the laws that are on the books, what good is making more laws,(that they won’t enforce).the gun free zones, DON’T WORK! if school sys. want to have armed teachers in their district I am all for it.

        I also believe in my right to NOT own a gun. I would also fight for another’s right to OWN a gun

        • thank you murry that has to be the most “American” comment i have seen in a long time on this subject. I myself am a gun owner and i applaud your right to not own one nor would i ever infringe on your right.

      • Wow…were you born yesterday? Gun-Free zones were created by the FED! Not by local and state…it’s best to stay quiet and let people think you a fool rather than open your mouth and prove to them that you are a fool….

      • Hey Bozo, the oath includes the word “domestic,” when referring to the enemies of the U.S. Constitution. So, perhaps you statement should have included the words “State Militia,” or “State Army,” to the list of reasons to own a firearm. And if you think the idea of slippery slopes are the thoughts of paranoia, you need to read your history.
        Sincerely,
        A retired American History teacher

      • Your handle is right you are a Bozo. These Green Berets are correct. An armed staff member would have saved many lives at Sandy Hook.

        • I appreciate our military men and women and their efforts to protect our nation. I believe that we have the right to own guns if we want to but having guns in schools I am not sure of. I as a teacher do not want to put children into dangers path by carrying a gun they could get hold of, but I am not against school security officers carrying guns to deter students from bringing in guns. I think we walk a fine line between safety and making an unsafe environment for learning to take place. I would do whatever it took to keep my students safe and I know many good teachers that feel the same!

          • Rita, thank you for your willingness to protect your students, whatever it would take. I am glad you and many teachers feel that way. Some have given their lives to save the lives of their students.

            When the suggestion was made to have armed individuals – teachers, staff, security guards or police – in all schools, I listened to the arguments against it: the officer can’t be every where, what if the shooter just takes out the officer first, the students would be intimidated by someone armed, students would be able to get the firearm from a teacher or staff, having an armed person on campus is not conducive to learning. What I kept coming back to was the thought: how safe do they feel right now??? How safe, right now, are these students who, for 6-8 hours a day, are required to be in a gun free zone, with no one on campus to protect them….

            I don’t know if having armed individuals in schools would work, but what we have right now sure doesn’t.

          • Rita,

            You have to understand, it isn’t just any teacher carrying a gun ion school just to do so thinking they are doing good. It is trained individuals, teachers, staff, etc., and in a concealed carry situation, the gun is neither seen, nor is it at risk of becoming a distraction, or of falling out of the holster…so the argument that kids can get hold of it is more ludicrous than sensible…If you live in a concealed carry state, I guarantee you have been around people carrying and never knew it…If a teacher were at risk of dropping a concealed gun, then a security guard is even at greater risk of dropping a openly visible gun…if a gun is at risk of getting into a students hand because a teacher carry’s concealed, then the risk is greater for a guard that carries openly…you have to look at this from an educational standpoint and not an emotional one without knowledge…in Texas there is a community that has had guns in their school, i.e. faculty, including teachers, since 2008 and has zero problems with students or teachers…Remember, any person licensed to carry is required to be trained in the proper use and care of the weapon they are to carry…Here is a poll on an article regarding this school on Huff Post

            What do you think? Should licensed and approved teachers and staff be allowed to carry concealed weapons on school grounds?

            Yes!
            The safety of our children is at stake.
            80.68%

            No!
            Weapons have no place in schools.
            19.32%

            It is not as far fetched an idea and not as dangerous an idea as many would think…as they say, educate yourself ;)

      • Coming from Australia I can assure you the words are always “reasonable changes” what eventuates is total control and abuse of authority. The result is not to make people safer simply to implement more un enforceable laws, which of course have to be strengthened even further resulting in more unenforceable laws the end result is people are left defenceless. While the real problem is criminals and the mentally ill are left free to roam at will. This of course results in more laws brought in that only law abiding citizens follow. It is an oversimplification to believe that a law will protect you from a Criminal, Madman or Terrorist.

      • Actually you are wrong – your opinion personifies your ‘screen name’ the feinstein bill will outlaw ALL GUNS THAT CAN USE A DETACHABLE MAGAZINE – which is 85% of the rifles and handguns manufactured in the last 30 years.
        and any shotgun that can have a capacity of over 5 rounds – which is ALL PUMP AND SEMI AUTOMATIC shotguns – Remington 1100, Broaning BAR, Remington 870 because – in political thinking- a higher capacity shotgun is extended by merely adding a tube on top of the current shotguns tubular magazine.
        So ‘bozo- the poposed law DOES take away guns we use for protection.
        Next, there is a $500. tax per gun. THAT is meant to tax gun ownership out of existence.
        Get your facts straight before mouthing off.

      • Have you, ever served, your country, in the military? If not, how would you know, what is a “reasonable” weapon is, in the first place? What do you base your opinion, of your slippery slope statement? Paranoia? Your complacent attitude, that you are safe in your home, from invaders; foreign and domestic, is a fairytale. The Police are not paid to protect you, individually; they are paid to protect public properties.
        Say the T-baggers take over, and want to confiscate your weapons, so they will be unopposed and have the ability to treat you and your family badly. Would you want your neighbors to help? There’s your militia, for ya…
        Your comprehension level is lacking, as The GBs said, exactly the question you begged, about the crazies…The GBs want the crazies unarmed, more than you do.
        If you are deluded enough to believe our government can not be corrupt enough to attack it’s people; think again. We, the people, must protect ourselves, from tyranny…Remember, The Bush Administration? We could not have been closer to action, than against the American Fascists, and Marxist Bush Regime. The tell tale residue, at the bottom of their glass is the t-party.
        Remember, do not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Complete gun control ends individual freedoms. Protect your rights, and help keep government in check.

    • Guard your 2A with a feveorish jealosy. Were with you and allot of other Patriots that don’t post up.
      You turn in your weapon and our 1A goes with it.

      Molan Labe.

      Thanks for Honoring your Oath.

    • The only issue I have with this letter (besides not having a comment box to use pages fault not the letters) Is the attack on the 1st Amendment. We have ratings on movies and video games, PARENTS should not be buying “Teen” or “Mature” rated games for their 8-12 year olds. However we can not defend part of the constitution while attacking another part. Hollywood and Game Producers have the RIGHT to make whatever they want, we as FREE PEOPLE have the RIGHT to not buy them. Just as it is with Guns, if you don’t like them, don’t buy them, but leave the rest of us alone.

  1. Do you have a PDF of this letter? I’d love to share it with my anti-gun fruitloop friends but it doesn’t look real in this format

  2. This is a wonderful letter. My only gripe is that it’s factually incorrect on the matter of Hitler’s disarmament. There was only a specific class of people disarmed when he came to power, and we were already mostly disarmed to begin with. History is often more nuanced and I think there’s a moral hazard in indulging in incorrect parallels, even if the Stalin and Mao are dead on. I say this as both a veteran and someone related to Holocaust survivors and victims.

  3. I would also be interested in what the SOF community feels, given the text about State and Local control, when a state, like Pennsylvania, passes legislation that opens the door for lawsuit when municipalities, i.e. local government, try to make local decisions about gun violence within their jurisdiction. This is the most detailed piece I have read, and I think it’s great. I’d just like to know how these positions relate to specific situations.

  4. Pingback: » A Letter From The Special Forces Community Concerning The Second Amendment

  5. Pingback: A Letter From The SF Community Concerning The Second Amendment - Survival Strings

  6. Well the quality of logic in the SF and SO community has gone downhill since its inception. The AR-15 was designed by Armalite and morphed into the M-16 and M-4 when the USG bought them. Unfortunately, they DID NOT listen to the creator and used the wrong powder which caused jams and a lot of bad press. Better cleaning helped. Not the easiest in SEA at the time.

    There is no need for an AR-15 in civilian hands. LE yes. Military, yes. The bullets are not designed for hunting. They are designed to maim and kill. Low mass, high velocity.

    We can debate whether or not we want a trained LE professional in every school. Not a vet, not a teacher with a concealed carry. A LE professional who knows the laws on when to shoot and the training to fire and hit the target. And not just a target, one that moves, one that pops up, one that may have a hostage.

    The border is not defensible. Nor can it be sealed. We’re the US, we’re not East Germany. For those that weren’t old enough to live in the Cold War, even those borders were not impenetrable. Quit watching the Rambo movies about Arabs coming across the border. They fly in, and they’re smart enough to get visas.

    We do need to put those on the terrorist watch list on the banned buyer list for firearms. No foreign nationals should be able to buy in the US. Those with convictions for certain offenses should be banned. I’d add DUI to the list also. That shows a lack of concern for fellow citizens. And states need to send their lists of those banned from owning guns to the ATF. By far, most states do not.

    As far as size of clips, when you’re changing clips you’re vulnerable to be taken down. Aurora and Newtown might have been taken down while having to change clips or weapons. And we lost military personnel in Aurora. Our shipmates. Navy or not, he was ours.

    Now, not all deaths are by assault weapons. But, assault weapons designed for war have no business in the civilian world. None. None of the weapons I tested in the AF are in civilian hands. Why should the Army be different? an M4 is not needed for hunting or home security. Neither is an AK-47. Just because you’re a limp swinging dick is no reason for you to have one at home. You need to bust caps with one? Rent it from a gun range where its locked up and accounted for. Yours may be stolen, used to kill a family member or used by your kids to show off to a friend with consequences you will regret. And don’t think it won’t and still won’t happen in the future.

    Bluntly, grow up. Our country has a problem. Putting away an assault rifle with all the variants won’t stop you from protecting you home, hunting, or infringe on your Second Amendment. I expected better from our SOF. Hell, I expected them like one four star to state an M-4 has no business in the civilian world.

    As it is, I’d say the uniform is disgraced. Its not, its just the people who wear it that let me down.

    • Our country has a problem? How about you grow up and get some stats in 1991 our country had around 200 million guns we now have 300-350 million with a 50% drop in violent crime and murder.

      We also need to realize that rifles take up 3% of gun crime and ARs are a % of that …

      As for if they didnt have an ‘assault weapon’ the worst school shooting in recent history was Virginia Tech with two pistols with 10 and 12 round mags … it doesnt take an AR for a crazy to go on a rampage, but those are the easiest to demonize and get removed

      We have to have these forces to secure our freedoms and we can not give up our rights because of a few bad apples. Maybe we should all give up our right to free speech because of what an anti islam movie did?

    • You are a disgrace & did not let what the letter stated sink in. As usual people like you took what they WANTED from it & misconstrued the real meaning. The purpose for people to have these weapons is to make sur the govt. will not take from us our rights, so that if needed the citizens can take up arms against those who would attack us. the movie Red Dawn is a perfect example. Fiction yes, but take away the weapons & rest assured someone will attack at some point & without a well armed militia, we will not be able to defend against such a thing…… You are the disgrace & should rethink your position on being a citizen of this country………… They for your disgraceful remarks & probably you disgraceful service………… A TRUE veteran would not think as you do & your discharge was most likely other than Honorable… You sure show no Honor…………………. Nothing follows

      • Thank you Retro…I agree with you. I appreciate this letter very much. I also appreciate the service of our Veterans for their sacrifices made to ensure our freedom in this country

      • I like how you replace “well REGULATED militia” with “well ARMED militia” as if “regulated” were a dirty little secret found in the Second Amendment. Why did James Madison put it there? Was it a mistake or a glitch? Should we get rid of laws and regulations on everything because “they don’t work”? People compare guns to cars, so should we get rid of speed limits because they don’t work? Oh, those inconvenient laws, especially the ones that prevent the NRA and their manufacturing buddies from collecting a profit. I believe they sold their souls for profit at all costs.

        I had no problem with guns until they showed up in movie theaters and gyms. I should NOT have to worry about MY daughter being shot at in a movie theater. That should be the least of my worries. And I should NOT have to worry about being shot at in a gym. I can’t believe I have to plan my escape route at a gym. How ridiculous is that? Yeah, I sure feel free and safe in this country. I’m more afraid and suspicious of John Doe having a gun than I am of our government. John Doe took away my freedom and took away the rights of 20 children.

        STOP WORSHIPING THESE DAMN THINGS! IT IS YOUR RESPONSIBILITY TO COLLECTIVELY GET THEM UNDER CONTROL OR GET RID OF THEM! Just like in the military, what happens when someone in your platoon screws up? Everyone gets smoked. It is in your best interest to make sure these deadly weapons are “well regulated” and don’t get into the wrong hands, unless you want another uproar about gun control when more kids are slaughtered.

        • Just a little information for you about the meaning of ‘well regulated.’ Well regulated in terms of a militia or military meant trained and disciplined. You can dispute the meaning as interpreted by ordinary citizens, but how about the words of people who lived back then.

          1690 Lond. Gaz. No. 2568/3 We hear likewise that the French are in a great Allarm in Dauphine and Bresse, not having at present 1500 Men of regulated Troops on that side.

          We can begin to deduce what well-regulated meant from Alexander Hamilton’s words in Federalist Paper No. 29:

          The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, nor a week nor even a month, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry and of the other classes of the citizens to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people and a serious public inconvenience and loss.
          — The Federalist Papers, No. 29.

          Hamilton indicates a well-regulated militia is a state of preparedness obtained after rigorous and persistent training. Note the use of ‘disciplining’ which indicates discipline could be synonymous with well-trained.

          This quote from the Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789 also conveys the meaning of well regulated:

          Resolved , That this appointment be conferred on experienced and vigilant general officers, who are acquainted with whatever relates to the general economy, manoeuvres and discipline of a well regulated army.
          — Saturday, December 13, 1777.

          In the passage that follows, do you think the U.S. government was concerned because the Creek Indians’ tribal regulations were superior to those of the Wabash or was it because they represented a better trained and disciplined fighting force?

          That the strength of the Wabash Indians who were principally the object of the resolve of the 21st of July 1787, and the strength of the Creek Indians is very different. That the said Creeks are not only greatly superior in numbers but are more united, better regulated, and headed by a man whose talents appear to have fixed him in their confidence. That from the view of the object your Secretary has been able to take he conceives that the only effectual mode of acting against the said Creeks in case they should persist in their hostilities would be by making an invasion of their country with a powerful body of well regulated troops always ready to combat and able to defeat any combination of force the said Creeks could oppose and to destroy their towns and provisions.
          — Saturday, December 13, 1777.

          I am unacquainted with the extent of your works, and consequently ignorant of the number or men necessary to man them. If your present numbers should be insufficient for that purpose, I would then by all means advise your making up the deficiency out of the best regulated militia that can be got.
          — George Washington (The Writings of George Washington, pp. 503-4, (G.P. Putnam & Sons, pub.)(1889))

          The above quote is clearly not a request for a militia with the best set of regulations. (For brevity the entire passage is not shown and this quote should not be construed to imply Washington favored militias, in fact he thought little of them, as the full passage indicates.)

          But Dr Sir I am Afraid it would blunt the keen edge they have at present which might be keept sharp for the Shawnese &c: I am convinced it would be Attended by considerable desertions. And perhaps raise a Spirit of Discontent not easily Queld amongst the best regulated troops, but much more so amongst men unused to the Yoak of Military Discipline.
          — Letter from Colonel William Fleming to Col. Adam Stephen, Oct 8, 1774, pp. 237-8. (Documentary History of Dunmore’s War, 1774, Wisconsin historical society, pub. (1905))

          And finally, a late-17th century comparison between the behavior of a large collection of seahorses and well-regulated soldiers:

          One of the Seamen that had formerly made a Greenland Voyage for Whale-Fishing, told us that in that country he had seen very great Troops of those Sea-Horses ranging upon Land, sometimes three or four hundred in a Troop: Their great desire, he says, is to roost themselves on Land in the Warm Sun; and Whilst they sleep, they apppoint one to stand Centinel, and watch a certain time; and when that time’s expir’d, another takes his place of Watching, and the first Centinel goes to sleep, &c. observing the strict Discipline, as a Body of Well-regulated Troops
          — (Letters written from New-England, A. D. 1686. P. 47, John Dutton (1867))

          The quoted passages support the idea that a well-regulated militia was synonymous with one that was thoroughly trained and disciplined, and as a result, well-functioning. That description fits most closely with the “to put in good order” definition supplied by the Random House dictionary. The Oxford dictionary’s definition also appears to fit if one considers discipline in a military context to include or imply well-trained.

          What about the Amendment’s text itself? Considering the adjective “well” and the context of the militia clause, which is more likely to ensure the security of a free state, a militia governed by numerous laws (or the proper amount of regulation [depending on the meaning of "well"] ) or a well-disciplined and trained militia? This brief textual analysis also suggests “to put in good order” is the correct interpretation of well regulated, signifying a well disciplined, trained, and functioning militia.

          And finally, when regulated is used as an adjective, its meaning varies depending on the noun its modifying and of course the context. For example: well regulated liberty (properly controlled), regulated rifle (adjusted for accuracy), and regulated commerce (governed by regulations) all express a different meaning for regulated. This is by no means unusual, just as the word, bear, conveys a different meaning depending on the word it modifies: bearing arms, bearing fruit, or bearing gifts.

          You are very mistaken, it is not guns, any guns, that need to be under control, it is the people who misuse them. It is the people who use a gun to break the law and not innocent gun owners who need controlling. In this country we don’t punish people until they break the law. Innocent, lawful gun owners should not be discriminated against because of the actions of a few criminals. Our society is not the military, we don’t punish everyone because one person ‘screws up.’ Why do you believe criminals, who don’t follow the laws we have now, will follow a new law? With the overwhelming evidence that the gun control laws we have now don’t prevent gun violence, why do you believe a new law will?

        • So you’re saying there are no regulations (law or otherwise?)
          or
          you’re just confused, frightened and emotional.

          Nobody is saying remove gun-control laws, that’s just people like you pushing that fear.

