Perspectives

Marine takes torch as Spokesman for Sanity

Cpl Joshua Boston, former Marine, stepped into the spotlight following his open letter challenging Senator Feinstein's gun grab legislation, and calling Britain's Piers Morgan to return to the island of Banned Guns.  Boston is representing sanity fairly well though Obama has decided not to deport the gun hating Morgan who is on a crusade to scrap the Bill of Rights.

UPDATE: Piers Morgan was fired in May of 2004 from his Editor position at Britain's Daily Mirror for publication of falsified pictures of Troops mistreating Iraqi prisoners.

Meanwhile, someone claiming to have also been a Marine, decides to throw his two cents into the pool:

"Boston’s attitude towards authority is frankly disgusting and his open letter is wrong in both its assumptions about why the gun-control debate has become heated, and the reasons why we should care about his opinions at all. It implies that because he served in Iraq and Afghanistan as a Marine, that he can choose which laws to obey while at home." "Anonymous Marine," as reported at This Ain't Hell 

Let's put this in another context: Politicians and journalists attitude towards the Supreme Law of the Land is frankly disgusting and their open contempt for the Constitution they swore to uphold and protect is wrong in both the arrogance that they are above the law, and the reasons why we should allow them to sit in their chairs at all.  It implies that because they won a popularity contest in the career pathes of the least trusted people in our Nation that they can choose which instances they will obey the Supreme Law of the Land.

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."  Article VI, US Constitution

In other words, the hierarchy of law is: The US Constitution (including Amendments), US Law made in accordance with the Constitution,  Treaties, and State Laws.  Any law that violates the provisions of the US Constitution is hence not a law, including treaties, including treaties with the UN.

"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." Amendment II, US Constitution.

Activist judges included, any law that infringes on the Right of the People to keep and bear arms is hence illegal and NOT a law to begin with.  "Common Law" does not supercede the US Constitution, as the Judicial Branch is not given legislative authority, and are specifically bound by the US Constitution above and beyond their bounds of State and US Law, and common law legal proceedings which are also bound by the Law.

Hence, the only Constitutional or legal means by which that Right can be infringed is to amend the Constitution, changing the 2nd Amendment itself.  No Vice-President, President, Journalist, Judge, UN body, or even the unanimous votes of the entire Congress can legally infringe the Right of the People, unless the Constitution itself is amended.

The anonymous Marine, along with General McChrystal, need to review their oath, to the US Constitution, and the Constitution which they swore to protect.  It supercedes the whims of Congress, Presidents, Governors, Mayors, Politicians, and Pundits of the MSM, particularly those non-Citizens.

Piers Morgan, who is a journalist, a profession that is supposed to report the facts, not to advocate policy, is not an American, and has a passport for a place that has already banned firearms.  If he wants to live in a place with the soaring violent crimes of a gun-free country, he can move home.  If he wants to advocate for something, it should be for the arrest of his fellow journalist David Gregory to be arrested for breaking current gun laws in that gun-free mecca of violence and hot air, Washington DC.

Piers states (on CBS) that his brother is an officer in the British Army and has served in Afghanistan.  That does not mean he "understands," as he claims, what a Warrior sacrifices.  That means his brother does, not him.  Piers states that he doesn't want his child growing up in a country with assault weapons, which are almost "M4 machine guns," further demonstrating his ignorance of weapons.  (M4 carbines are NOT machine guns and the only way that AR-15's are "assault rifles" is by declaration of politicians and parroting of journalists.)  The automatic firing M4 is an assault rifle, as is an automatic version of the AK-47.  Civilian semi-automatic weapons are NOT.

However, given the updated information above, Piers is probably not very welcome in the Island Nation.  I doubt visits to his brother's house are welcomed either.  Given his lack of integrity, even by journalist standards, he fits right in at CNN, who must have known of the pictures published by Piers. The Piers Morgan resume ain't so shiny either.

Piers has a place to go, home.  It already meets his criteria.  As a subject of the British Empire, he doesn't have a dog in this debate.  We broke our chains of the monarchy 237 years ago, and restated Our Independence, and the Independent Rights of Our Citizens in 1812, when they attempted to enslave Our Sailors.  In both wars, we were outgunned and outmanned, by a Empirical force that was better trained and equipped, but let not the memory of Andrew Jackson and Tennesseans at New Orleans fade too quickly.  That battle was fought with the best firearms a civilian could buy, and more Volunteers than Jackson could pay, but a far smaller force than the Empire sent.

No where in the 2nd Amendment does it mention what a Citizen "needs" or "hunting purposes."  What it explicitly states is "shall not be infringed."

