- Posted January 11, 2013 by
This iReport is part of an assignment:
Gun control debate: Background checks
Marines are Always Faithful Mr. DiOrio, to yourself, to your Corps and to your Country.
I was appalled by the comments about Marine Joshua Boston by fellow Marine Nicholas DiOrio. DiOrio's words demonstrate a complete misunderstanding of the sacred oath that he took when he enlisted, the US Constitution and our ethos.
This myth that the Second Amendment was meant for anything other than providing for the rights of individuals for self-defense and the need for a citizenry that can effectively revolt against a federal government that becomes too powerful, must be dispelled. It is here that Mr. Boston is spot on and in keeping with historical and legal precedent.
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia’s majority opinion in argument on the 2008 District of Columbia vs. Heller case, he wrote that the 2nd Amendment supports the practice of the Federal Government determining that certain types of weapons can be regulated and prohibited. The following federal laws govern firearms in the United States:
• National Firearms Act (1934)
• Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (1968)
• Gun Control Act of 1968 (1968)
• Firearm Owners Protection Act (1986)
• Gun-Free School Zones Act (1990) (ruled unconstitutional as originally written; has been upheld repeatedly after minor edits were made by Congress)
• Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (1993)
In spite of “inadequate” legal tools at both the federal and state level for curbing gun violence in the United States, the Supreme Court did not characterized any types of firearms as “Assault Weapons.”
"We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. [Precedent says] that the sorts of weapons protected were those 'in common use at the time' [the Second Amendment was approved]. ... We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of 'dangerous and unusual weapons.'"
There is virtually no difference between my 5.56 mm M4 semi auto carbine and my 9 shot Mossberg SPX semi auto shotgun. Which one is an “assault weapon?” The one that holds 30 full metal jacket rounds in a magazine or the one the holds nine 12ga 00 rounds containing nine 8.4mm diameter pellets? Given Justice Scalia’s admonition of precedent, it can be easily argued that the “Assault Weapons” in question, are weapons in “common use” by federal law enforcement and the military, thereby should be available to citizens as designed by the founding fathers.
Scalia’s opinion is specifically aimed at the current federal limitations on “dangerous and unusual weapons,” i.e. ATF designated destructive devices such as automatic weapons, grenade launchers, mortars, etc. The current federal limitation on ownership of such weapons requires the application and approval for an individual Federal Firearms License.
Under Scalia’s opinion – my M4 is not a “dangerous and unusual weapon,” because it fits squarely in the manner of bearing arms and providing adequate armament for a citizen militia – the Second Amendment says, "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." Both Marines Boston AND DiOrio know, as I do, that a single squad of 13 Marines could decimate a full company of citizen militia equipped with double barrel shot guns and bolt action hunting rifles.
The Second Amendment is solely designed to allow the citizenry a protection against the tyranny of our own government. Doesn’t Mr. DiOrio understand that Mr. Boston pledged an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic? Mr. Boston understands that the Second Amendment was designed as a final back stop to the kind of corruption of government that breeds ideas like minting a $1 trillion coin to usurp the enumerated powers of the congress to regulate federal spending and proposing executive action to control the weapons that the citizenry can use to effectively stand against martial law. Just this week our elected officials in Washington are honestly and openly discussing using executive powers, instead of following Supreme Court precedence and/or pursuing congressional legislation to address perceived shortcomings of the 2nd Amendment.
Mr. DiOrio should look past the evil of a handful of madmen who murdered innocents and understand that the current hysteria over “gun control” is yet another indication of a deliberate effort by our government, under the guise of “the public good,” to reprioritize individual rights guaranteed in our Constitution.
Furthermore, he must also recognize that the party that happens to be in power has indicated a willingness to undermine the US Constitution's enumerated powers and to destroy the concept of checks and balances that is the basis for the successful governance of our Republic.
Marines are Always Faithful Mr. DiOrio, to yourself, to your Corps and to your Country. Your failure to grasp the concepts of our ethos is the ultimate irony. You would, knowing the capabilities of our Marine Corps, call for the citizenry to be disarmed before them. If you trust that our Corps would stand against the government to protect its own citizens from tyranny, you are simply naïve. The behavior of our senior leaders over the last ten years of war is all the intel you need.
CNN – please do not disclose my real name.