          What the Pro-gun guys are really saying is by “no more gun control” is “no further gun control.”
          Meaning, don’t add any more laws.
          Meaning, don’t propose or pass legislation, don’t make a decision based while you’re emotional. We have time to think.
          People like you haven’t even let law enforcement finish collecting evidence or investigation start. That’s called witch-hunting my friend. Can you imagine how ridiculous if an investigator goes,
          “In my findings as Crime Scene Investigator, I believe Adam Lanza’s motive and true culprit was his rifle. It made him bitter about his parent’s neglect and divorce. It made him jealous of children that he perceived his mother loved and valued more. It whispered like the Devil himself in his ear and drove him to madness to murder. Not:
          His meds.
          His warped mentality.”

          Yeah… you can accuse me of over-exaggerating what you said… but in all honesty that’s what you sound like. Go calm down, realize your daughter WON’T get killed in a movie theater, and remember that cops and military have guns, issued or privately owned and have gone on shooting sprees too. Just because they’re vetted by some psyche doc at some point doesn’t keep them from getting Postal angry or crazy. No one’s handing out guns like candy. Go buy one, and test that notion yourself. Your paranoia is amazing, it’s the same paranoia that airports capitalized on in allowing high school graduate TSA guys to grope or body-scan our wives and girls for national security. I guess armed pilots, locked pilot cabins, undercover Air Marshalls, camera-crews with Most-Wanted Lists, and X-ray machines weren’t the real solutions that worked, just those TSA guys eh?

          “Smoked”? You sound like you were in or are in the Army. I could’ve sworn America is not a boot-camp where everybody collectively gets punished, or adults are children who’ve proven they “can’t have nice things.”
          I like your interpretation, it’s cute, but I disagree with it.
          Well regulated Militia is not a disarmed Militia, the militia, whether literally in the past had rifles, not handguns, or shotguns. Besides, Adam Lanza is not militia, he didn’t follow regulations.

          Just like you don’t repeal laws because they don’t work
          you don’t
          add laws proven not to work,
          especially when you’re paranoid by worry

      • If our own government rose up against us, then it won’t matter if it’s against the law to have a gun any way. The proverbial $hi! would have hit the fan already. They have aircraft carriers, black hawk helicopters and training that would already put us at a pitiful advantage. The 2nd Amendment made sense when all we did have really were guns and cannons. I’m sick of reading about violence only be 3%…blah, blah, blah. You would think differently if you son or daughter our spouse were one of those 3%. Ever hear of the phrase continuous improvement? Why does any civilian need an automatic anything? Give them 10 rounds and then they better hide (Yes, I own a rifle). You talk about the Apocalypse happening. When would our own government and military ever rise up on our own Citizens? What’s that percentage of events in our US history? .0000001%? Yet you fight for those odds over the much greater chance of people needlessly getting killed. It’s not just the assault rifle/weapon (whatever) limits its about minimizing the ability for these weapons to be put in the hands of felons and whack-jobs. I say keep the Amendment. Just amend it. And that does not make me a traitor. We’d still have slavery till this day if that were the case. That’s the 13th Amendment. Oh, that’s right. At one time in history we didn’t have such an arrogance in man to think that our first laws were actually the most moral and effective laws for this country. We were humble and smart enough to understand times and circumstances change and evolve overtime, as well. BTW, my husband is a veteran. If he rises up on me, I kick his a$$!

        • Hmmm, “When would our own Government and military ever rise up on our own Citizens?” Think soon…Obama signed the 2012 NDAA into law on December 31st, 2011, which means you, yes you, my Gov’t trusting friend, can be arrested without due process or a trial. You, a US citizen, can be tortured and even executed without any requirement of your imprisonment or demise being made public. Over 800 FEMA Detention Camps are up and running and Obama keeps signing “Executive Orders” allowing him to take your businesses, foods, property, etc. This has happened .0000001% previously. You’re ignoring that it only takes ONE time- and that time is coming. I think you’re the type who’ll want this following quote made Law in this country: This was said by a very famous person;
          “This year will go down in history. For the first time,
          a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our
          streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and
          the world will follow our lead into the future.”
          Sounds good, but this was said by Adolf Hitler in 1935. Don’t think for one second that tyranny can’t happen here. Look around you; TSA, Homeland Security (and the 1.6 trillion hollow-point bullets Big Sis ordered. The Geneva Convention outlawed hollow-points for war because of the massive tissue damage it does…so why does HS need a pistol round of this configuration and in such numbers if they’re not planning something insidious?). Civilian arms and ammo need to be on a par with what the Gov’t has. If the 2nd Amendment goes, ALL the others will go also.

        • Your husband must be AF or Navy! Maybe he should have joined a real service so he could grow a pair. The rest of your post is so stupid, I won’t even bother to refute it.

        • You need to clear the cobwebs from your head and awaken that brain God gave you…Even if my child were one of those 3%, I would not waver on my convictions…but I would be angry if there was a law that made it impossible for anyone to have been armed and able to at least attempt to protect my child…

          “When would our own government and military ever rise up on our own Citizens?”

          Are you so naive that you think it can’t happen??? Seriously?? It has happened to MANY around the world, it CAN happen to us…Don’t EVER think it can’t, that would be foolhardy and dangerous for your own safety…

          Regardless of a nation “evolving” the law is the law is the law…and the Constitution is Supreme Law and when the 2nd Amendment says “…shall not be infringed.” it means exactly what it says, regardless of how a nation “evolves”…get an education, then come back…until then, continue being a sheep and go follow your master, they already have you in their flock…

      • Everyone, particularly those becoming angry with respect to the logic of others. I am in the Army…have been for 12 years. I am former Infantry, have a deployment to Afghanistan, and am now in training to become a behavioral health officer for the Army. I am a skeptic and I am a cynic. I’m not naive…and I don’t place a lot of faith in humanity (which is based on observations throughout life). I assume the average person is a naive, immoral, unintelligent being until proven otherwise. Benefit of the doubt is rarely given from the get-go, nor will it ever be. Regarding comments about LE professionals…not teachers or vets…to carry weapons within schools (regardless of the fact that LE officers never walk around carrying assault rifles to begin with, unless a special situation calls for it), let me reflect upon a past observation. I once saw a police officer in uniform carrying his firearm during a community event, full of children and families. This LE “professional” looked as if a run up one flight of stairs may send him into complete cardiac failure – if you catch my meaning. He could be as accurate and conscientious a marksman there has ever been, but that does not mean that he could properly and athletically manuever himself to protect citizens and return fire upon an armed disturbed assailant. My thought was, “Damn, I hope I don’t have to rely on this clown to protect my family and these people if something were to happen…these people would be better off if I had a weapon…period.” But, that is not to say an assault rifle would even be involved. Point? LE “professionals” are not the end-all, be-all when it comes to trained tactical shooters with warrior mentality. Hell, more than half of them probably walk around thinking, “Man, I hope I never have to shoot someone.” when they should walk around saying, “When it comes time, I know for a fact I will use my firearm to defend the people whom I’ve solemnly sworn to defend…I am ready!” That is just my opinion as a true warrior…LE professionals and even military folks alike, are not always all they’re cracked up to be.
        Now, regarding “debates” of political nature. I hate politics. I vastly enjoy and embrace common sense…which of course is not so common. In studying psychology for many years I’ve come to realize what I believe is a fundamental pillar with respect to understanding of the psychological, social, and behavioral dysfunction among humanity. That being: It is human nature to rationalize and justify our beliefs, values, thoughts. Because of this, people will argue until they are blue in the face, despite intellect, despite common sense, despite evidence or factual information or direct observation. Our human capacity to believe something is “right” or “correct” or even just an “opinion” through the use of justification and rationalization (often full of logical fallacies, unbeknownst to the individual) is the single-most disturbing quality at the foundation of most problems existing within society. This power can heal, but it can certainly harm. Hell, it even gets to the point where things like wars happen over it…when the onion is peeled back and the core of the true matter is exposed. Once somone latches onto a belief or opinion…they are resistant to change and persuasion (often). This leads to arguing and disagreement and debate. The sad part is that most of us are oblivious to this fact…and simply think we are right and others are wrong…it is just funny and makes me laugh when people think they “know”. Wise men are those who admit they know nothing. I think Socrates said that.

    • Considering that you call magazines ‘clips’, how can I take ANYTHING you put there seriously? If you can’t get that simple detail correct, the rest is suspect. And yes, it is a VERY important distinction. You missed it, which means you have little to any knowledge of firearms, and are not to be trusted. Period.

      You, sir, are a fool.

    • If you feel that law enforcement needs an AR15 why don’t I? Do I live in the community they are protecting? Do I not have the same right to protect myself they do? With something in the neighborhood of 25 million AR15 on the market today and crime falling every year I don’t see your point. The second amendment is not about hunting it is about the right to bare arms as a protection….isn’t that what we are talking about? Making wild accusations about the performance of someones erectile tissue has no bearing on the right to protect yourself and family from ANY threat.

      Your argument about changing clips might be a good time to rush the bad guy is great if he has one gun….how often do they have one gun again?

      If guns scare you maybe you could find a place like Chicago, New York, California or Connecticut that have gun bans galore and you will be safe there as we all know those areas have no violent crime at all.

      No one suggested we were in East Germany or that the boarders could be sealed up. Merely that the states that boarder might do a better job than someone 2000 miles away. The boarder states have more incentive!

      Our government can’t track the guns they gave Mexican drug lords how do you think the ATF will be useful in tracking people that should not buy guns? It is already illegal for them to buy!

    • AF? is that Air Force? So…you believe that the evil assault rifle is the enemy and with it’s demise we will live in a crime free Utopia? Obviously you didn’t read the article. The AR-15 may look like it’s more powerful fully automatic family member, but it’s not. Should we ban cars that look like they can exceed the 60 MPH speed limit? First of all this is just one step, in the creep towards the ultimate goal, as stated my many politicians on the left, of total confiscation and disarming of the citizenry. I can do as much of more damage with an off the shelf Glock 9mm as this unbalanced individual did with his AR. So why stop there, lets get rid of all handguns also. See where I am going? I know you do since you are part of the assault on the 2nd ammendment. So, my recommendation to you is that you pull your face out of your life partners lap, wipe the liberal koolaid off your lips and let the oxygen hit your brain. Pretty sure that your response identifies you as someone who was never in the military. If you were I am sure that you were probably discharged for being a butt licking homosexual : ) have a nice day!

      • Kevin–
        Your reply was right on, up until you began to make a personal attack on what may or may not be the lifestyle choices of the original poster, ex-AF. Please use logic and reason, and leave the emotional outbursts and name-calling to others, your arguments are stronger.

        Ex-AF–
        Yes, I may (or may not) have a limp dick, but why is it your decision, and not mine, why I should own and practice with an AK-47? It is a semi-automatic, with standard capacity magazines that hold 30 rounds. It also has available sub-standard capacity magazines that hold 10 rounds. I prefer them when shooting prone.

    • I am ex AF also and the only problem I have with the letter is this statement (and I am surprised that out of 1100 Green Berets nobody pointed it out): “If there is a staggering legal precedent to protect our 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms and if stricter gun control laws are not likely to reduce gun related crime, why are we having this debate? Other than making us and our elected representatives feel better because we think that we are doing something to protect our children, these actions will have no effect and will only provide us with a false sense of security.” I must sternly point out that if the traitorous attempt to destroy the 2nd amenment were to succeed then the worst effect imaginable would then happen – every one of our rights would eventually dissapear and the free world would fall. But only after millions of innocents were murdered by the very people who foolisly think gun control saves lives. Let us stop the foolishness! We need to vote each and every one of these traitors out of office if we can’t arrest them and prosecute them. What happened to logic and reason in this world!?

    • you would think from someone who knew so much about guns you would keep to the technical terms and know that no gun has a clip. I agree our country has a problem, people like you who I agree probably should exercise their right NOT to own a gun if they feel so intimidated by them. Thank God for our Soldiers who fought for my rights and freedoms that allow me a responsible citizen to defend myself. To them I am forever great full and have the upmost respect..

    • mind = BLOWN!!! I cant believe the ignorance of people. You are obviously a granola munching hippie and to think you should even comment on a letter signed by 1100 of some of the baddest men walking this Earth is astonishing. The facts are right in front of you. If you knew anything of the weapon system your so quick to throw into damnation, you’d realize the AR-15 isn’t the problem. I’m glad all your “assault weapons testing” proved to turn you into such a subject matter expert. Guns don’t kill people, people kill people! That’s a scientific fact and you just can’t argue with science!

      Sincerely,
      Someone smarter than you!

    • You, Sir are a complete idiot. People like you are what’s wrong with this Country. You have your choice not to own a AR15 for defense against the criminal element. But, when that element threatens you and your family, we that have defense weapons will save your sorry ass, because that’s what good people do.

    • You might want to check your facts on Newtown. There were no assualt rifles of any sort used. There was one there but it was left in the car. He used 4 pistols.
      Your high capacity mag comment is also misguided. Anyone with any sort of training can replace a clip within seconds and most firearms keep the bolt back so that once you place a new clip in, you just release the bolt forward and you are ready to go….this makes the process very fast. And again with both examples (newtown and aroura) the clip size would not have “allowed him to get taken down”, with gun bans there was no one there with the ability to take them down. Had someone been legally allowed to carry a weapon, these tragedies could have been much less in severity.

      • Agreed… I can change out 20 and 10 round magazines in my Sig 716 in under 2 seconds. Stripper clip fed weapons, when the bolt locks back, in under 3 (10 rounds). And furthermore, any idiot that paid attention to this debacle in Newtown, knows that the shooter used multiple hand guns… unload one, use the other to keep heads down. In the use of our field craft, we use side arms as a back up in CQB environments… when the primary system is down, switch to the back up, and maybe even a tertiary, shotgun. None of the arguments for Firearms restrictions, hold water, and everyone is dancing around the real issue of the Second Amendment. The firearm owners, because they have been brainwashed to thinking that being associated with the word Militia, is evil… politicians, because they don’t want to bring to light the fact that they know they are puching this nation not only over the fiscal cliff, but also over the cliff of tyranny.

    • The uniform is disgraced? No… moreover, only when Service members, LE and political figures fail to uphold the constitution in its entirety, and fail to live by their oath, is it a disgrace.

      I applaud these Fellow Soldiers for having the fortitude for standing up and telling it like it is. Many of us in the community have signed similar letters, and will fulfill our oaths. And it is shameful that our society has allowed itself to become brainwashed into thinking that observing their rights, and possibly having to protect those very rights, is somehow unacceptable.

      Like the drug problem, our nation has a history of repeating bad practice when addressing the issues. We feel that mass punishment will somehow rid society of root problems, yet we invariably see that our approaches are negligent in solving violence and deviant behavior.

      Some tout the idea that removing a tool or object from society will somehow remove the damage they can cause; however, the fact remains that man has an innate nature to protect himself, and will always find a means to do so. Equally, there are those in society who do not possess the ability or the will to distinguish between good and evil, and for this reason, they fail to conform to laws supposedly designed to prevent them from carrying out cruel acts.

      I am just a 17year, Combat Veteran and security professional, having worked overseas for 12 years; I am only college educated; I am only a father; I am only a patriot who understands and has studied our nations history and that of other nations which fail at their attempts to control the masses, so what do I know?

      We allowed the Government to make one of the greatest mistakes on our Second Amendment right, in the mid 90’s, which did nothing to combat violence, and did, in fact, create a gap between law abiding firearm owners and criminals, allowing the crime rates to jump. We have learned from that mistake. I believe it is the left that has been spouting phrases like lunacy is commiting the same efforts and expecting different results. So why is it that they continue to do so with something that is understood as fundamentally intangible to them?

      Knee jerk reactive political agendas only present one possible outcome, and that is the attempt to gain a foothold on controlling the masses. As has been said time and again, An honest and just government has nothing to fear from an armed populace; yet an unarmed populace has everything to fear from their government. If you so choose, to remain unarmed, and to simply present yourself as a victim in wait, that is your right as well. As for those of us who take our oath to “defend and uphold the Constitution of the United States of America, from all enemies, foreign and domestic, and to bear true faith and allegiance to the same…” This We’ll Defend…

      We appeal to the good nature of a trustworthy government, to make the right decision by the limitations placed upon them by the Founders of this nation; understanding that Government should be checked in order to keep the balance. We will continue to hold loyal to those in government who hold to these same principles, and who stand vigilant watch over our rights and the sovereignty of our nation. But as Service Members should understand, we have the right and the duty to question and to bring to light, all unlawful orders presented to us. This duty is paramount to the Military of a free nation, in that it ensures that service members are inclined to protecting the life, liberty and pursuit of happiness of those they serve. To unbalance the table would be detrimental to our nation. So in that the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, and insomuch as, No one is bound to obey, no establishment bound to enforce and no courts bound to uphold an Unconstitutional law… we faithfully decline to observe any restrictions placed upon us, as free men and women.

      Now to touch on your statement that “Assault Weapons” are weapons of war, this is true to a point; however, as stated before, the people are the Militia, and the Militia (civilians who may be called upon in times of invasion or tyranny) must be practiced in the use of those arms. With that being said, there already exists a slight imbalance of power in that true “Assault Weapons” are already heavily restricted from being available to the common man. Only criminals are capable of attaining these weapons through means other than the very lengthy process of registration and taxation, for procuring such items. I would go even further as to say that a weapon which holds the appearance of true “Assault Weapons”, has a plethora of reasons which a civilian may utilize them for. Not only for repelling invasion or tyranny, but also for hunting and personal protection. Many of these “styles” of weapons are based in calibers which are exactly the same for bolt action, breach loading and other forms of semi automatic weapons. This being said, a .223 or 5.56mm round from a bolt action rifle or other semi-automatic weapon, is just as destructive as one fired from an “AR” styled weapon. And I would continue to go so far as to say that, if you believe all the hype behind the shooting of former President Kennedy, a person trained in the use of a bold action or other style weapon, can accurately discharge a heavy volume of fire from these other styles as well.

