This iReport is part of an assignment:
Gun control debate: Background checks
More iReports you should see
Being Ready For The Fight, Why We Need "Assault Weapons."
I am only speaking as a former Marine in response to the two previous iReports generated by former Marines. I do not feel that my 1st Amendment freedoms carry any more weight than that of other civilians by my veteran status. That being said, as a veteran I am on record as being willing to risk my life in protection of those freedoms. I've heard gun control advocates say things like "It seems like these gun nuts would die for their right to own guns." Yeah that's kind of the idea.
First off, I'd like to commend Joshua Boston for his commitment to defending his, and every citizen’s right to own firearms. All men of true convictions have a line in the sand. He just made his very clear.
Sergeant Nick DiOrio seems to disagree. While I respect his right to his opinion, I want to make it very clear that I have never, even temporarily been ashamed of title Marine. The opinion that defense of one's own rights somehow is unsympathetic to the victims in these mass shootings is highly flawed logic in my opinion. I feel that the gun control passed in the names of these victims does more damage than any statement by Boston. I don't find his attitude toward authority disgusting because I, like many Americans, am well aware that authority can become corrupt. Imagine if our founding fathers had such trust of authority as Sgt DiOrio. I presume it would have gone something like "Well I sure hate taxation without representation, but the King is the boss. I'm sure he knows what's best for me." I respect Sgt DiOrio's service. I know there are some veterans who agree with him, but it is my experience that most would stand with Boston. Just read the comments on DiOrio’s story if you want to confirm my opinion.
The gun control agenda to pull on the heartstrings of Americans in response to these tragedies is sickening to me. Any loss of innocent life is tragic, but blaming "assault weapons" is akin to blaming cars for drunk drivers. Sadly, there are some in government who think they can save us from ourselves on that as well by mandating that all new cars come equipped with breathalyzers. If you agree with that, voluntarily put a breathalyzer in your car and get back to me after you know what a pain they are.
It is cliché, but the old saying is as true as ever: "Guns don't kill people. People kill people." Well, almost. What Sgt DiOrio, Senator Feinstein, President Obama, and most Americans don't know, or have cared to ignore, is that most of the perpetrators of mass shootings have been under the influence of, or going through withdrawal of antipsychotic drugs. You know all those pills you see advertised on TV with the quick disclaimer of may cause thoughts of suicide. If you doubt me on this, look into for yourself. Even Michael Moore has stated his concerns on this issue.
Mass shootings were not a problem 40 to 50 years ago. True in those days AR-15s and AK-47s weren't as common as they are today, but virtually anyone could mail order a surplus M-1 Garand with no background check, and no registration. The M-1 is no slouch compared to the AR-15. It fires a much more powerful round and can be reloaded very fast. The US Military still uses a variant of the M-14 today, which shares most of its DNA with the M-1.
There are literally thousands of cases of people being on these antidepressants and Ritalin who show disturbing behavior while under these drugs. They are becoming much more popular too. Children as young as toddlers can be diagnosed with attention deficit disorder and be prescribed Ritalin. If AR-15s were really to blame, wouldn't the fact that they are selling record numbers (some estimates are 50,000 per month) mean we should be killing each other in record numbers? In fact they are among the rarest weapons used in crime and as firearms in general are becoming more popular overall crime is decreasing. How would banning “assault rifles” benefit anyone?
This leads many pro gun control advocates to the question "Why do Americans need "assault rifles?" The fact that they are used rarely in crime did not prevent both Mitt Romney and President Obama from scrambling to be the first to demonize these inanimate objects during the presidential debates. I will go on record as stating that they are NOT for hunting. The Second Amendment has NOTHING to do with hunting. Americans need to have the ability to have these weapons for defense. Many pro gun advocates are quick to point out that they are the final check and balance of a tyrannical government. I won't disagree with that, but there is an equally important reason. These weapons can be used to defend ourselves from foreign attacks.
I'm sure many gun control advocates are rolling their eyes at reading that but there is one reason that the Japanese did not dare a ground attack on American soil during WWII. They knew that so many Americans were armed, that behind every blade of grass, there'd be a rifle. Now I'm not saying that we will be attacked by a foreign army tomorrow, this month, or this year, but I don't know that, and neither do you. To simply say that it is not possible, especially looking past this year or 20 years into the future is irresponsibility at its highest level.