Related articles

Citizenship & Constitution: Your Freedoms and My "Right" to Restrict it

Will Obama Use An Executive Order To Enact Gun Control?

Extraordinairy Resilience

Former Marine Tears Down Piers Morgan's Anti-Second Amendment Arguments

Wisdom From Charlie Daniels

Wyoming to Preserve the Second Amendment?

Who Authorizes War? Constitutionally? UN or Congress?

The Bill of Rights, with Your Host, Piers Morgan!

Army Wife Silenced

I was disheartened by the mob mentality I watched unfold when a new and young Army Wife published a post that demonstrated her youth, her frustration, and her ignorance of the world she had only recently entered.  The charge was led by a Colonel's wife, who is connected to a Non-Profit, and to much of the MilBlog community.  She used her influence to call for what amounted to a very public internet lynching and to pressure the young NCO's chain of command.

This is not to say that the young wife was correct in her statements or conclusions, but watching it unfold was like watching a sitcom of the popular High School girls going after the new girl in the school.  The young wife must have been online when the pack attacked, because she turned off comments before the angry abuse hit 20.  The Colonel's wife was already crying foul that she didn't get her lashes in on the young lady, even as she deleted my comments condemning the behavior.  She has since deleted her accusation on the WOTN wall that alleged I had attacked her personally, rather than recognizing that it was her actions I had condemned.

To clarify the realities behind the emotional attacks: There is a difference between Active Duty Soldiers, and Reserve, and National Guard Soldiers.  They are all Soldiers, and I served in all 3 types of the Army.  The sacrifices are different.  None are a cakewalk.  But there are differences, just as there are differences in the way men and women think, the way Mexicans and Brits look, and the way C130 and F15 pilots fly.  Noting these differences for what they are is no more wrong than describing a criminal on the run for his race.  Pretending they don't exist is political correct BS that creates one-size-fits all plans that fit no one.  And it creates the frustration the young Army Wife was attempting to clarify.

And the jackal attack that followed creates the reluctance of Troops in introducing their wives to organizations that might exhibit the behavior.  As some MilBloggers are asking why fewer are entering the world of public discourse, the attacks, which resulted in her Army husband being called on the carpet by a Senior Officer in his command, demonstrate the perils of Troops considering the telling of their stories.  Yes, that NCO publicly defended his wife's right to expression, but he was not the one that wrote the offensive blogpost.  He was however the one that suffered the repercussions and is licking his own wounds, along with his ostracized wife.

In situations like this, maternal figures in my life would have retorted to those that attacked with: "Well, I hope you are happy with yourselves."

So, what should have happened?  Those elder, popular wives should have dropped the New, Young Army wife an email that recognized the woman's frustration, but pointed out the errors.  National Guard Soldiers do wear a tape that says "US Army" because they are Soldiers.  There are no such things as "Company" patches, but the unit patches worn by the Vermont National Guard are only as different from the Recruiting Command patch as are the 82nd Airborne patch is from the Recruiting Command patch.

Yes, that Recruiter served elsewhere, before he served as a Recruiter, and he'll serve somewhere else in the future, if he stays in.  His war stories are different than those of the Soldiers of the Vermont National Guard.  They served in different places, with different people, at different times.  There is a difference between coming back and preparing your rucksack and dufflebags for 3 weeks in the field, or preparing your resume to go out looking for a job in a down economy.  Yes, Active Duty Troops deploy more often than Reserve Component.

But being the wife of a National Guard Colonel does not excuse you from acting with the same grace, experience, and respect expected of an Officer's wife on Active Duty.  Having a dedicated Facebook following does not afford you the right to treat a young wife, fresh into her life as the Primary Supporter of ONE Soldier in such an aggressive manner.  If you believe that the young wife's actions reflect on a young NCO, imagine how much more a very public Colonel's wife's actions reflect on him.  Should he be reported to the TAG, and reprimanded to the TAG for YOUR words?

Why did I get involved?  After all, it wasn't my business?  Condemning the actions of the popular girl isn't going to win me more friends, and may even cause her fans to quit reading.  I spoke my mind because what was happening was wrong, regardless of how errant the young lady's words were.  It is easy to cheer on the crowd.  It is easy to be silent when you know the crowd will disagree.  It isn't the right thing to do, to sit on the sidelines, when you witness a mob of your "friends," ganging up on the new girl.

What I won't do is send a pack of readers to attack those involved.  No, I don't believe the primary individuals involved understand why their actions were wrong, nor that they can be convinced of it.  And while I do believe the young woman might have been able to understand where her errors were wrong, I doubt this experience will change her distaste any time soon.  Unfortunately, what is done, is done.  I can only hope that those that joined the lynching will think twice before joining the mob, should a similiar situation present itself, in the future.