      The root cause of the tragedy being exploited for the furtherance of disarming our nation’s people, as stated very eloquently in the letter we are all addressing, is not firearms; it is society. To continue to fail to address this issue, stems from that society becoming increasingly complacent… as as Soldiers, Marines, Airmen and Sailors who have served in the Global War on Terror, we all should know that complacency kills. We have a responsibility as parents, but more and more, we see that American parents are ill prepared to take charge of reprimanding their children and teaching them consequences for their actions. We have a problem with a complacent and inadequate education system; again a problem created by complacent parents who are disengaged with their children’s learning environment. And we allow our schools and local governments to treat our children like laboratory mice, inundating them with medications each time a teacher is unable to deal with an unruly or disruptive student. We have allowed these “knee-jerk” and inadequate reactions to become our MO for dealing with issues that we as parents and Americans seem unwilling to deal with on our own. And moreover, we have sacrificed our values as a society. Not all of us, but a majority. Each of us has a responsibility to our children, not to be their “bestest buddie”, but to be a best friend, by teaching them right from wrong and enforcing the standard.

      As service members, we should all be ashamed that we have not spoken out in this manner, sooner. We fight wars on foreign shores, to protect our nation’s interests but are we truly defending freedom? If those freedoms are usurped and destroyed, while we are away from our homes, then the answer is NO. That responsibility falls upon Americans as a whole; and for this reason, the Second Amendment remains paramount to our free nation, in its entirety… no exceptions. Having lost brothers and sisters in Combat, having sacrificed a normal life for one of service, we should, more than anyone else, understand that more than civilians. And to allow our rights to be violated is a testament to the injustice being done to the memory of every service member that has made the ultimate sacrifice.

      The time to stand up and be heard is now, while it may still be done peaceably. The alternative is unacceptable, however necessary it may become. As our nation and the world continue to move towards economic chaos, it is ever necessary for Americans to remain resolute to our values which have become the beacon of hope for so many throughout the world, and to ensure that these freedoms are never lost.

      No sir, our “AR’s” and other “Semi Automatic” firearms are quite fine where they are, and will remain. With that, I say to you and any who feel so inclined… Molon Labe!

      “in pace, ut sapiens, aptarit idonea bello”

      DirtDiver1776
      11B40 Deployed, Afghanistan

      • These are great letters full of information about our rights as Americans. I am a 61 year old grandmother and I am very concerned when I see what is happening in this country. I do believe we are under attack by small increments everyday.
        We have people in this govt. committing treason and stealing from the American people. They have lied to Congress and let 4 Americans die. Where are the survivors? NDAA may be at work already in our country, keeping these people imprisoned to keep them quiet. Our rights are being trampled and our Constitution shredded by these thugs everyday. We need some brave patriots to stand up and put a stop to this before we loose this great country. Thank you ALL for your service and love for this country. God Bless ALL OF YOU and AMERICA. I do not speak alone, so many people are very angry and worried about America’s Future for our families.

        • DirtDiver. Agree with your post, except you don’t place enough blame on the Liberal left, for the destruction of the last 2 generations, which aren’t up to the useful idiots categroy.
          I’m old enough to well remember, when all the “No Touch”, “Time Out” child rasing began, producing hordes of ill tempered, self absorbed brats. Those brats, then birthed more of the same brat children, who we now are suffering with, as the “Electronics Kids”, who are disconnected, lacking social skills, and obsessed with Games, some of which are beyond simply violent.
          Along the way, ADD became an epidemic, and kids were drugged, when many could have been cured with proper discipilne, something they never received at home. Their parents weren’t disciplined, so didn’t know how to prooperly parent their children.
          There is the problem, the children, NOT the guns.

          Education is a practice of dumming down our children, and destroying tradition, that made America great.

          I repeated what you said, in different words, maybe a second version will convince people, society made the kids a problem.

    • “No foreign nationals should be able to buy in the US.”

      As a Foreign National (British) who has lived in the US since the age of three and has served in the U.S. Army, I take offense. I’ve probably had more background checks than you and have had CCW’s in two different states. I’m fully vetted and capable.

    • And futhremore, Mr. AF, if you knew your history of the SF… from the time of its inception, it was common place, if not mandatory that they all be versedin the Constitution and princiles behind the Declaration of Independence. “De Opresso Liber” was not just a slogan, it is a principle. The very premise of the SF community was to instill patriotism in local populaces, educate them to becoming independent fighters and provide them with the knowledge to becom formidable and effective gurrilla forces, fighting against tyranny. How do I know? I’m was not just a supporter, I am a member of the OPS community.

      A mind is a terrible thing to waste, my friend, but if so inclined, the administration will think for you… just stay where you are.

    • Not that whether it is for hunting (or sport, or collecting, or defense or anything else) is in any way factually relevant to the issue, but…

      You said that the 5.56 is not used for hunting, but that it was designed for killing. Do you actually know what hunting is?

    • “There is no need for an AR-15 in civilian hands. LE yes. Military, yes. The bullets are not designed for hunting. They are designed to maim and kill. Low mass, high velocity.” ….. Sir, you are correct, the bullets the military uses are not designed for hunting (and illegal in most/many states), yet there are many bullets available for hunting in the 5.56 caliber…very suitable for hunting whitetail deer and other small game. With the low kick/recoil, the AR is an excellent rifle to introduce children to hunting and shooting, with proper supervision and training. Many kids have shot their first deer with an AR.

      “The border is not defensible. Nor can it be sealed. We’re the US, we’re not East Germany. For those that weren’t old enough to live in the Cold War, even those borders were not impenetrable. Quit watching the Rambo movies about Arabs coming across the border. They fly in, and they’re smart enough to get visas.” ….. Illegal border crossings can be reduced. Drugs and illegal immigrants cross the southern border on a regular basis. Al Queada has trained the Mexican drug cartels and have used the smuggling routes to cross into our country. Given time and opportunity, these terrorists will once again taken American lives on US soil.

      I encourage you to research the “intent” of the 2nd Amendment, not just the written words.

    • Um, yeah, you lost any credibility on the subject when you called magazines clips. Furthermore, you lost any remaining credit when you stated you felt the government and LEO were somehow more responsible with AR rifles. First off, they are armed with true assault rifles. Ones with select fire capability. The civilian AR are semi automatic. As for the Aurora shooting being stopped had James needed to swap “clips” how do you see tat going down? You think someone who’s hiding behind a seat or fleeing is going to notice a brief pause in gunfire inside the dark smoky theater, and suddenly think, “Hey, he’s changing ‘clips’ let me rush him!” Hell no. Remember, it was a gun free zone, so it’s not like anybody could pull their own weapon and shoot him during his “clip” change. You need to wake up to reality. And for the record, since it appears you are confused, it’s called the bill of rights, not the bill of needs. And you should do your research too, the AR is a commonly used hunting rifle.

    • Hey JackA$$!!! You obviously dont know anything about assault rifles NOR did you pay attention to the article, the AR-15 IS NOT AN ASSAULT RIFLE!!! It is no different than any other SEMI-AUTOMATIC weapon. Would you like for me to define semi-auto and assault rifle for you??? Two completely different definitions!

    • Sir,
      The great thing about the 2nd Amendment is you don’t get to decide for anyone else what weapon is acceptable for them or not. There is this misconception that the 2nd Amendment was written for hunting and collecting, it is not. It is meant for defense against a tyrannical government. I would say the current administration deciding when he will uphold the constitution and when he wont fits that description. The country has had firearms in huge quantities since after World War 2 but there weren’t mass killings then. No the weapons aren’t the problem. No matter how disappointed you are in other people and who you tell to grow up, they will never be the problem. Society has changed from then to now and it seems that the issue is mental illness. Put your efforts there and you will be successful. Don’t for one second think US Citizens covered by the Constitution are just going to hand over firearms that you or any other individual deem unnecessary. It’s not your place and You Sir, are the disgrace to the uniform. You don’t get to decide when you uphold the oath (you said you served so that means you took the oath) and when you decide I know neither myself nor my battle buddies ( US Army) would dare break the oath we took to “…support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic”. In closing I will say, Thank you for your service and start getting comfortable with the idea of AR15’s and other weaponry in the hands of this country’s citizens or you are in for a long road of disappointment.

    • You have so very many holes in your logic they can’t be addressed by the available space. In my time in the AF, I never met someone as dumb and opinionated as you.

    • You, sir, just don’t get it. The weapons you tested in the Air Force will never make it to civilian hands. The weapons you tested are full automatic. Full automatic weapons are banned already, for civilians. If you get one, you have to jump through many, heavy-handed hoops, that it’s just not worth it, and understandably so. Semi-automatic weapons are the weapons that civilians are allowed to have. AK-47s are automatic weapons, and it’s not law-abiding citizens who have them, but illegal held by criminals.

      You state that you’re vulnerable to be taken down while changing clips. IF law-abiding citizens who had concealed carry permits were in these “gun-free zones”, when the shootings in Aurora and Newtown had happened, maybe one of them would have been able to take out the perpetrator while he was changing “clips” (since they are really “magazines”). It goes both ways. The ability for law-abiding citizens to defend themselves, ANYWHERE, is what the point is.

      You state that law enforcement trained professionals should be in schools, not a veteran, not a teacher trained in the proper use of firearms. Why not? Are you such an expert, being a veteran, that you can state that you’re not qualified for the job, but law enforcement is? Sheesh, even NYPD cops are not well-trained in the use of firearms, so they’re good for coverage? In Israel, school teachers are trained in how to use true automatic weapons, and they carry them with them anytime they are with the children in their charge. Guess what… this was instituted after the first school shooting by terrorists in 1973… they have never had another school schooting since then… now 40 years. So, that argument of yours goes out the window.

      • AK-47s are automatic weapons, and it’s not law-abiding citizens who have them, but illegal held by criminals. This is an incorrect statement. AK-47’s can be full auto or semi-auto. AKM’s can be full auto or semi auto, AK74’s can be full auto or semi auto. I know its a small point but inaccuracies like that are why we are having some of the issues we are having now. I own an AKM (stamped receiver version of the AK-47 [milled]) I am not a criminal, I am an Army Veteran and law abiding citizen. Please do not make sweeping generalizations, they are often wrong.

    • Just what you’d expect from an EX Airforce person who wouldn’t even know which end of a weapon was deadly. Why don’t you leave the credible comments to the people who handle weapons daily and are highly professional.

    • You obviously don’t have a clue as to the 2nd Amendment’s true meaning…few use the 5.56x45mm NATO, but instead use the .223, which is less powerful, cheaper and easier to obtain, lower velocity than the 5.56, and IS suited for hunting small game, and CAN bring down a deer if the shooter is good enough and close enough…Many hunting rifles are more powerful than an AR15 with the .223…

      The 2nd Amendment has ZERO to do with hunting or sport shooting…think about it, did the founders need to provide a safeguard against losing their hunting rifles? No, they didn’t as at that time, if you didn’t hunt, you didn’t eat…the 2nd Amendment is for self defense of person, home, family, neighbors and strangers, and the nation…against anyone that desires to do harm; i.e. criminals and mentally unstable, against invasion, against government tyranny, and more….and if you think the Fed can’t become tyrannical, I suggest you do some history lessons about Democracies and their downfalls, it can happen here, even if not now, it could still happen in 10, 20, 50 or 100 years…and understand also, the US was never intended to be a Democracy either, but it has become one, instead it was created as a Republic…

      I can see why you are former AF, if your knowledge and mindset was then what it is now…You have an ignorance about history, military history, national history, that you really should consider fixing…

      “Assault weapon” was created around 1989 by the media and politicians, it wasn’t part of the weapons lexicon before that…purely political in nature…

      Also note that both ICE and DHS call the AR15/M16/M4 style rifle, with the full auto option, a select fire weapon, a “Personal Defense Weapon” .. that can be found in their bid for weapons of this type…

      As I see it, YOU are the disgrace to the uniform at this point in time…grow some, get an education, and then maybe you might see the real world around you…VERY few deaths are caused by use of an AR style weapon, less than 1%, in fact, according to some stats, less than 0.012% in 2011…

      BTW, if it even matters, I am an Army veteran and I still live by the oath I swore when I enlisted….limiting even the type of weapon a person may be comfortable using, limiting a weapon that is legally made, IS an infringement on the 2nd Amendment…look up the word infringe so you will understand that “…shall not be infringed.” means…

    • No reason for civilians to have ar-15’s and what world do you live in? Ever heard of a militia? Riots, looters, flash mobs, Multiple home invaders and my personal favorite because its none of the governments business what i own. If a robber has a handgun i want a rifle that has multiple preferably 20 or more rounds in the magazine. Why because the perp has a handgun with 14 or more rounds in the magazine and if hes dropping in and out of cover then im definitely going to need more rounds than him. The only reason i dont carry an ar-15 is because its not practical for everyday carry but home defense? You cant ask for a more appropriate firearm. And for common defense of the community you would be a fool not to have one and a lot of friends with them as well. And as many 30-round mags that you can stuff into load bearing equipment. (i.e hurricane sandy communities pulled together in common defense with whatever rifle and firearm they had and what was the most common one used? Ar-15’s. Not to mention the old worn-out koreans during the la riots example). So your reasoning to take them is because your scared somebody with one might confront you one day at your home. And my reasoning is the same for wanting one. Its not your right to push a ban and strip people of there rights because your scared. And don’t bring up mass shootings because the reason they become “mass shootings” is because it was a gun free zone were the perpetrator had complete control and went around executing people. People were stripped of there rights and died because of it. The blood is on Gun-control advocates who took there rights out of emotional paranoia. And got those people killed because of their hysteria

    • Let me give you a little history correction…

      “The AR-15 was designed by Armalite and morphed into the M-16 and M-4 when the USG bought them.”

      The AR-15 was first built by ArmaLite as a selective fire rifle for the United States armed forces. Because of financial problems, ArmaLite sold the AR-15 design to Colt. The select-fire AR-15 entered the US military system as the M-16 rifle. Colt then marketed the Colt AR-15 as a semi-automatic version of the M-16 rifle for civilian sales in 1963.

      There was no “morphing,” simply a specific design for contract to the armed services. You left out a lot of the path of the AR-15 and M-16 life.

      There is a bit more to the history of AR-15, which was originally AR-10 in the 1950’s and was submitted into the design competition for the next generation military rifle. It lost in the AR-10 form to what became the M14. This was also in the original NATO standard of 7.62x51mm. the AR-10, after losing, was redesigned, as the Army had continued interest. Those changes including chambering the smaller .223 Remington. The AR-15 came to being in 1958. It was after this that Colt bought the AR-10 and AR-15 designs. The civilian version at that time it was released to the civilian population was called the “Colt AR-15″…..

      I won’t critique any more of what you wrote but that stood out…

      What else have you left out or just given a tidbit about and then created your own ideas around? Such lack of integrity in this little bit of information really makes one wonder just what else are you willing to leave out and twist…..

      Skimming over your words, again, you have no idea about reality it would seem…seriously, wake up, do your homework, including serious history research, then come back and comment…….

      And you had better go back and read those 4 little words at the end of the 2nd Amendment, “…shall not be infringed.” and then go look up the definition of infringe. You’ll find that, by definition, ANY limitation, even a limitation of type of weapon, IS an infringement, size of magazine IS an infringement…and I could go on, but I’d rather see if you got the mind to figure it out on your own…

      I am a proud veteran, I took an oath, and until my dying day I will honor and live by that oath, even if it means fighting against my own government, God help me…The government is NOT the Constitution, they are simply people, human beings, with agendas and ideas all their own, and most do not follow the Constitution, most haven’t any idea what the Constitution actually says, other than what they are told by OTHER people that have no idea themselves…..

  7. than your for your service my family has a strong military tradition and as a student of history i am in complete agreement i hope we will not need you in the future.. we cant lose this fight like they did in england and australia. thnk you gentle men and remember ALL that evil has to do to succeed is for a few good men to do nothing!

  8. Gun deaths per 100,000 population (for the year indicated):
    Homicide Suicide Other (inc Accident)

    USA (2001) 3.98 5.92 0.36
    Australia (2001) 0.24 1.34 0.10
    England/Wales (2002) 0.15 0.2 0.03
    Scotland (2002) 0.06 0.2 0.02

    • You also forgot to mention that most of those per 100,000 come from places in this country with strict gun control (chicago come to mind?). Many places in the U.S. that aren’t doing all this gun control nonsense have an even lower per capita incident rate than any country that has banned firearms. Also, included in U.S. firearm homicides is justifiable homicides where a good person with a gun stopped a bad person with a gun. So many parts of the story your numbers leave out, just like the ‘facts’ the mainstream media touts while leaving the rest of the facts out.

      • Also, where’s your stats for other countries non-firearm homicides and such? As has already been proven here, make it harder for criminals to use certain tools, they’ll find other tools for their evil.

    • We should observe that the countries mentioned (other than the United States) Have total gun bans now and since have seen the rise of violent crime including crimes with the use of guns. Thank You , Have a nice day

    • So… why don’t you all just get on a plane and move to one of the above countries?

      See, for a law abiding gun owner, there aren’t exactly many places for me to go…

      We use an AR-15 to keep the coyotes in check on our farm. Not a single better firearm equipped for the job (those “scary” flashlights are kind of handy in the middle of the night).

    • Cite your sources and state all relevant data (types of firearms, nature of incident, perpetrator characteristics, etc.) if you’re going to make claims. Not only does it add weight to your argument, it indicates where a reader might find further relevant information as well as that you, the writer, actually researched the information.