While I do not currently own any rifle, I plan to when I can afford one. I will buy one so that I can defend myself, my wife, and my daughters against all who seek to harm them. I plan to train my family in the responsible and proud tradition of firearms ownership so my daughters can protect themselves when they are grown.
I, like Joshua Boston, am a man of conviction. I too have a line in the sand. Boston’s was that he would refuse to register his rifles regardless of any law passed that might require him to do so. My line is in response to Sgt DiOrio’s suggestion that a retroactive ban of “assault weapons” be forced upon Boston, and the American people. I can stomach registering my weapons. I could even live with another useless “assault weapons” ban. There are many Americans who are done compromising their Second Amendment rights, and I agree, but my line is slightly further back. My line is when the federal government forcibly begins collecting ANY weapons from law abiding citizens. That’s as far as I’m willing to be pushed. Even not owning a firearm that would be confiscated would be too much for me.
In England, they convinced most citizens to turn in handguns over .22 caliber, but assured them that they could keep their .22s. That didn’t last long. Now it is virtually impossible to legally own any firearm there. The crime rate for that country is also among the worst in Europe. There is even talk of banning knives now also. That is the flawed logic of gun control. Well I don’t want to live in a country where I can’t have a firearm, and I WON’T! To Pierce Morgan and any Americans who want total gun confiscation, I suggest you leave the US. England is not an example for American, it’s a warning!
For Sgt DiOrio, and any American still on the fence of gun control I have two parting thoughts. First, being a person who is open minded enough to at least listen to any argument, regardless of how much a may disagree, I have been to the Brady Campaign’s website. If you examine this site you will find a section devoted to tracking every time a concealed carry holder has killed another person since I believe 2007. The number is staggeringly low, but I mention this because the Brady bunch is not interested in banning “assault weapons,” but all firearms and I believe the CCW killers section is strong evidence of this. Secondly, if you don’t want to own a firearm, then don’t. If you don’t like “assault rifles,” fine. I respectfully disagree but your opinion will NOT override my rights!
First off, I'd like to commend Joshua Boston for his commitment to defending his, and every citizen’s right to own firearms. All men of true convictions have a line in the sand. He just made his very clear.
Sergeant Nick DiOrio seems to disagree. While I respect his right to his opinion, I want to make it very clear that I have never, even temporarily been ashamed of title Marine. The opinion that defense of one's own rights somehow is unsympathetic to the victims in these mass shootings is highly flawed logic in my opinion. I feel that the gun control passed in the names of these victims does more damage than any statement by Boston. I don't find his attitude toward authority disgusting because I, like many Americans, am well aware that authority can become corrupt. Imagine if our founding fathers had such trust of authority as Sgt DiOrio. I presume it would have gone something like "Well I sure hate taxation without representation, but the King is the boss. I'm sure he knows what's best for me." I respect Sgt DiOrio's service. I know there are some veterans who agree with him, but it is my experience that most would stand with Boston. Just read the comments on DiOrio’s story if you want to confirm my opinion.
The gun control agenda to pull on the heartstrings of Americans in response to these tragedies is sickening to me. Any loss of innocent life is tragic, but blaming "assault weapons" is akin to blaming cars for drunk drivers. Sadly, there are some in government who think they can save us from ourselves on that as well by mandating that all new cars come equipped with breathalyzers. If you agree with that, voluntarily put a breathalyzer in your car and get back to me after you know what a pain they are.
It is cliché, but the old saying is as true as ever: "Guns don't kill people. People kill people." Well, almost. What Sgt DiOrio, Senator Feinstein, President Obama, and most Americans don't know, or have cared to ignore, is that most of the perpetrators of mass shootings have been under the influence of, or going through withdrawal of antipsychotic drugs. You know all those pills you see advertised on TV with the quick disclaimer of may cause thoughts of suicide. If you doubt me on this, look into for yourself. Even Michael Moore has stated his concerns on this issue.