    • In Australia, England and Scotland they have plenty of murders… since they don’t have any guns, they kill with knives, fists, feet, clubs… violent crime rates are also very high… notice you omitted that as well as the overall murder rate. Gun death rates for countries that have banned guns should be zero shouldn’t they… but they aren’t are they? Figures never lie, but liars can figure…

  9. The whole point is that anything tieing to or related to our bill of rights shouldn’t be restricted by the government. There are already 300+ federal laws on the books that didn’t hinder any of these shootings,”Colubine,Aurora, Newtown) so why put more on the books that only keep law abiding people from owning guns? The antigun mindset is seriously flawed and perverted. And contrary to what some might think, if the 2nd Amenment is garnered of seriously disabled, it puts our other rights in serious jeopardy! If this isn’t such a big deal, why are the Chinese backing so fervernently? Before you start chanting gun control, just remember who would most benefit from the average person not owning one? Any infringement on ANY of our liberties is a slippery slope. Are you willing to turn over your life to a bunch of beauracrats that have, as a majority, sold our nations natural resources to, to say the least, unfriendly outsiders. If history is ignored, it will contiue to repeat itself. The reason the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor and not our mainland was simply because WE THE PEOPLE were armed. The Japanese even said this. They termed it as” a rifle behind every blade of grass”.Something my grandpa once said, and I believe him, was,”Laws are like locks, they only keep honest men out.” This is just food for thought.

  10. Extremely well written letter. I have shared this on every outlet of communication I have. Keep up the good work and thank you for your service.

  11. Wow….ex AF in Indiana obviously has never read the constitution they swore to defend. It has nothing to do with hunting. I am ashamed to admit I am in the same state as this seriously misinformed person. ANY restriction on gun ownership of any kind is “infringement” of our Second Amendment rights. Like most liberals they have resorted to name calling and rants to express their OPINION rather than a reasonable argument. Thank you all for your service and keep up the good work. We are going to need your level thinking in the coming days.

  12. I would love a PDF copy of this letter. I have already hit the “like” and “share”. Very well written. Thank you. I follow and share tons of pic’s and thoughts that comes across the MARS Special Operations Group.

    • Really?
      Cite your sources,
      and, if true, So What? The arguments are still sound. I, for one, don’t find the NRA and “gun industry” to be scary boogeymen

  13. I agree with all of this but it will do little good because the people who are against our 2nd amendment rights won’t read it and have already made up their minds. I wish there was a campaign to get this kind of information out to the public who would otherwise never read a military blog or other pro-American rights blog. I can only hope they can be reasoned with before it’s to late.

  14. The United Kingdom has one of the lowest rates of gun homicides in the world with 0.07 recorded intentional homicides committed with a firearm per 100,000 inhabitants in 2009 compared to the United States’ 3.0 (over 40 times higher) and to Germany’s 0.21 (3 times higher).- United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime: Homicides by firearm statistics 2011. Throwing out a few exceptional examples is a deceptive way to make an argument.

    • And yet you are doing it too. Yes, the UK has much less gun murder. This is true. But you are leaving out the rest of the stats. If you look at the violent crime stats for the FBI and Home Office (UK’s version of our FBI page), the UK has DOUBLE our violent crime rate. We sit at about 730 violent crimes per 100k people. While the wonderfully gun-free UK has a violent crime rate of over 1600 per 100k people. And this is also taking into account that the UK still has not classified HOME INVASION as a violent crime. Which, by the way, is their most quickly rising type of crime. I’m OK with people having a differing opinion, just please be informed when they do so.

      • Apples and oranges comparison, if you dig into the stats, the Home Office’s definition of violent crime is much broader than the FBI’s definition and includes things like hate speech and verbal threats as violent crime.

  15. Pingback: A Letter From The Special Forces Community Concerning The Second Amendment

  16. My main critique of your argument is that you cite some aspects of social psychology but ignore the aspects that contradict your argument. Consider this:
    Research shows that guns are “aggressive cues,” meaning that the mere sight of them increases aggressive behavior. (Berkowitz & LePage, 1967; Doob & Gross, 1968; Leyens & Parke, 1975; Turner et al., 1977)
    If all this research is true, then the removal of guns should decrease overall aggression. This was the case in 1972 when Jamaica banned civilian’s from owning firearms. In just one year after the ban, homicide was reduced by 14%, rape decreased by 32%, robberies decreased by 25%, and non-fatal shootings decreased by 37%. (Diener & Crandall, 1979).
    If you notice the dates on all of this evidence, you will realize that this is not new knowledge. In fact, The American Psychological Association passed a resolution in 1982 reading:
    “WHEREAS the American Psychological Association deplores the increase in violence in the United States; and
    WHEREAS the ready availability of handguns contributes to this problem; and
    WHEREAS the psychological research on factors that contribute to human aggression indicates that exposure to guns can result in an increased likelihood of aggression;
    RESOLVED, that the American Psychological Association affirm the need for legislation at every social level (local, state, and federal) controlling the availability of handguns” (APA, 1982).
    Maybe if people listened psychologists a long time ago, our country might not be such a violent place.

    • What an argument?? Hell I get “aggressive cues,” (meaning that the mere sight of them increases aggressive behavior) from Beer, Women, Fast Cars, Motorcycles, Sports and the list goes on. Lets just ban everything in life than gives me a Woody!! you FOOLS!

    • Since 1990, the number of guns in civilian hands have doubled and lawful concealed carry is allowed in 47 states, but violent crime rates, including homicides, have fallen. Exactly the opposite of what you and the APA argue. Thank God we didn’t listen to the psychologists then, as this could be a much more violent place.

    • It’s clear you stand against gun-ownership, because you completely imply that. Anything otherwise would sound like lip-service in support of the 2nd Amendment or direct backpedalling.
      Your points are well backed with a supporting argument, a valid argument. Doesn’t make your argument a scientific law.
      We do have control on availability, but if you mean the control by removal of availability as control, you’re wrong buddy. You’re dreaming.
      Pre-disposition is no guarantee of predetermination; just because I have a gun doesn’t mean I’m going to kill myself or anyone else.
      Just because you can support your argument that I could or would via statistic, doesn’t mean I will. Forcing that idea is projecting your fears on me.
      Psychology is a science that’s ever changing, if you study what happened in the 60s or the sources you referenced from 70s and 80s, you’d notice that Psychology didn’t account for the social stigma of guys who killed for country/self-defense in Vietnam, and returned only for Psychiatrists/Psychologists mindf**king them to admit they were monsters created by society.
      Psychology is still a pop science in that it’s changed with the times as well, a lot of people were calling homosexuality a condition, not genetic because they had a bias to prove not disprove.
      You’re a byproduct of classic conditioning that a gun means pointless death. If that’s your point, it’s not a stretch to assume you think gun-owners are naturally blood-thirsty or lean towards an excuse to kill in “self-defense”

      It’s amazing that people can point out countries, specifically isolated island nations that have lowered crimes, but completely credit it to the ban of firearms. So I’m guessing advances in educating people to know better, numbers in law enforcement, quality in law enforcement, economic times (It’s been proven that a class of person, in poverty or wealth doesn’t determine a criminal, but it’s been shown that a bad economy correlates to current acting criminals to act out more)

      You may even have a PHD in psychology or psychiatry. You may even own guns, but think that offering AR-15s as a sacrificial lamb on the alter to the Brady Campaigners is sensible. If that’s the case I’d ask where’s the gun-control crowd’s stopping point? I could’ve sworn they openly admit to the removal of private gun-ownership.

      We’ve seen so many victims used and swayed emotionally on anti-gun in interviews, but victims and survivors who are pro-gun are ignored and dismissively called brainwashed.

      -You’re missing the point in believing that citizens should be likened to children and government (military & law enforcement included) the authoritarian parent, never to be trusted until proven mature. If that’s the case, you can agree that a parent is always hard-pressed to even acknowledge their child’s maturity or adulthood.

      What makes you think a Big Brother style of state would ever give back the people a real play in decision-making.

      Circumventing the Constitution is a Pandora’s box, and that’s what this is. People challenge the 2nd Amendment as an outdated ideal in modern society.
      If that’s the basis, why haven’t these Anti-Gun lobbyists like Feinstein instead directed their energy on promoting repealing the 2nd Amendment like we did to Prohibition of Alcohol?
      With the money, sweeping emotional support through the media (calling guns the root of these evils basically), why have the Bloomberg types pushed bills as a low-blow?

      I’d like to actually hear your answer to my questions, rather than cop-out and call my statement simple self-proving rhetoric, because I could say the same of yours regardless of old sources of quotes.

  17. Very well written. My fear would be if we were to lose the 2nd amendment what’s to stop them from going after other amendments in whole or part. My sincerest thank you to all vets.

  18. I am a veteran, and I am a liberal. However I do not agree with the current actions of our government in relation to our Second Amendment rights. This well written, informative and candid letter has been shared and liked in an effort to get folks to understand the issues currently ongoing. The fact that there is a solution instead of a rant only illustrates the intentional thought and emphasis that went into this letter.

  19. Pingback: Special Forces 2A Letter - M14 Forum

  20. Wow, that was sickening. I’m pretty sure those 20 children in Sandy Hook didn’t care whether or not Army Special Forces considers a civilian AR-15 an assault rifle or not. And by all means, yes, adding 6-8 seconds to the shooter’s re-load process would absolutely help out victims and responders during an active shooter situation.

    I was too frustrated to read beyond the 7th paragraph.

    • The Sandy Hook shooter did not use an “Assault Rifle,” he did not use a rifle at all. Maybe you should be informed before you create judgements.
      If one of those teachers would have had a concealed carry permit, and it was not a “gun free zone,” those children would still be alive.
      I am a civilian with firearms training and a Concealed weapon permit, and I would not hesitate to take down a threat.

      PS, A person with any training at all can pull of a mag swap in under 1.5 seconds.

    • In fact the shooter at Newtown did have to re-load more than once and it did not slow him down at all …. you may ask yourself why …. because nobody on the school grounds possessed a weapon to take him down with … It was a GUN FREE ZONE !!! Go figure

    • Apparently, you missed the part of the initial news of the Newtown, CT shooting that the AR-15 was found in the trunk of the car by law enforcement. Only hand guns were involved. This fact has been buried by the media. The local station reported this, even with video footage of the trooper examining the rifle as it was removed from the trunk.

      And if you can’t read this letter in whole, then you are sheep dependent to a nanny state and care not about your rights as a citizen and the sacrifices of others so that you have those rights.

      • Also, the rifle found in the trunk was not even an AR. Media has no clue how to identify fireams, so they just call handguns “Glocks” and rifles “AR-15’s.”

    • Well if you can’t keep the emotion out long enough to complete the read on a logical argument than what kind of conclusions are we meant to draw about you? Aren’t the liberals supposed to be the smart ones? Aren’t the liberals supposed to be the nonjudgemental ones? This may sound like a personal attack, but all I’m asking for is careful and personal reflection before making a statement.

  21. Never wore a Green Beret but I did wear a Black one back when you had to earn it. I would sign on to this letter in a heartbeat. Well Done Gentlemen.

  22. I am former Army MP I with you all the way. I went to war and other places in the world to help them get the same rights as we have and lost good friend getting them those rights we have. I am at a lost with people willing to give up their rights from Guns to food to news is this USA or not..

  23. But you seem to miss the fact that violence in the United States has been steadily DECREASING for years. And while this decrease in violent crimes (check FBI statistics) was occurring, gun ownership was increasing. How do you explain that?

  24. This letter should be read in our classrooms in middle schools, high schools and universities as a true understanding of the Second Amendment. Well written, as a
    veteran the message rings true to the pride of a veteran. My generation less than 5% served in uniform during Vietnam for my son’s generation less than 0.5% have served in uniform the War on Terrorists for our country – the United States of America. What the public needs to realize even if they didn’t serve, they are responsible to protect the constitution of the United States of America too!

    Please email PDF of the letter for my source of reference information and education of my grandchildren who are too young to understand this issue.

  25. Very well written in a language everyone can understand.I like the information on the gun types,I did not know the difference thank you on that. I have been saying ever sense Sandy hock shooting. We need to do something with the laws that makes sense considering the laws we have are not working. The only thing i can think of is having to go threw a mental exam an pass as someone that is capable of making rational decisions. But then what will that do with the weapons already on the streets? It is so easy to purchase a weapon anywhere. So my question is as a citizen that is very worried about the future of weapons in our country. What is it that we can do that will work? From where i set nothing we have is working so far.

  26. You guys Rock! One of the best written letters that I have seen. What is amazing is that your mention of the possible solutions to the problem is SPOT ON, and is what we have been discussing for weeks since this incident took place back in December. I applaud all of you patriots! Thank you for stating the obvious so eloquently!

  27. This is not the complete list; it was taken from the 45 Communist goals that found their way down the halls of our great Capitol back in 1963.

    Communist Goals (1963) Congressional Record–Appendix, pp. A34-A35 January 10, 1963 Current Communist Goals EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. A. S. HERLONG, JR. OF FLORIDA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, January 10, 1963 .

    3. Develop the illusion that total disarmament [by] the United States would be a demonstration of moral strength.

    15. Capture one or both of the political parties in the United States.

    17. Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers’ associations. Put the party line in textbooks.
     
    26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as “normal, natural, healthy.” 

    (Leviticus 20:13If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.)

    27. Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with “social” religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity, which does not need a “religious crutch.”
    30. Discredit the American Founding Fathers. Present them as selfish aristocrats who had no concern for the “common man.”
    31. Belittle all forms of American culture and discourage the teaching of American history on the ground that it was only a minor part of the “big picture.” Give more emphasis to Russian history since the Communists took over.

    36. Infiltrate and gain control of more unions.
     
    37. Infiltrate and gain control of big business.

    “There exists in this country a plot to enslave every man woman and child. Before I leave this high and noble office, I intend to expose this plot.”-President John F. Kennedy -7 days before he was assassinated.

    Luke 10:18And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven.
    In ancient Hebrew the word for lightning is barack, the word for heaven or the heights is bama and to connect the words either an “a” or an “o” is used.

    “I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.” – Barack Hussein Obama – Audacity of Hope

    2 Thessalonians 2:3 (King James Version)
    3Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

    Political Correctness a term first seen in Mao’s Little Red Book, a communist engendered abomination that is instituting censorship little by little.

    “If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.”- George Washington

    Carl  Marx, once wrote that, the goal of the Communists was to quote,. “enter into men’s minds and cast God down from his throne.”

    Matthew 12:31Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.

     

    In ancient Babylon their economy was based on usury.
    “If you lend money to one of my people among you who is needy, do not be like a moneylender; charge him no interest. Exodus 22:25
    Hath given forth upon usury, and hath taken increase: shall he then live? he shall not live: he hath done all these abominations; he shall surely die; his blood shall be upon him. Ezekiel 18:13
    Usury is unlawful; expressly prohibited by GOD!
     Article 1 Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution clearly states that only the Congress can coin money! 

    The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 was slipped thru congress during the Christmas break with the majority of it’s members absent. 

    The Federal Reserve is self serving and privately owned in violation to the Constitution, charging interest on illegally printed money. Money printed from nothing!
     The name “Federal Reserve” was carefully chosen and designed to deceive Americans into believing they were part of our Government when in fact it is privately owned by international bankers in direct violation to  Article 1 Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution.
    In America On June 4, 1963, a virtually unknown Presidential decree, Executive Order 11110, was signed with the authority to basically strip the Federal Reserve Bank of its power to loan money to the United States Federal Government at interest. With the stroke of a pen, President Kennedy declared that the privately owned Federal Reserve Bank would soon be out of business. Five months later A UNITED STATES PRESIDENT, PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY was MURDERED BY COMMUNIST! 

    Our own US Congress voted themselves a raise. (But vetoed a raise for those on Social Security) A member of Congress only have to be in Congress one time to receive a pension that is more than $15,000 per month. And most are now equal to being millionaires plus.  If some one in the military stays  in for 20 years (providing that they are not killed in combat before that) and gets out as an E-7, they may receive a pension of $2,000 per month, and the very people who placed them in harm’s way receives a pension of $15,000 per month.

    The debt added by the previous 43 U.S. Presidents from 1789 through 2002 combined was
       $6.3 trillion

    The debt added by Obama is
        $6.5 trillion

     “I am for socialism, disarmament, and, ultimately, for abolishing the state itself… I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class, and the sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal.”
    Roger Baldwin, Communist, was born in Wellesley MA and co-founded the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).

    “If you lend money to one of my people among you who is needy, do not be like a moneylender; charge him no interest. Exodus 22:25
    Hath given forth upon usury, and hath taken increase: shall he then live? he shall not live: he hath done all these abominations; he shall surely die; his blood shall be upon him. Ezekiel 18:13
    Usury is unlawful; expressly prohibited by GOD!
     
     
    In ancient Babylon their priest sacrificed babies to their gods baal, and molech.  
    In America the communist under their socialist programs have sacrificed over 50 million American babies to their god satan!

    Jeremiah 32:35 
    And they built the high places of Baal, which are in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire unto Molech; which I commanded them not, neither came it into my mind, that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin.

    Leviticus 20:2-5
    2Again, thou shalt say to the children of Israel , Whosoever he be of the children of Israel , or of the strangers that sojourn in Israel , that giveth any of his seed unto Molech; he shall surely be put to death: the people of the land shall stone him with stones.
    3And I will set my face against that man, and will cut him off from among his people; because he hath given of his seed unto Molech, to defile my sanctuary, and to profane my holy name.
    4And if the people of the land do any ways hide their eyes from the man, when he giveth of his seed unto Molech, and kill him not:
    5Then I will set my face against that man, and against his family, and will cut him off, and all that go a whoring after him, to commit whoredom with Molech, from among their people.
     
    It is difficult for many people to accept the truth that several of our nations top leaders have been members of the occultic Bohemian Grove. George W. Bush is also a member of this occult organization. Since 1873, the Global Elite Has Held Secret Meetings in the Ancient Redwood Forest of Northern California . Members of the so-called “Bohemian Club” Include Former Presidents Eisenhower, Nixon and Reagan. The Bush Family Maintains a Strong Involvement. Each Year at Bohemian Grove, Members of This All-Male “Club” Don Red, Black and Silver Robes and Conduct an Occult Ritual Wherein They Worship a Giant Stone Owl, Sacrificing a Human Being in Effigy to What They Call the “Great Owl of Bohemia.

    “Leviticus 26
    1Ye shall make you no idols nor graven image, neither rear you up a standing image, neither shall ye set up any image of stone in your land, to bow down unto it: for I am the LORD your God.

    Leviticus 19:4
    4Turn ye not unto idols, nor make to yourselves molten gods: I am the LORD your God.
    Leviticus 20:6-8 (King James Version)
    6And the soul that turneth after such as have familiar spirits, and after wizards, to go a whoring after them, I will even set my face against that soul, and will cut him off from among his people.

    Isaiah 5:20
     20Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!

    Luke 22:35-36 Then Jesus asked them, “When I sent you without purse, bag or sandals, did you lack anything?” “Nothing,” they answered. 36 He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.
     
    Acts 5: 29Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.

     “I don’t believe people should be able to own guns.” – Barack Hussein Obama
     
     
    Jeremiah 50:16Cut off the sower from Babylon, and him that handleth the SICKLE in the time of harvest: for fear of the oppressing sword they shall turn every one to his people, and they shall flee every one to his own land.
    Jeremiah 50:23How is the HAMMER OF THE WHOLE EARTH CUT ASUNDER AND BROKEN! how is Babylon become a desolation among the nations!
    BABYLON = the HAMMER and SICKLE!
     
     
    Jeremiah 50:14-15.    14 Put yourselves in array against Babylon round about: all ye that bend the bow, shoot at her, spare no arrows: for she hath sinned against the LORD. 15 Shout against her round about: she hath given her hand: her foundations are fallen , her walls are thrown down : for it is the vengeance of the LORD: take vengeance upon her; as she hath done , do unto her.

    Revelation 18:21 And a mighty angel took up a stone like a great millstone, and cast it into the sea, saying , Thus with violence shall that great city Babylon be thrown down , and shall be found no more at all. 

    – The U.N. Charter was written by Alger Hiss, Molotov and Vishinsky

           — Molotov and Alger Hiss made a secret agreement that the military chief of the U.N. was always to be a Russian, appointed by Moscow

        — It was Russia who insisted the U.N. be placed on U.S. soil
            — Whole sections of the U.N. Charter were copied intact, word for word from the Russian Constitution

            — Kruschev’s orders to the communists have been “Rule the U.N.”

           — The only two U.S.A. Senators who voted against the U.N. Treaty Charter were the only two Senators who had read it

     — The U.N. is helpless on vital questions because Russia has veto power.

           — Under the U.N. setup, the U.S. taxpayers have been forced to make up the U.N. treasury deficit of millions of dollars for Russia refuses to pay her share.

           — The U.N. has never passed a resolution condemning Russia or her so-called satellites – but it does condemn our allies.

           — J. Edgar Hoover of the F.B.I. said, “The overwhelming majority of the Communist delegations to the U.N. are espionage agents.

    — At the time of the Korean War there were 60 nations in the U.N. Yet 93% of the U.N. forces were Americans, and 95% of the cost was borne by Americans.

           — The U.N. policy during the Korean War was to prevent America from winning the victory over the communists.

           — The U.N. was responsible for aiding Castro.

           — Article 47, Par. 3 of the U.N. Charter states: “The Military Staff Committee shall be responsible through the Security Council for the strategic direction of any armed forces placed at the disposal of the Security Council”.

           — All battle plans of General MacArthur had to go through this Soviet Chief.

           — Any future wars fought by the U.N. would be fought under the same military operations controlled by the U.N. Security Council.

    — God is not mentioned in the U.N. Charter and meetings are not opened with prayer? The Communist co-creators of the U.N. had it agreed that there should be no mention of God and Jesus Christ.

    Communist Goals (1963)
    #11. Promote the U.N. as the only hope for mankind. If its charter is rewritten, demand that it be set up as a one-world government with its own independent armed forces. (Some Communist leaders believe the world can be taken over as easily by the U.N. as by Moscow. Sometimes these two centers compete with each other as they are now doing in the Congo.)

    “The American people will never 
    knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of ‘liberalism’ they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened.”— Norman Thomas, Socialist Party Presidential Candidate in 1940, 1944 and 1948, co-founder of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).
    “Be extremely subtle, even to the point of formlessness. Be extremely mysterious, even to the point of soundlessness. Thereby you can be the director of the opponent’s fate.”
    Sun Tzu 
    “We can’t expect the American people to jump from capitalism to communism, but we can assist their elected leaders in giving them small doses of socialism, until they awaken one day to find that they have communism.”—Nikita Kruschev, former Soviet Premier/dictator.

    The high office of the President has been used to foment a plot to destroy the Americans freedom and before I leave office I must inform the Citizen of his plight.” PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY
    (5  months after he signed Executive Order 11110, and 10 days before he was murdered)

    The number murdered by Communist regimes or organizations in the past hundred years stands at roughly 120 million. Just for the sake of this ideology, these people were removed from their homes, worked to death in concentration camps, exiled to perish on the Siberian steppes, subjected to the horrible tortures in the most horrible prisons, executed by brainwashed Communist militants, strangled, had their throats cut, or starved to death in deliberately-created famines.
    The savagery of this red terror began first in Russia during the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917.

    Jeremiah 50:14-15.    14 Put yourselves in array against Babylon round about: all ye that bend the bow, shoot at her, spare no arrows: for she hath sinned against the LORD. 15 Shout against her round about: she hath given her hand: her foundations are fallen , her walls are thrown down : for it is the vengeance of the LORD: take vengeance upon her; as she hath done , do unto her.

    All nations compassed me about: but in the name of the LORD will I destroy them. Psalm 118:10

    Revelation 18:1-8
    1 And after these things I saw another angel come down from heaven, having great power; and the earth was lightened with his glory. 2 And he cried mightily with a strong voice, saying , Babylon the great is fallen , is fallen , and is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird. 3 For all nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornication, and the kings of the earth have committed fornication with her, and the merchants of the earth are waxed rich through the abundance of her delicacies. 4 And I heard another voice from heaven, saying , Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues. 5 For her sins have reached unto heaven, and God hath remembered her iniquities. 6 Reward her even as she rewarded you, and double unto her double according to her works: in the cup which she hath filled fill to her double. 7 How much she hath glorified herself, and lived deliciously , so much torment and sorrow give her: for she saith in her heart, I sit a queen, and am no widow, and shall see no sorrow. 8 Therefore shall her plagues come in one day, death, and mourning, and famine; and she shall be utterly burned with fire: for strong is the Lord God who judgeth her.

    “The thing that separates the American Christian from every other person on earth is the fact that he would rather die on his feet, than live on his knees!”. George Washington

      2 Timothy 2:15   Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. 

    Jeremiah 48: 10Cursed be he that doeth the work of the LORD deceitfully, and cursed be he that keepeth back his sword from blood.

    Revelation 18:21 And a mighty angel took up a stone like a great millstone, and cast it into the sea, saying , Thus with violence shall that great city Babylon be thrown down , and shall be found no more at all.

    “NO KING BUT KING JESUS!”
            

     

  28. Thank you gentleman for this document. I couldnt agree more. Restoring states rights is a step in the right direction. In my opinion the magna carta the decleration of independence and the united states constitution are the three most important documents in the history of the world. I pray that our federal govt. Is acting like disconnected inept politictions honestly and are not trying to enact some sort of evil plan of control ( ie hitler stalin mao ) . God bless you and yours and GOD BLESS THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

  29. Need some like and dislike buttons for comments provided. Ron, Kevin and some others, thanks for your responses! Spot on! I’m sharing this letter as much as possible. Thank you to our warfighters…I pray it never comes to “…and domestic”.

  30. Please send me a copy of the PDF. I just got out of 11 years active duty as a 19D and am currently a director at an indoor shooting range and training facility. I would love to post this at the range and forward it to the 2000 plus email subscribers that we have.

    Thank you for taking the time to write this. It’s good to know that good men still stand for good reasoning.

    Jon

  31. As a veteran and a Native American, on this whole debate. I love my country, i served my country honorably. The more rights one loses the less one can do, if the American Indians had had more weapons there might be more of them here today. Now if one wants to give up their rights, that is their choice, i will fight to keep each and every right i can, because i believe that the American people have lost enough already. Please send me a copy of the PDF, and thank each and every one of you for your service to this great nation.

  32. Pingback: A letter from the SF community | A Gun Blog

  33. As a former Marine, law abiding citizen, I believe in our Constitution and am tired of slick Politicians trying to change it to what they want it to mean. Very well written and spot on. Semper Fi

  34. Any one notice that to save the 2nd they are considering stepping on the 1st. Movies and games are an example of our 1st amendment rights. The kids effected by these things are not supposed to be able to buy them in the first place. A grown man who watches a movie then acts that movie out is most likely to be unstable and would have been violent in some other form. I believe in all our rights, not just some of them.

  35. The article states that Eric Harris used 10-round magazines at Columbine and that 10-round magazine limits are therefore no deterrant to mass murder. However, the article neglects to mention that Harris and his partner Dylan Klebold also used a Tec 9 with one 28-round, one 32-round and one 52-round magazine. (The shooters also brought two additional 12-gauge shotguns.) Seems kind of strange that the author(s) would deliberately leave out the fact that these shooters actually DID use high-capacity magazines, and then draw the conclusion that magazine capacity is irrelevant.

  36. Very well said but one part I have to disagree. “We also believe that people who have been adjudicated as incompetent should be simultaneously examined to determine whether they should be allowed the right to retain/purchase firearms.” Unless the government plays fair game this is in fact not a fair choice due to the fact that the government is dumping high levels of chemicals into city water source’s such as plus we don’t know the truth behind what is really put in over the counter medications just to help one get over the common cold and some of these chemicals are known to drive people insane. This is their tactic of getting it their way, one way or another. (PG&E vs Erin Brockovich) is one of those schemes. Another one reported here in recent time in Chicago on the use of hexavalent chromium same as PG&E. Hell, our water is always under a boil advisory and can’t use it to cook with plus the high level of chlorine and flouride which is toxic and flouride not only damages your teeth but has the same effect as lead does on the brain but at much slower rates to eventually cause insanity. Some of many reasons why people are getting sicker and sicker everyday. Its the bigger picture that eludes people that has been created by government. When Civil War II comes around and with modern technology within the government and all we have is guns, do you think they are willing to play fair? I don’t think so!

  37. Please send me a PDF copy of this document. Thank you for your hard work on gathering the facts in order to correctly identify the problem and suggest a solution.

  38. I will forward this to my local State Government officials, friends and radio stations. This is the most comprehensive, thorough, and straight forward explanation and direction on this subject that has been published, in my opinion. Thank you for your service.

    • Why would you care how your weapons compare to law enforcement weapons, unless you plan to get into an armed confrontation with law enforcement?

      • When the Nazi’s came around to round up the Jews, who do you think was doing it? The Boy Scouts? No… it was law enforcement. THAT my boy is who the 2nd Amendment protects you from, tyranny.

      • I’ll turn that question around: If the government doesn’t want to get into an armed confrontation with its citizens, then why do they want us disarmed?
        Nobody plans to defend against tyranny, but that’s the whole point of the 2A.

  39. On the magazine capacity issue the gunphobes use to justify the gun grab. They conveniently avoid a discussion of the role of attacker and defender and the value of a hi-capacity magazine to each.

    Since the attacker (bad guy) chooses the time, location and position of the gun fight they can also plan around magazine limitations by simply bringing more guns and/or magazines. A bag full of .357 revolvers has 36 rounds on tap and can cost less than a single AR style rifle with only 30 rounds. This also has the advantage of being able to fire two guns simultaneously engaging 2 targets at once.

    For the defender on the other hand (the good guy) they must rely on the weapon at hand and are disadvantaged by any laws which restrict magazine size since they a) actually follow the law and b) will only have the number of rounds in their gun to mount an initial defense against an unexpected attack.

    Magazine restrictions therefore have no impact on the bad guy but do reduce the effectiveness of an innocent victim to mount and adequate defense.

  40. Thank you to these American heroes for everything they have done, and continue to do for America and for all of us. I am glad these heroes are among us, and I never want them disarmed. Those seeking to destroy the 2nd Amendment have a goal, a motive for what they intend to carry out, and would not heed this very well written letter even if someone could get them to read it.

  41. I am a native of the Philippine. With all sincerity, I thank you all for your service. As a child growing up during the Marcos Dictatorship, I have personally seen what gun registration and confiscation leads to. I am not an NRA member or a gun owner. BUT I strongly support the 2nd Amendment. And would not hesitate to fight for our rights and liberty. Thank you for this letter.

  42. Might I just chime in with regards to the mental instability you stated as being a cause of mass shootings? I would like to bring your attention to the fact that most of the mass shooters (schools, offices, theaters, etc.) were already undergoing psychiatric treatment. There have been notable doctors, scientists and psychiatrists that have testified at hearings that the treatments – read: psychotropic medications – were the causes of the incidents. I’m not sure I’m allowed to post links to articles, sites or videos here, but please do look up anything written by Drs Peter Breggin, Joseph Glenmullen, David Healy and Ann Blake-Tracy.
    Look up Corey Baadsgaard and Mark Taylor. Corey held his class hostage at gunpoint while adjusting to a change in medications. He has no recollection of the event at all and only remembers “feeling strange that morning and waking in juvenile facility the next day”.
    Mark Taylor is a survivor of the Columbine shootings and has interviewed many times to expose the side effects of the drugs – suicidal and homicidal ideation. There are black box warnings (the highest FDA warning available) on these drugs for these reasons.
    Please do check this out and pass it along.
    Thank you.

  43. Thank you so much for this letter! It would be wonderful if we could use a copy of this letter and add an attached petition with signatures of other active,retired armed forces or civilians to sign to also support this letter and then send it to our government officials. If that would be possible, please reply. Thank you again, Lisa Johnston

  44. I agree 100% with everything that you’ve said in this open letter. It was well thought out and written. I will share it with others.

    Thank you for your service veterans and God Bless America.

  45. Lots of reading.

    Everyone reaffirming the same thought.

    I especially enjoyed the use of the word “SACROSANCT”.

    Many references to the headgear.

    I always resented the “Gay Beret” as a useless hat.

    Now that we have legalized beastiality everyone wears one.

    We suffer the consequence of allowing women into the world of men.

    Our Nation crumbles under the rule of conspirators and usurpers.

    The criminals have “rights”.

    Warmongering and the worship of “self-image”.

    Let’s obey the original “Amending” and enforce the directive.

    If you want to possess firearms you must be a member of a militia.

    I’ll wager that if our communities, cities, and counties had them we would
    be able to engage the savages and hostilies.

    Our true enemies are the “legalists”.

    Lawyers and enforcers.

    They are the Yang to the criminal Yin.

    One cannot exist without the other.

    Comrade Clinton required huge increase in their power.

    We experienced more crime.

    The Declaration of “Independence” instructs US to take action.

    That is the empowerment of the MarxCom Socialist Left.

    That is their position.

    Here is an example; http://www.globalresearch.ca/think-government-is-corrupt-you-may-face-10-years-in-jail/17513

    Prepare.

  46. The government has NOTHING without the backing of its military in some future disarming of the nation.
    Don’t be fooled, they want ALL of your guns, this is just the 1st incremental step.
    These letters spell doom to those control freaks in Washington (and NY state) who crave us unarmed & submissive to their agenda.
    The more your government wants us disarmed, the more we should worry about what they have planned for us.
    NEVER let your military pattern rifles go, they are the firewall that keeps us from becoming enslaved or killed in a genocide.

  47. I shoot with the Suffolk County NY Marine Corp league and we shoot in competition with M-14’s, AR- 15’s and M-1s and other military wepons. We are mostly civilians who are former military and these are our personal weapons. Take away our weapons and they will use knives, take away knives and someone will use a rock. How far do you want to go? Guns are inanimate objects, it takes a person to make a gun a weapon.
    Guns don’t kill people/ Guns are inaniate objects.

  48. Firstly, I am not a gun owner, nor have I ever even held one.

    Not that I feel that I can’t I just have chosen not to.

    Secondly, should the situation ever arise that my life, that of my husband, or my children/grandchildren were to be threatened I am certain I would have no problem taking up a weapon, whether gun, knife, car, or baseball bat to protect anyone of them.

    I am very concerned with how this very honorable and decent group of Gentlemen have come under attack from all sides for being honest in their support of a constitutional right that we are all afforded.

    As a US Citizen with strong military background (i.e. Father, Mother, Grandfather, Aunts, Uncles all military personnel, or military support personnel), I am astounded that the US political front feels it is appropriate to FORCE its citizens hand over their freedom based on the lunacy and lack of control shown by those that have no interest in living a law abiding life.

    At what time did I agree that the unlawful actions of others should dictate how I live? I have broken no law that would require me to surrender any of my rights.

    In my reading of the 2nd amendment I see nothing that discusses hunting, it discusses keeping weapons available to all men, women, and children to protect themselves and their country/state. Why is hunting even an issue? Because this is now the justification in this country. I’m sorry but I would never hunt, but I would certainly shoot someone that aimed to harm me or mine.

    I have watched the world around me for a very long time become a sloven and complacent mess. Stop placing the burden of guilt on those that don’t deserve it. I have not seen many news reports where a sane, law abiding, HUNTER killed children. We need to focus on the root of the problem..Being more vigilant in our raising of our children and teaching that life is important and not a commodity.