Mass shootings were not a problem 40 to 50 years ago. True in those days AR-15s and AK-47s weren't as common as they are today, but virtually anyone could mail order a surplus M-1 Garand with no background check, and no registration. The M-1 is no slouch compared to the AR-15. It fires a much more powerful round and can be reloaded very fast. The US Military still uses a variant of the M-14 today, which shares most of its DNA with the M-1.
There are literally thousands of cases of people being on these antidepressants and Ritalin who show disturbing behavior while under these drugs. They are becoming much more popular too. Children as young as toddlers can be diagnosed with attention deficit disorder and be prescribed Ritalin. If AR-15s were really to blame, wouldn't the fact that they are selling record numbers (some estimates are 50,000 per month) mean we should be killing each other in record numbers? In fact they are among the rarest weapons used in crime and as firearms in general are becoming more popular overall crime is decreasing. How would banning “assault rifles” benefit anyone?
This leads many pro gun control advocates to the question "Why do Americans need "assault rifles?" The fact that they are used rarely in crime did not prevent both Mitt Romney and President Obama from scrambling to be the first to demonize these inanimate objects during the presidential debates. I will go on record as stating that they are NOT for hunting. The Second Amendment has NOTHING to do with hunting. Americans need to have the ability to have these weapons for defense. Many pro gun advocates are quick to point out that they are the final check and balance of a tyrannical government. I won't disagree with that, but there is an equally important reason. These weapons can be used to defend ourselves from foreign attacks.
I'm sure many gun control advocates are rolling their eyes at reading that but there is one reason that the Japanese did not dare a ground attack on American soil during WWII. They knew that so many Americans were armed, that behind every blade of grass, there'd be a rifle. Now I'm not saying that we will be attacked by a foreign army tomorrow, this month, or this year, but I don't know that, and neither do you. To simply say that it is not possible, especially looking past this year or 20 years into the future is irresponsibility at its highest level.
While I do not currently own any rifle, I plan to when I can afford one. I will buy one so that I can defend myself, my wife, and my daughters against all who seek to harm them. I plan to train my family in the responsible and proud tradition of firearms ownership so my daughters can protect themselves when they are grown.
I, like Joshua Boston, am a man of conviction. I too have a line in the sand. Boston’s was that he would refuse to register his rifles regardless of any law passed that might require him to do so. My line is in response to Sgt DiOrio’s suggestion that a retroactive ban of “assault weapons” be forced upon Boston, and the American people. I can stomach registering my weapons. I could even live with another useless “assault weapons” ban. There are many Americans who are done compromising their Second Amendment rights, and I agree, but my line is slightly further back. My line is when the federal government forcibly begins collecting ANY weapons from law abiding citizens. That’s as far as I’m willing to be pushed. Even not owning a firearm that would be confiscated would be too much for me.
In England, they convinced most citizens to turn in handguns over .22 caliber, but assured them that they could keep their .22s. That didn’t last long. Now it is virtually impossible to legally own any firearm there. The crime rate for that country is also among the worst in Europe. There is even talk of banning knives now also. That is the flawed logic of gun control. Well I don’t want to live in a country where I can’t have a firearm, and I WON’T! To Pierce Morgan and any Americans who want total gun confiscation, I suggest you leave the US. England is not an example for American, it’s a warning!
For Sgt DiOrio, and any American still on the fence of gun control I have two parting thoughts. First, being a person who is open minded enough to at least listen to any argument, regardless of how much a may disagree, I have been to the Brady Campaign’s website. If you examine this site you will find a section devoted to tracking every time a concealed carry holder has killed another person since I believe 2007. The number is staggeringly low, but I mention this because the Brady bunch is not interested in banning “assault weapons,” but all firearms and I believe the CCW killers section is strong evidence of this. Secondly, if you don’t want to own a firearm, then don’t. If you don’t like “assault rifles,” fine. I respectfully disagree but your opinion will NOT override my rights!
- TAGS:
- GROUPS:
What do you think of this story?
Select one of the options below. Your feedback will help tell CNN producers what to do with this iReport. If you'd like, you can explain your choice in the comments below.
Be and editor! Choose an option below:
More from this assignment - Gun control debate: Background checks
iReport welcomes a lively discussion, so comments on iReports are not pre-screened before they post. See the iReport community guidelines for details about content that is not welcome on iReport.
© 2013 Cable News Network. 
Comments