    When did we become a nation of cowards? We are descendants of strong and independent people.

    Let us all stand up and try to be half as strong as those men and women that built this country.

    Quit trying to beat someone else up for their views.

    I commend you Strong and Intelligent Gentlemen for the statements you have made.
    Thank you. For your articulate statements and your supreme sacrifice.

    • OMG I wanna be you when I grow up. as Ben Franklin wrote They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

  49. About the only thing you said that I agree with is “Our Country has a problem”. And the “Problem” is that morons like you think you should be able to dictate what people can and can’t do. Grow up? Excuse me? I’m a combat veteran, I’m in law enforcement, I’m on a SWAT team, I’ve been serving for MANY years, I begrudge no man (or woman) the right to keep and bear arms. I served to protect those rights. If an individual wishes to own an AR-15, M4 or whatever variation available, then that individual has the right to do so. “Changing clips”? “Rambo”? Listen Sideshow Bob, in any of these mass shootings, had the Criminal been using 10 round magazines and been forced to reload, WHO WAS GOING TO TAKE HIM DOWN? 6 year old kids? The teachers trying to shelter the kids? These Criminals went after soft targets. Because those Criminals are cowards. Who needs to grow up here? The only way to combat violence is to visit VIOLENCE on those who would do us harm. It’s people like you, abusing your right to free speech, that do more harm than good when you attempt to act as if you are knowledgeable about these topics. You don’t work in this field, you don’t run towards gunfire, instead you cower behind your keyboard spewing out anti-American sentiment while disrespecting the men and women in uniform, the people in the uniform let you down? Who the hell are you? Our Spec Ops community is lacking in logic now? Are you for real? Here’s another asinine comment of yours while I’m at it (you’ve given me a lot to work with)do you really think that the bullets leaving the business end of an M4 are intended only to maim and kill? Are they so much more different than the bullets leaving any other gun? A bullet is a bullet. When it leaves the gun, not matter what gun it’s fired from, it’s going to damage something. It’s not the bullet, it’s not the gun. The problem lies with the individual. If more of these cowards, knew they’d be confronted by violence, they’d stay home in mommy’s basement, like you. Go to CNN or another liberal Obama supporting site and stay off patriotic sites like this. One more for you, yes, I remember the Cold War, I served then and traded “gestures of good will” with the East Germans across the Fulda Gap. Get off your high horse thinking you actually did something that no one else has done and that you seem to have the right to tell others what they should and shouldn’t do. Your next post should be an apology to the SF community for being disrespectful and insulting them after they posted this correspondence. If you want to disagree with someone in the future, I suggest you do it with a little more professionalism without bashing our troops.

  50. Pingback: Boom Alert: Green Berets Speak Out About The 2nd Amendment

  51. If my first post didn’t make sense, read the “commentary” that was written by “Ex-Af in Indiana” to understand the heat round I just sent out… Thanks.

  52. Throughout history, disarming the populace has always preceded tyrants’ accession of power. Hitler, Stalin, and Mao all disarmed their citizens prior to installing their murderous regimes.

    The above quote is where this article goes off the rails. It’s historically inaccurate and seems to propose that if the citizens had arms then these regimes wouldn’t have come to power. These “regimes” were not unpopular upon their inceptions, it’s nothing to do with guns. The nazi’s grew from a bad economy and German frustration.

  53. Thank you all for your service and defense of my rights and freedoms. My fiance is retired Special Forces (Army Ranger Airborne-82nd). We are proud to be American citizens and we do LEGALLY own our firearms. I tell him often that I will stand and fight for our freedom at any point in time and, unfortunately, I do believe it will come to that. I am ready to stand up and fight, and defend our families and friends…even though several are against guns and other things that are going on right now. It doesn’t matter that we don’t share the same beliefs…I will still come to their defense, as you, our Military, have defended us. Again, thank you. God bless all of you!

  54. All I see from these comments is people advocating more violence. There are ways to stand up to your government without gun violence. It’s sad how many people are vehemently and emotionally advocating for the ownership of an invention who’s sole purpose is to kill. Please never forget that guns are made to kill people. It’s 2013 and there are numerous ways to protect yourselves without the use of violence.

    • The Gun is for when everything else doesn’t work out….

      The patriot is just a movie, but there is a part when Mel Gibson’s Character is saying violence isn’t the answer, and he is right, but a tyrannical leader or government will not stop just because they are asked too…. And when they push and push and try to take everything, eventually you have to push back and keep pushing back…. They will not stop with one attempt, Forget about the War of 1812? That was the second attempt of a foreign power to take OUR rights. This time it is a domestic power…. So to be clear, OUR government is tyrannical YET, but if they get the guns who will STOP THEM from getting that way?

      • You just cited a piece of fiction that was dated in the 1700s and a war that happened 200 years ago. We as a society and as individuals have (hopefully) progressed to the point where a gun/violence is not the final answer. It seems as though there is a large population that hasn’t evolved intellectually to that point and that greatly saddens me.

        The letter cites an incident in 1946 in Tennessee where civilians used guns and violence to get voter ballots back from unlawful seizure. What occurred was voter fraud, which is against the law. If this was taken to the Supreme Court, the vote would have been corrected. Guns were used when there was another way.

        • The people who stole the ballots were the law! There would have been no evidence of voter fraud to take to any court, the ballots weren’t stolen to preserve them. There was no other way for the people to get those ballots back. If they hadn’t acted when they did, and in the way they did, those ballots would have been destroyed and the people wouldn’t have had any evidence of voter fraud. Your statement that there are numerous ways to protect oneself is valid only to a point, sometimes the only way that works is to use force.

  55. Pingback: Green Beret Group Lobbies Against Gun Control - Page 2 (politics)

  56. Thank you! To focus on the problems requires objective and responsible data. To do the unpopular thing and go against the grain and stand up for the basic principles of our founding fathers is to be a real patriot!

    GOD Bless America and all who choose to defend her!
    Neil B Jones
    Red Blooded American!

  57. We thank the brave soldiers who fight for our freedom everyday. And its nice to know that you do support your oaths to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America!

  58. Having lost home ,Homeland and finally was freed from under Nazi occupation became US citizen my debt I paid while serving you all my “heroes” for thirty years in several military hospitals!! Thank you all for doing what you do, BUT , never forget that the “enemy”is also a human who probably doesn’t want to be against you any more than you want want to be against him!!!!!!!! Thank you all for protecting us and me! God keep you all safe!!!!

  59. Very well written letter, but here’s my only concern…

    You totally missed the single largest issue. I realize you touched on the mental health thing; however, you fail (like many) to recognize the fact that the VAST majority of these lunatics that commit these atrocities have been subjected to pharma-poison. In nearly every single case of mass suicidal or homicidal violence (regardless of the weapon of choice), those recently starting or stopping psychotropic drugs are the perpetrators.

    I offer you a couple of links to consider …

    http://www.naturalnews.com/038674_psychiatric_drugs_mass_murders_Sanjay_Gupta.html
    http://www.ignatius-piazza-front-sight.com/2013/01/17/obamabiden-knowingly-avoid-right-target-to-stop-gun-violence/

    This is the ultimate root of the problem. Certainly there are many socieoeconomic factors, especially concerning gun violence within our urban centers infested with gangs. We can address those with your outline, but the mass-shooter must be stopped, first and foremost by holding responsible, big-pharma and their pushing-pills-like-candy cronies.

  60. You can’t educate the gun or weapons how it should be used. Only human mind and conscience needs to be educated in the proper use of the gun. We need guns to protect ourselves from people who abused and don’t have a clear conscience of right and wrong and not letting them be in charge of our lives.

  61. Pingback: The Burning Truth | The Burning Truth

  62. gentlemen: first of all, thank you from my heart for your service. as a father of an army combat vet, present reservist, and a firearms owner, this is the best written piece on gun ownership that i have ever seen. this should be presented before congress, also, the governor of new york. you have written an outstanding case for the 2nd amemdment.

  63. Thanks for your contribution. First, I chose to be a conscientious objector on moral grounds, not religious ones, during the Viet Nam war. I took a personal vow of peace as a way to live in the world..That has profoundly changed the way I relate and interact with people. Second, my father was a Major General in the Army legal corps, and my brother, brother-in-law and nephew have served or are servingl; I respect the need for and training of soldiers, and honor their willingness to serve the country, even in the most horrible of circumstances. All soldiers have been trained to use guns for the killing of people. You know best how to use various weapons for this purpose.
    Third, hunters are trained to used weapons to kill animals for sport or food. I respect hunting for food, if not the sport parts. The important part is respecting the animal and its community of life.
    Fourth, you are very good at telling why there should be no infringement on people owning weapons, and why there should be no limits on owning any type of weapon or magazine. And you say you want to be part of the solution, which will take patience. However, outside of teaching kids in school about gun safety (why do school kids need to know this – you do and hunters do) and restricting the use of gratuitously violent video games (good, because war and killing people or having your buddy maimed or destroyed is not fun, romantic or amusing in real life even though it is gratifying in a video game). Nothing else that you suggest makes me think your contributions will help to solve the problem, not just of mass killings but of a gun culture that is consumed with fear of safety everywhere they go. The more people that have guns in more places makes it very easy to use guns for the wrong reasons or emotions in the wrong places or times.
    Finally, I hope you will be part of the solution, but you need better more realistic solutions. And the goal is a peaceful society.. People standing guard outside a school, even if a school district wants it or teachers carrying weapons in class are not ways to create a peaceful society. That is a society consumed with fear.

    • “or teachers carrying weapons in class are not ways to create a peaceful society. That is a society consumed with fear.”

      I fear nothing when I carry my concealed weapon. I do not carry it for fear, I carry it to save innocent lives if the need arises. I am also a volunteer firefighter that has put in over 300 hours a year of volunteer time.

      But more so, it is about self reliance; I do not have to rely on the police system (for which was ruled in supreme court, has no responsibility to protect you) if an emergency arises. I will eliminate the threat, and save countless lives.

      • Thank you Nick for your reply and not engaging in name-calling and diatribes. I honor your service as a firefighter. In the past, I have been employed as Ex. Dir of 3 non-profit organizations (lake conservation, econ. dev. and low-income housing) and I am well aware of the critical contributions that volunteers make to the well-being of the American society and economy.
        Self-reliance is another important aspect of American society and culture. I don’t deny that even if I don’t feel that urge as strongly as others. It is important for our future.
        When I read these comments, I just feel so much anger and fear: about the government as a police state, stealer of rights, other people trying to steal property or freedoms, people who have different views. I think these kinds of fears are what are destroying American society and weakening a great country. Too often have I heard gov’t and patriots in the U.S. say “think the way I think or leave the country”. This sounds like a fear of individual diversity, which is precisely what the strength and foundation of the U.S. was built on.
        I live in China presently because I was able to get a decent paying full-time job here. And the difference between the Chinese govt and the Amer. govt is huge. And yet here, while there is crime and violence, there is less everyday fear among ordinary people. There is fear from the govt towards the people, and anger about rampant corruption without the benefit of a real rule of law. And this exists in the U.S., as does real voting in elections for representative of the people who write and approve laws in a system of checks and balances developed by the Constitution and other documents.
        I am grateful that I am part of a country that has that set of basic resources

  64. While this is by far the most legible, grammatically correct protest of gun control I have ever read, I did have a couple of issues:

    First, the “We didn’t ban cars to control drunk driving!” line that is used by thousands of ignorant, uneducated tea-partiers across America. The difference between a car and an assault weapon is that you can’t carry a car into a movie theater and cause a massacre.

    Second, they have fallen into the same trap as the other slack-jawed ill-informed idiots of the GOP and wrongly assume that the government is trying to ban all guns. They only mention assault rifles and high capacity magazines in this article, but they begin to take a darker tone, speaking of “gun-less societies” and hinting at a nation without any guns whatsoever. Do yourself a favor and read the actual proposals from a CREDIBLE news source (Fox News never counts): The proposed ban only affects assault weapons and high capacity magazines.

    Third, there is a lot of talk of “tyranny” and “despotism” for people who have supposedly read the constitution: the subtle message here is that if we outlaw even a single firearm, we will inexplicably be taken over by tyrants and our democracy will crumble. The problem with this is that the Founding Fathers (the same ones who wrote the 2nd Amendment) created our Government with a system of checks and balances to ensure that a single branch of government can never wield too much power. It’s amazing what you learn if you read past the Second Amendment. I would also appreciate an explanation as to how any President, current or future, would possibly convince our all-volunteer armed forces to go along with a communist regime.

    • “First, the “We didn’t ban cars to control drunk driving!” line that is used by thousands of ignorant, uneducated tea-partiers across America. The difference between a car and an assault weapon is that you can’t carry a car into a movie theater and cause a massacre.”

      And I might add the difference between a car and an assault weapon is that a person cannot take an assault weapon on a drunken joyride, murdering countless victims in their wake. Yea, the argument can go both ways.

    • To address your Second point. the proposed ban lists AR15’s and AK’s along with a multitude of other Semi-Auto firearms calling them Assault Weapons, which they are not. And as far as the high capacity magazines goes, if you are so scared of magazines holding 30 rounds, don’t buy one. My problem with the proposed bill and people like you, Sir, is you believe that all people should be penalized for the wrong doings of a few. Without a doubt the shooting in Aurora (cited in your response as an example) is awful, but taking away certain firearms from all people won’t fix it. If we penalized all people for things that a small group did, this country would have disintegrated quite some time ago.

    • I have a couple of issues with your issues:

      First, driving is a privilege, not a God given or natural right recognized and affirmed by the 2nd Amendment. The Constitution limits the government and the 2nd is a warning to the government that it shall not infringe on the right to keep and bear arms. The Supreme Court has stated that the 2nd is an individual right (Heller) and that the militia mentioned in the 2nd is all citizens capable of bearing arms, arms owned by the individual and in common use at the time (Presser and Miller). An interesting point, the Aurora shooter choose that theater because it was a gun free zone. All mass shootings since the establishment of gun free zones have happened in gun free zones, except for one, the Giffords shooting.

      Second, the firearms mentioned in the proposed legislation ARE arms that are in common use at the time, you know, the ones the Supreme Court have said are protected by the 2nd. In fact, Homeland Security says the AR-15 is suitable for personal defense in close quarters. The firearms on the proposed ban are the exact firearms covered by the 2nd Amendment. You made 2 errors – assault rifles are select fire, both automatic and semi-automatic, they are extremely tightly regulated and not on the proposed ban. The term assault weapon used for a semi-automatic was popularized by gun control activist Josh Sugarmann in his book “Assault Weapons and Accessories in America.” Assault weapon refers to a semi-automatic firearm, but assault weapon sounds a lot scarier, doesn’t it?

      Third, the rights in the 2nd, the individual right and the right to be part of the militia, are for defense. Our individual right to own firearms, in common use at the time, for defense of self, family, and home. It doesn’t matter that some say there isn’t a ‘need’ to own semi-automatic rifles, ‘need’ does not come into play at all!!! When exercising Constitutional rights, no one has to prove a need. The collective right all citizens have to be a part of the militia, using their own firearms in common use at the time, is also for defense. Defense of community, state, or country; that right to defense does not hinge on who is attacking, it is the same right whether the attackers are foreign or domestic. (we are a republic not a democracy)

      Your statement that our government has checks and balances to prevent any one branch from amassing too much power and becoming tyrannical or oppressive is very true. So far (fingers crossed) it is working, but what if, in the future, it didn’t? No one can predict who will be governing this country in the future. That is why the 2nd Amendment must never be weakened! We may not need to fight back against tyranny now, but the possibility for it happening is always there. I would think that someone who can read beyond the 2nd Amendment would understand that.

  65. First of all I would like to give thanks to the 1100 who signed this for their service,as well as all our servicemen around the world. My question is for you that serve. if you were ordered to, would you turn your weapons on citizens of your own country? This is really the the only reason for civilians to possess high capacity semi automatic weapons. I would like to think that the majority of you would not. Remember the 2nd amendment was written when firearms were single shot pack and load muskets and our nation was constantly fighting off foreign invaders. Times change and thinking should as well.I believe we should have the right to bear arms, but within reason. If I need a rifle to match the firepower of yours then I would also like a dozen grenades,and a tank. I don’t know if you still use flame throwers but I would like one of those too. And planes, badass planes. And I would love to have nuclear sub and an aircraft carrier for my badass planes. Just because I would like have these weapons doesn’t mean I should. You see, the line has to be drawn somewhere. And sooner or later pride has to be swallowed and common sense must prevail. The real question is how do we keep the right guns in the right hands, and all guns out of the wrong hands? I would love too hear responses from the 1100 who signed this to my first question. Are you willing to kill me? And my family? And my friends? If you were ordered to do so would you kill Americans? If not then we do not need these high capacity weapons.

    • ” You see, the line has to be drawn somewhere. And sooner or later pride has to be swallowed and common sense must prevail.”

      I cannot agree more. The line is drawn and the people will not give up the 2nd Amendment, so swallow your pride and start using common sense. I do not believe the SOF would kill American’s they took the same oath as all the rest of us not to mention how intelligent you need to be to become 18-series. I tried out was in the 18X program, didn’t work out but I gained a huge respect for what they do both educationally speaking but also in the field. Just because the military wouldnt use force on the population DOES NOT mean DHS, TSA or another group won’t. Remember the military with some exceptions (ex-AF) are professionals that are disciplined and like the Army live by core values (LDRSHIP). These other groups are not held to that standard and are frequently tasked to police themselves and their actions. I sleep well at night knowing we have guys like them watching over us and I sleep better knowing that I have an AR-15 w/ 28 rounds next to my bed just in case someone tries to victimize my family.

      To the 1100 signers and even more that this document represents, Thank You.

  66. I stand with these soldiers who wrote this letter. I was in Special Forces from 1968 to 1971.I was with the 1st ,5th, and one year in 12th reserve unit in1974.My time in Vietnam was with SOG we went down south TDY from Okinawa one of our team members was listed MIA for 41 years. I swore to uphold the Constitution we need to stop blaming gun owners for a few whacko’s Very inspiring letter and rings truth and freedom Thanks for a smart response to a serious issue. We have to stick togather and save our country.

  67. Directed to: Randy Hoover

    You sir are exactly the ignorant slack-jawed idiot we are worried about. You jump into the conversation calling the opposing side names, instead of trying rational intelligent thought. Possibly because you’re not capable of it?

    It would be difficult to drive a car into a theater, however, it is possible to drive one into a diner for the same reason as did happen in Texas. While we are on this subject, let me say I’m sick of hearing politicians say they are doing this to save “even one child’s life”, because if that were true, they would ban cars. Cars killed over 36,000 people in this country last year.

    On the banning of all guns eventually, yes that is exactly what they will do next. Look at our history. True automatic weapons have been banned for years. Now they want semi autos and high capacity mags. Then they’ll say they need more. Next would be any gun that can shoot more than 1 bullet, or has a hole for a bullet to come out. Then you responsibility shrugging liberals will say, why have any, just ban them all. What, you say that can’t happen? Look at Europe.

    If Fox News isn’t credible, why is Obama so afraid of it? And since its virtually the only opposing side to your liberal’s ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, and CNN, maybe you should pull off your blinders and consider that maybe your views might be getting tainted by refusing to study both arguments. I listen to both sides regularly to see how biased one source or the other may be.

    You don’t think any part of the government has too much power now huh? How about the government created, government directed federal reserve that is currently printing money out of thin air to devalue the dollar, and hence, all of the citizens wealth? Even worse, the federal reserve isn’t technically a branch of government, but it can destroy our economy.

    Now on to your all volunteer argument. I agree they shouldn’t fire on citizens, but they will be lied to about why they need to. And many of them will. If you don’t think they will, look at the gun confiscations that went on in New Orleans after Katrina. Government agencies busted down doors on houses not even in the effected areas, and confiscated weapons from law abiding citizens that were staying in their own homes. These were our own police and military.

    The sad part is, people like you will be the first to whine, after its too late.

  68. Please send me a pdf of the letter.

    I have been perusing the internett, waiting for a response from some group, be it law enforcement, military…or whomever. Thank you for delivering. Let’s stop beating around the bush. We all know what may be coming our way. The wholesale collection of firearms from US citizens. Bulldog1, if I am reading between the lines corectly, the signers of the letter are patriats FIRST, correct? And they are aware of the “litmus test”m and would never comply. Am I right? Please confirm yes or no. Fellow patriots with whom I tango constantly ask this question. Thank you, gentlemen. I think it is going to be our turn now.

  69. All of you who want to claim it’s only about gun rights, do us a favor and open your eyes. It’s about losing our Freedoms. They take guns away from Americans it won’t stop there. They went after GOD already by not letting the 10 commandments be in court houses. Or letting people have the Nativity scene on that Air Force Base for example. Freedom of speech is on their list as well You think you had freedom of speech if you say something to someone ,but then they wind up charging you for a hate crime over something stupid. Is one way we know things are going against our Constitution.

  70. Text of the 2nd Amendment

    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

  71. Pingback: Over 1100 Green Berets Sign Letter Against Gun Control&Offer Solutions To Gun Violence « Little Bytes News on WordPress

  72. I would feel safer with A set of men standing on the outside corners of our schools with guns than I am with A gun free zone. Crimmanals walk right passed that sign and start shooting because they dont care about that sign. Also I NEVER bought A child A violent vidoe game. War is not A game and never should be!

  73. To the Special Forces Community: Thank you, thank you for your service and dedication. When ever I meet any of you in person I will be honored to shake your hand and thank you in person. This is a very well-written argument, and I support this all the way. Thank you for taking a public stand on this matter. Ordinarily I would include the Armed Forces as well in my thanks, and I do, but would like to exclude those who hold viewpoints comparable to those stated by ex-AF in Indiana. And speaking of which:

    To ex-AF in Indiana: At one point you said “Just because you’re a limp swinging dick is no reason for you to have one at home.” I take offense at that, because I do not have a limp, swinging dick. I also do not have a hard, “woody” dick either. The last time I checked, the Bill of Rights applies to women too, and I resent it when 2nd Amendment discussions devolve into male-only discussions/arguments. I also find it very frustrating when “self protection” websites are aimed only at men. I have firearms. I will keep my firearms. I consider them the leveller of the field, so to speak, because if someone were to break into my home, chances are they will be taller, broader, and physically much stronger than I am. As a parent I have just as much right and responsibility to protect my progeny as a father would, and I do not consider this as pushing myself forward into a “man’s world”. And indeed, as a widow, I have the primary and sole responsibility for this. If ever someone were foolish enough to come onto my land or, worse yet, break into my home intending harm to my child, I will give them their minimum daily requirement of lead (since obviously their daily vitamin supplement would be woefully lacking in this). And if by some misfortune I run out of lead, then there’s always carbon steel (as in, blades). But my first choice would not be to go up against someone bigger and stronger than I am with hand-to-hand weapons–that’d be backup. If (liberal) people wish to go unarmed, that is their choice, but they do not have the right to force that choice on me. I do not have LE protection where I live, I must be self-reliant on this. One solution (take away the guns) does not fit all circumstances, and there will never be any such thing as a society so free of violence as to render self-protection obsolete.

    If I ever have to protect my family, I will leap forward and do so gladly, with a smile upon my face. This is the greatest honor a parent can do. My family will know and see that I stand for what I believe in, as our (non-Christian) religion teaches honor, strength, and self-reliance. I am the older generation and hence, more expendable than the young ones coming along–THEY are the future that I must protect. And yes, I said non-Christian. Christians are not the only patriots, and shouldn’t be so eager to exclude comrades-in-arms–after all the Bill of Rights also protects freedom of religion, and it says freedom of religion, not freedom of particular Christian sects.

    Since I have entered this discussion so late, I do not know if anyone will read this, but this is what I believe about the situation, and I welcome the chance to exercise my 1st Amendment rights in defense of my other rights.

    One last thought, all criminal elements out there, and all dis-arming liberals out there: I am a Mama Bear. Do not mess with my cub. End of discussion.

  74. I am no longer capable of much physical resistance due to age and infirmity , however I am a combat disabled veteran and will defend my family , my home , and the United States Constitution with my life . My Oath is and always will be valid .

    • I’m on your side, BUT, Socialist-Liberal scumbags FORCE us to remove Christmas from public view/display, Force us to pay for 50+ million abortions, Force us to violate our consciences & values everyday. The liberal courts don’t agree with Conservatives on these issues, so we are Forced to comply. This will continue until it is met with absolute resistance and no more compromising, period. Because compromise is what has brought us to this place of servitude to the state!

  75. First off, thank you, for serving our country.

    Thank you, for this letter. It’s refreshing to have someone show some sense, in the midst of the stupidity of our so-called leaders. My wife just read an article where the Homeland Security idiots are telling people to use things like scissors, to protect themselves. They must be on stupid pills.

  76. GOD. GUTS AND GUNS MAKE AMERICA FREE Where is our freedom roday?. Those idiot, stupid, gun control freaks need to get their facts right, In 2011 The number of deaths were as listed 323 by GUNS 396 by hammers. 650 by knives, 12,000 by drunk drivers and 195,000 by medical malpractice You are six hundred times more likely to DIE by using your OBAMACARE then by a semi-automatic rifle. . LOOKS like the GUN CONTROLLERS need to go back to grade school and learn their MATH!

  77. Pingback: Over 1100 Green Berets Sign Letter Against Gun Control and Offer Solutions To Gun Violence | Tony Johnson

  78. Pingback: A Letter From The Special Forces Community Concerning The Second Amendment | THE MEGAPHONE | Scoop.it

  79. Where is this list? What area does it cover. Some of the cities with the strictest gun controls had more gun deaths than that just in their city. The important thing to remember is the majority of gun deaths are ruled justified as self defense.

  80. I think this is the best written defense of the 2nd amendment that I have read. I wish young people in schools would read this and take it to heart. We need the youth of our country to learn to think for themselves and not be brainwashed by liberals.

  81. I can remember shooting my first weapon when I was about 7 years old. There were always guns around our house growing up. We were taught to respect their power and how to use them. I look back fondly on the days of hunting in the woods with my brothers, bagging rabbits or squirrels and more to proudly take home for Mama to cook. I also remember competing with family, on who could shoot the most bottles or cans or what ever happened to be the target of the day. I enjoy shooting firearms of all shapes and sizes. I enjoy the feel of the butt against the pocket of my shoulder, the kick as I pull the trigger, the smell of the gunpowder after it fires, the sight of the can flying as I hit my target. I have no desire to shoot any person, to see the spray of blood, the horrible gaping flesh all black and jellied from the round. I pray to God that I never have to. I am a proud American who joined the Army as soon as I was old enough to do so. I served my country proudly and would not hesitate to do so again if the need should arise.
    I believe I live in the best country in the world though by no means a perfect one. I have respect for men and women who work to keep us safe and protect us from the criminal element, but they are not always Johnny on the spot when something happens. It is my opinion that anyone capable of doing so has not just the right but a duty to defend the innocent in our country. When my sons were born I knew I would do whatever I could to keep them safe and while it would break my heart to be forced to take someone’s life I would do so without hesitation in defense of my children or any other innocent threatened in my presence. I agree that not everyone should own a gun. I don’t agree that it is the government’s responsibility to decide who can and cannot do so. I will never, irregardless of laws passed, abdicate my responsibility for the protection of me and mine to someone else. I have always been a law abiding citizen, well maybe a little speeding now and then or the occasional rolling stop, but my guns are my own. The government has already “infringed” on so many of our rights in so many ways and like sheep we have allowed it. I do not believe that the majority of our country agrees with the proposed “gun control” Unfortunately they seem to be the silent majority. Many say and do nothing because they believe that “it” will never happen, where “IT” refers to any government subjugation of the constitution. They believe that the PEOPLE won’t allow it. For to long the minority of people have been the loudest and as we know the squeaky wheel gets the grease. The media fails in its responsibility to be objective and unbiased when it comes to reporting on “sensitive” issues. If it will be “politically incorrect” they avoid it like the plague. I am woefully ignorant of the difference between “liberal’s” and “conservatives”. I hear, well crap, spouted by those with either label. I have read the constitution, it really isn’t that hard. Doesn’t seem real complicated most is just common sense. What it says isn’t obscure. The obscurity comes when lawyers start interpreting it. I have my God given rights that lot of men and women fought, and many died, to see that I got to keep. When the government is allowed by our complicity, and silence on the subject is complicity, to start changing our rights when does it end? Where do you draw the line? Those who fear guns have no problem with the government banning them, but what you do when next they ban any knife longer than 3 inches is banned. Well that just means things like switchblades right? Not really. All my steak knives, butcher knives, boning knives there all longer than 3 inches and all can be used as lethal weapons so what’s the point of banning all Switchblades when people can just take a nice butcher knife and kill with it. Well then we need to ban all knives right, that’s the only way. To me that is the fallacy to the gun control arguments. Gun control will never work unless there are NO GUNS at all. Just as knife control won’t work if there are any knives. I agree we need better laws, laws to actually punish those who break them. Where is the deterrent in our society for criminals? People sentenced to prison rarely serve the sentence they get. They certainly do not miraculously change into productive law abiding citizens on their release. What is the point to passing more useless laws when we barely slap the wrist of the ones who break what are already enforce. As a mother, responsible for the protection of my family, let me close with this. No one is getting my guns…..unless they are the last remaining guns on the planet!

    • Excellent statement and hit the point of the right to bear arms for the right reason. With that I give everybody a hands salute who are in alignment with this thought.

  82. May I make a point here? “I believe that, in order to protect from identity theft, I should check my mail every day”. The words before and after the commas set forth an example of my reasoning. Those inserted words could be changed to “to prevent my forgetting to pay a bill” or “because I hate clutter in the mailbox” but would not change the action to be taken. It’s my belief that the same holds true for the 2nd Amendment. The reasoning cited in the 2nd Amendment is a valid one but so are many others. In any case, it does not change the core statement, “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”. Just MHO.

  83. It’s a shame that credible defenders of the Second Amendment have been hoodwinked by the JPFO (our ruling media oligarchs’ damage-control front group) into incorporating the utterance of a silly, easily checked lie into their every public statement.

    Folks, please stop parroting the silliness that Adolf Hitler or the NSDAP disarmed the German people. Saying so discredits our calls and makes us look like we lack the ability to get our facts straight. The reality is that Hitler /eased/ restrictions on firearms and that military firearms remained openly available to German citizens and others in Germany throughout the duration of Hitler’s power. It was not until occupation forces entered and Communists and organized crime elements were put in power on both sides of what would become the Iron Curtain that Germans were stripped of these rights. For more information, see Prof. William Pierce’s Gun Control in Germany, 1928-1945

  84. Sir, I have read this article on this link http://natall.com/national-vanguard/assorted/gunhitler.html. I also did a little search on William Pierce. Here is just a little of what I found: Affiliations: John Birch Society, American Nazi Party, National Socialist White People’s Party, National Youth Alliance, National Alliance (founder) Businesses: National Vanguard Books, Resistance Records Works: The Turner Diaries (1978, as Andrew Macdonald), Hunter (1984, as Andrew Macdonald), New World Order Comix # 1:The Saga of…White Will!! (1993, comic book) http://archive.adl.org/learn/ext_us/Pierce.asp

    Here are a few quotes from the article:

    “A Jewish group, Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (JPFO), quite noisy for its size, has been especially zealous in promoting the idea that the current gun-control effort in America has its roots in Germany during the Hitler period.”

    “Jews, it should be noted, were not Germans, even if they had been born in Germany. The National Socialists defined citizenship in ethnic terms, and under Hitler Jews were not accorded full rights of citizenship. National Socialist legislation progressively excluded Jews from key professions: teaching, the media, the practice of law, etc. The aim was not only to free German life from an oppressive and degenerative Jewish influence, but to persuade Jews to emigrate. The German Weapons Law of March 18, 1938, specifically excluded Jews from manufacturing or dealing in firearms or munitions, but it did not exclude them from owning or bearing personal firearms. The exclusion of Jews from the firearms business rankled them as much as any other exclusion, and in their typically ethnocentric fashion they have misrepresented the law involved as an anti-gun law in an effort to cast their enemies in a bad light.”

    “A permit to acquire a handgun or to carry firearms may only be issued to persons whose trustworthiness is not in question and who can show a need for a permit. In particular, a permit may not be issued to:

    1. persons under the age of 18 years;
    2. legally incompetent or mentally retarded persons;
    3. Gypsies or vagabonds;
    4. persons under mandatory police supervision [i.e., on parole] or otherwise temporarily without civil rights;
    5. persons convicted of treason or high treason or known to be engaged in activities hostile to the state;
    6. persons who for assault, trespass, a breach of the peace, resistance to authority, a criminal offense or misdemeanor, or a hunting or fishing violation were legally sentenced to a term of imprisonment of more than two weeks, if three years have not passed since the term of imprisonment.”

    “it was Hitler’s enemies, not Hitler, who should be compared with the gun-control advocates in America today. Then as now it was the Jews, not the National Socialists, who wanted the people’s right of self- defense restricted. You will understand that those who continue to make the claim that Hitler was a gun-grabber are either ignorant or dishonest. And you will understand that it was not until 1945, when the communist and democratic victors of the Second World War had installed occupation governments to rule over the conquered Germans that German citizens were finally and completely denied the right to armed self-defense.” http://natall.com/national-vanguard/assorted/gunhitler.html

    You are correct that Mr. Pierce’s article correctly states that Hitler didn’t disarm the German citizens. Mr. Pierce’s article also correctly states that the 1938 law enacted on March 18, 1938, specifically excluded Jews from manufacturing or dealing in firearms or munitions, but it did not exclude them from owning or bearing personal firearms. However, that is not the whole story. Here are quotes and citations from articles that tell what happened later:

    “On March 18 1938, the Nazis enacted a new, tougher, gun control law. The Nazi Weapons Law (Waffengesetz) ensured that only Nazis and their friends could own or carry weapons, especially handguns. Licenses to sell, own, or carry firearms were required, except for exempted Nazi organizations and officials. Private persons were not exempt, but a Nazi Party Membership Card was proof of political reliability. The Nazi Weapons Law stated that no Jew could be involved in any business involving firearms. On November 11 1938, one day after the SS were unleashed against the Jews, new regulations under the Nazi Weapons Law barred Jews from owning any weapons.” http://usa-the-republic.com/jurisprudentia/firearms_1.html

    “Regulations Against Jews’ Possession of Weapons
    11 November 1938
    With a basis in § 31 of the Weapons Law of 18 March 1928 (Reichsgesetzblatt I, p. 265), Article III of the Law on the Reunification of Austria with Germany of 13 March 1938 (Reichsgesetzblatt I, p. 237), and § 9 of the Fuhrer and Chancellor’s decree on the administration of the Sudeten-German districts of 1 October 1928 (Reichsgesetzblatt 1, p. 1331 ) are the following ordered:
    § 1
    Jews (§ 5 of the First Regulations of the German Citizenship Law of 14 November 1935, Reichsgesetzblatt 1, p. 1332) are prohibited from acquiring. Possessing, and carrying firearms and ammunition, as well as truncheons or stabbing weapons. Those now possessing weapons and ammunition are at once to turn them over to the local police authority.
    § 2
    Firearms and ammunition found in a Jew’s possession will be forfeited to the government without compensation.” http://jpfo.org/filegen-n-z/NaziLawEnglish.htm

    “It is noteworthy that, on the face of the law, Jews were not named as automatically disqualified. Gypsies were the only ethnic group which did not qualify. It could be that the Nazi leadership did not feel confident of the support of enough Germans to disarm Jews at this time. Many Jewish men had fought in the Great War and retained their side arms. This reluctance would change later that year.

    Possession of any kind of weapon could be prohibited where “in individual cases a person who has acted in an inimical manner toward the state, or it is to be feared that he will endanger the public security.” This could include any opponent of Nazism or simply any disfavored person.

    On November 7, 1938, Herschel Grynszpan, a 17-year old German Jewish
    refugee whose father had been deported to Poland, went to the German Embassy in
    Paris intending to shoot the ambassador. Instead he shot and mortally wounded
    Ernst vom Rath, the third secretary in the Embassy, who ironically was being watched
    by the Gestapo because he opposed anti-Semitism and Nazism. As the following
    demonstrates, the Nazi hierarchy recognized the incident as creating a favorable
    opportunity to disarm Germany’s Jewish population.

    In view of the Jewish assassination attempt in the German Embassy in Paris , Berlin’s Police President made known publicly the provisional results so far achieved, of a general disarming of Berlin’s Jews by the police, which has been carried out in recent weeks. The Police President, in order to maintain public security and order in the national capital, and prompted by a few individual incidents, felt compelled to disarm Berlin’s Jewish population. This measure was recently made known to Jews by police stations, whereupon–apart from a few exceptions, in which the explicit nature of the ban on possession of weapons had to be articulated–weapons until now found by the police to be in the possession of Jews who have no weapons permit were voluntarily surrendered. The provisional results clearly show what a large amount of weapons have been found with Berlin’s Jews and are still to be found with them. To date, the campaign led to the taking into custody of 2,569 stabbing and cutting weapons, 1,702 firearms, and about 20,000 rounds of ammunition.” http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/article-nazilaw.pdf

    So, Hitler eased regulations for Germans and members of the Nazi party in March 1938. Later that year, in response to an individual’s failed assassination attempt on the German ambassador to France, HITLER DISARMED THE JEWS. Does that sound familiar to anyone???

    Researching the facts for my comment, I learned exactly what Hitler did to the population before he disarmed them. I always knew what he did to the Jews was a horror, but reading the actual descriptions stunned me.

    Neil, I will repeat your own words back to you: please stop parroting the silliness that Adolf Hitler or the NSDAP didn’t disarm the Jewish people. As for the author of the article you recommended, he was a member of the American Nazi Party!! I would no more trust his narrative of what happened than I would Hitler himself!

    • My comment above is in reply to Neil on February 2, 2013 at 1:04 am:

      “It’s a shame that credible defenders of the Second Amendment have been hoodwinked by the JPFO (our ruling media oligarchs’ damage-control front group) into incorporating the utterance of a silly, easily checked lie into their every public statement.”

  85. The foot and calf massager is better on this chair and
    does both calf and foot at the same time??? In
    fact, nowadays, we also have nail parlors, that give a beautiful manicure
    plus a soothing massage to the fingers and hands. The digestive and
    circulatory systems are improved, getting blood flowing
    through the body. This massage therapy is indeed well-liked that many persons avail it in private settings, for example in
    home based periods!!! In all likelihood, you will also be seeing a physical (physio) therapist.

    I’ve picked these oils for their relaxing, sensual, or refreshing qualities. The good news is that lots of children with learning disabilities do not have a essential brain dysfunction, and so we can look at easier to treat, practical methods for helping them, such as vision therapy. In the same way, chair massage could also enhance performance at school or at work.

  86. Thank you for standing up for the rights of me and my family an all American’s. this letter is the first sign of logic and common sense I have scene in a long time.

    Thank

  87. Brothers and sisters in arms, the time will come when we will have to be accounted for our oath.

    May the Lord Jesus Christ’s peace be with you.

    This we’ll defend….

    Rob

  88. Psychology is a subjective science. Psychology has been used in the past as a way to take out opposing political contingents. If the number 3 suggestion goes through, this gives great power to the government. Psychology is based off of the social norms of the time, personal bias and goals of the evaluator. There is great incentive to label a person defective and even greater incentive to “err on the side of caution” if a person has ANY “risk” factors, because a psychologist/doctor could become liable. The government will have unlimited power over many veterans under the VA health care system. For us, who decide to question the government, we are already classified terrorists. Those that protest, who are religious “extremists”(subjective term), loners, preppers, etc are classified terrorists . The government has a hand in deciding what a “terrorist” really is or what to look for and then trains our local police, doctors, administrators, psychologists and the public through media. Involuntary outpatient treatment takes a person’s constitutional rights away without a crime, jury or trial. It gives real criminals more rights of due process. Plus, psychology is a way the government can change the laws without the input from citizens. Psychology leaves a person open to being forced to conform even without a CRIME. If people really don’t like losing the 2nd amendment and the right to defend ourselves, then giving the government the ability to take away our constitutional rights away without a crime, trial or jury should bother us even more.

    As for giving schools the power to decide what they need to keep kids safe, this will become worse than the TSA. Schools will be forced into arming its staff, because if anything should happen to a child they would then become liable. We are already seeing a huge whiplash across the country and the loss of common sense. Elementary students are being branded and expelled for things such as a bubble gun, tiny GI Joe figurines, and a “gun” shaped pieces of paper. Maybe we shouldn’t have a kneejerk reaction and realize laws don’t fix criminals, but they do oppress law abiding ones. Watch the video below and ruminate over giving schools the unchecked power to protect kids.

    • I’m not going to speak about psychology, but I beg to differ on the school issue…in Texas we have a school that has had armed teachers/staff/faculty since 2008…with zero issues, zero problems, zero anything….all of the other problems are knee-jerk reactions in places that are less educated (staff, regarding weapons and common sense) .. but the issue of allowing a faculty member carry a gun, is hardly worth arguing since they would be required training beforehand…it all comes down to training…those with it are better suited to handle situations that those that aren’t…generally…though nothing is ever 100%…

      • Not to mention that every single one of the “reasons” they give about why a teacher should not be allowed concealed carry are ridiculous as best … the reasons are lame and hold no water .. if that were a risk, then every single law abiding concealed carry gun owner would have the same problems when carrying their guns around with them all day…it doesn’t happen….the excuses by those against it as to why it should not happen are simply a way to create fear among the people so that the people would take their side…nothing more

  89. Great article. However, we are not talking about organized tyranny here. We are talking about the loop-holes not enforced by current laws (which would greatly assist in establishing or re-establishing some control). In the Newton town shooting, I blame his mother, who paid the price. She taught a socially impaired, borderline personality how to use a gun; a grave parenting error. But, let’s talk about organized tyranny (OT): OT would, indeed, attempt to disarm the populace. And when the popular pain reaches a tipping point, revolution begins. Vietnam GB’s know this from first hand experience. Where do you get your weapons? From OT, the hard way.
    So, in an imperfect but highly functioning democratic society, protection of the innocent is a first priority.

    • An organized tyranny starts with loopholes (pertaining to the style of government we currently have), it starts by testing the waters, as NY is doing and as Chicago and D.C. have done (D.C. losing some ground on that in 2008)…but keeps pushing and pushing…eventually it will become more organized as more and more people fall in line with giving up their guns…such as in Miami, for example, where people gave up guns for tickets to a basketball game, gave up their weapons for a few hours of entertainment…it’s the little pieces that test the waters to see how far and in what direction they can, or should, go…this is how the liberals and anti-gun folks are doing it in the states…we can’t just go all out and create a law and confiscate, because of 2A and our Constitution and the mindset of the majority of the people, being that greater than 50% of the populace owns weapons…so, it becomes a different tactic…using fear-mongering and scare tactics and emotion when a shooting occurs, the current media being complicit in this tactic…combined to get the effect they want and results they want…these kinds of tests and pushes will push us into another revolution/civil war in time, but whether it be bloody or handled politically and in the media (doubtful media would ever be truly helpful), remains to be seen…and remember, this nation was never designed to be a Democracy, but was created as a Republic (limited government and rule of law), and the Fed, along with the ignorance of people (generalized lack of knowledge of the history of this nation, much of the blame on the education system) has worked this nation into a democracy and the people into a mindset more willing to part with freedom for a little security, though false security it would actually be….The Fed has well overstepped their legal limits set by the Constitution and yet too many American’s just can’t see that or don’t care…

  90. Pingback: Special Operator's Perspective on Second Ammendment

  91. The problem is a vagueness of the 2nd Amendment, lack of real interpretation of it, and a massive amount of spin from both sides of this issue, lots in this article also. I agree with the overall sentiment of it, except the addition of a lot of language into the amendment. Language that the supreme court has never interpreted, and will never unless forced.

    • The 2nd Amendment is not vague at all .. Once you understand the history, and realize the words, you’ll see that .. the last 4 words “…shall not be infringed.” say it all, nothing vague about that, it means exactly what it says…And yes, the Supreme Court HAS interpreted, many times over 200 years…

      The 2nd Amendment say clearly, the prefatory clause is the militia, reinforcing the militia clauses in the Constitution, and the “meat” of the amendment, the right to keep and bear arms…and the last 4 words, “shall not be infringed” are the restrictions placed on Congress…

      There are at least 2 version of 2A, differing ONLY in punctuation and capitalization:

      As passed by the Congress:
      “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

      As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State:
      “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

      But, even with the slight difference in punctuation, the meaning is the same…As ratified and recorded by Jefferson, the meaning is even more clear, though, than the one passed by Congress…

      A very good read regarding the militia and the right to keep and bear arms, how they go together and also how the right is also separate from just the militia…but you also have to remember, the militia is made of the people, not the government, not the military (the standing army)…
      http://www.jaegerresearchinstitute.org/articles/militia.htm

  92. Hi there! Quick question that’s entirely off topic. Do you know how to make your site mobile friendly? My web site looks weird when viewing from my apple iphone. I’m trying to find a template or plugin that might be able to correct this problem.
    If you have any recommendations, please share. Many thanks!

  93. Pingback: A Letter From The Special Forces Community Concerning The Second Amendment | Guardian Of Valor « Roger Stout

  94. Pingback: A Letter From The Special Forces Community Concerning The ... | SurvivalRing News World | Scoop.it

  95. This has been a very interesting read, I think if weapons were banned 9/11 would have been on a much larger scale. So all I can add is to keep your weapon in working order, your sights clean, your mind clear, and pray you never have the need for them.

  96. 1. For those who take issue with “Think Point” #5: There is corroborating studies done in the UK and Australia, and by the Warrior Science Group (Killology Research group: http://www.killology.com/). The negative Impact/affect on youth attitude and actions (and some mentally unstable adults) of gratuitious violence in video games, the media, and RAP lyrics (including the absence of real consequences for violent actions or inactions depicted) is indirectly proven by the fact that voice and visual advertising works –directly effects human decisions and acts, and by the known link between PTSD and the act (for some people) of viewing/hearing/involvement in criticial incidents (combat, accidents, fires, other life-threatening or traumatic circumstances).

    2. For Shelly on January 30, 2013 at 1:11 pm:
    You may want to re-think your comments regarding a peronal escape route plan. A plan for escaping from an active shooter or terrorist situation is not unlike a personal escape plan for a fire, hazardous materials release, flood, tornado, bomb threat, and other life-threatening situations.
    You should not assume / rely on the gym or other facility having an effective evacuation plan. Its wise to have a personal plan. It doesn’t need to be formal written down plan –visualize one in your “minds eye”. In the Army we called them Immediate Action Drills (aka Battle Drills) -“Drills” only because we rehearsed them, but they are simple situational-based plans of action of what to do when, including where you (and your children) will meet up after escaping (assembly area or rally point). If you don’t have a simple mental plan, you will surely panic / freeze and become a victim regardless of whether the facility has a doable, effective response proceedure.
    Bottom line: Have a mental plan, be aware (situational awareness), and be alert.

    Lastly, FYI –“It is well-settled fact of American law that the police have no legal duty to protect any individual citizen from crime, even if the citizen has received death threats and the police have negligently failed to provide protection.”

    The courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, have repeatedly ruled that the Police do not have a Constitutional duty to protect someone. SCOTUS has ruled ruled that the police do not have a duty to protect you as an individual, but to protect society as a whole. This precedence has been set and reinforced in more than 10 Supreme Court of the U.S. (SCOTUS), U.S. Circuit Court, and state court cases and the individual victim has never won. Although police generally have no constitutional duty to protect private persons from third parties, there may be such a duty if a special relationship exists or if the state increased or created the danger to the harmed person. If you do not trust my comments check out the following case law examples.

    Case Law Examples :
    CASTLE ROCK V. GONZALES (04-278) 545 U.S. 748 (2005) 366 F.3d 1093, reversed.
    Riss v. New York, 22 N.Y.2d 579,293 N.Y.S.2d 897, 240 N.E.2d 806 (1958)
    Lynch v. N.C. Dept. of Justice, 376 S.E. 2nd 247 (N.C. App. 1989)
    DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, 489 U.S. 189 (1989).
    Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. App.181)
    Pinder v. Johnson, 54 F. 3d 1169, 1175 (4th Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 116 S. Ct. 530 (1995)
    Estate of Sinthasomphone v Milwaukee (1992)
    South v. Maryland, 59 U.S. (How.) 396, 15 L.Ed.433 (1856)
    Bowers v. Devito, 686 F.2d 616 (7th Cir. 1982)
    Hartzler v. City of San Jose, 46 Cal.App.3d 6, 120 Cal.Rptr. 5 (1975)
    Davidson v. City of Westminister, 32 Cal.3d 197, 185 Cal.Rptr. 252 (1982)
    Westbrooks v. State, 173 Cal.App.3d 1203, 219 Cal.Rtr. 674 (1985)
    Susman v. City of Los Angeles, et al., 269 Cal.App.2d 803, 75 Cal.Rptr. 240 (1969)
    JORDAN et al. v. CITY OF ROME et al. A91A2148. (208 Ga. App. 551) (432 SE2d 124) (1993)
    LANDIS v. ROCKDALE COUNTY et al. A91A1259.(212 Ga. App. 700) (445 SE2d 264) (1994)
    Ford v. Town of Grafton, 693 N.E.2d 1047 (Mass. App. 1998)

  97. We have all taken an oath to “…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.…”

    So where is the rest of the oath? You cannot just write down what you want, put all of it in here. As Soldiers we cannot pick and choose what parts we like, and do not like.

    SGM Galeana

    • I do believe, SGM, that they are aware of the complete oath, but only gave this portion because it contains the reference to the Constitution….although, I do agree that it should have been the complete oath would have been more appropriate…

  98. well, it’s clear the army has changed since the sixties and seventies. AR actually means either automatic rifle or assault rifle, or it did. the MP4 is an M-16 knockoff. you all continually misinterpret the second amendment to the US Constitution. that suggests a shortage in American history. I was in Special Forces during Vietnam. i wish it was possible to take you folks there. by the way the US was helping the french up until 1954 until the took a beating at Dien Bien Phu. The US then took the reigns. the first US casualty was in 1956, as the appearance of the C130 and the Huey. vC could be only a few feet away and you’d never know it. before and op, we ate rat meat and rice to keep from smelling like americans. the army of today full of a lot of talk, but clearly not fighting. we had no prescription drugs, no suicides, or at least not as many as the youngsters of the day. this country hated us. airport ugliness, letters,and such. i missed the fun by taking a C130 back. we too were fighting a war based on lies. we got our asses kicked because we were wrong. any REAL soldier knows you can’t win a war you’re not right in. but the people we were fighting were better than we were, and we were good. they were trained by the Soviets and Chinese. supplied by them too. further the president, though a crook was elected. yours wasn’t. not once but twice. you folks depend too much on technology. we didn’t. by the by, the UH-1 aircraft and all of it’s forms were called IROQUOIS. not venom. video game shit.

    • This is neither here nor there. Thank You for your service in Vietnam.
      I believe you were referring to the M-4 as opposed to the MP4. I was trained using the M4 as I was Armor (Abrams). AR, was a designator for Armalite Rifle. Since the AR15 was neither Automatic in it’s initial form, nor named using a political term “Assault Rifle” it can only be determined that AR stood for and still stands for Armalite Rifle.

    • While I commend you for serving, I am also a veteran, but I have to wonder….to whom do you refer as continually misinterpreting the 2nd Amendment? And where did you get the idea that AR meant “automiatic rifle” or “assault rifle?” AR stands for Armalite Rifles, the original designer for the M16, and has never meant anything else, contrary to popular belief among the uninformed…As for Viet Nam, we could have won that war easily, if given the proper release and support, but our hands were quite tied by the politicians…the enemy wasn’t better than us, but we were limited in many ways and the enemy used tactics that were immoral and unethical, such as using kids as suicide bombers, for example, and they had no limitations…

      The M-4 is not an M-16 knockoff, actually, but a shortened version of the M-16…I know because I have used both…the M-4 was designed with shorter barrel and folding stock to make it more compact for more urban style warfare, such as house to house and room clearing…

      As for replying to the rest of what you wrote, I’ll leave that for others…

  99. You may as well how to produce popular applications approaches to distribute these on your apple itunes retail outlet within a several hours.
    You’ll also discover what you should do instead to get fast results safely.
    You may want to know: How to Fix PES 2011 Online Lag Problems Easily.

  100. It’s not that regulators don’t understand information technology, becausee it uses the
    same ar-15 measures as are used inn Syria, China, and Uzbekistan, and
    they communicate to each other. One thing I’d like to share a couple thihgs about the gun.
    So they’re a polyner grip, but I think that many people recognize that we have
    just sending us files.

  101. Pingback: jordan 11 legend blue

What's on your mind?

© Guardian Of Valor