Apparently No One Told Joshua Boston that "Semper Fi" Means "Always Faithful"

This week a former Marine named Joshua Boston wrote a public letter to Senator Diane Feinstein objecting to her proposed bill to restrict access to assault-type rifles and limit magazine sizes. Here's a portion of his letter:

I will not register my weapons should this bill be passed, as I do not believe it is the government's right to know what I own. Nor do I think it prudent to tell you what I own so that it may be taken from me by a group of people who enjoy armed protection yet decry me having the same a crime. You ma'am have overstepped a line that is not your domain. I am a Marine Corps Veteran of 8 years, and I will not have some woman who proclaims the evil of an inanimate object, yet carries one, tell me I may not have one.

He also decries her proposal, claiming he is not her servant or a peasant.

Aside from the clear misogyny in this machofesto - indicating that he will not be told what to do "by some woman" - Mr. Boston is myopic to the point of being scary.  (I wonder if Mr. Boston had trouble following the orders of higher ranked female Marines.)

In the first instance, the government (state, local and federal) tracks all kinds of things we own: guns, boats, cars, certain prescription narcotics, even ibuprofen. Why? Partly because of taxation issues. And partly because of safety and liability concerns. Some things are dangerous and we need to keep track of them. Is a gun less dangerous that ibuprofen? 

The mere fact that the government knows you have a gun is not a threat to you unless you intend to use that gun against that government. Is Mr. Boston planning a coup?

This brings me nicely to my second point: the futility of the pro-gun argument. The gun-toting Tea Party frequently claims its Constitutional right to bear arms is based in the Founding Fathers' mistrust of the federal government and the right of the citizenry to protect itself from the US government. This makes me laugh. This is why original intent is absurd. Please tell me which guns you could own that would prevent the United States government from taking you out if it wanted to. Please. Tell. Me. 

When the Second Amendment was written the weapons used were muskets, cannons, knives, and swords. It was actually possible in the late 1700s to own weapons that would help you hold your farmhouse should a federal military action be launched against you. Today? Satellites could find you in your backyard from space and a drone could take you out before you have a chance to say "Don't Tread on Me!" 

I find the handful of assassinations of US citizens that have been linked to terrorist activities offensive and I think those actions are probably illegal. (There should be trials.) But that limited, targeted activity is not a reason to think the US government is going to start taking out large numbers of Americans willy-nilly. (And if they did, there is little we could do.) But our government will not start sniping and locking up the average citizen without legal justification because for all the cynicism in our politics, almost all of us, politicians included, believe in our system. If this were not true, we would already be a military dictatorship. As would every other gun-regulating democracy with a large military (France, UK, Spain, Germany, pretty much all of Europe.) 

The idea of the US government squashing state and local governments and becoming a military tyrannical regime is nothing but a dark fantasy that scared people like to engage in while playing war games in the woods. (Ironically, many of these folks also favor a very strong military. Figure that out!) Fantasy is fine. Just keep it out of our policy.

The point I think that is utterly lost on Mr. Boston is that as a (former) Marine, he poses (or posed) a bigger threat to our freedom than Senator Feinstein ever could. If we pretend there could be a federal coup - the Dark Fantasy come true - it will certainly be imposed using military personnel and equipment. Whose side do you think Mr. Boston will be on? ("Once a Marine, always a Marine!")

This argument isn't about freedom or tyranny or even the Second Amendment. Not really. That's just the context. If the Constitution mattered that much to people, we would be rioting in the streets about the Patriot Act and warrantless wire-tapping. This debate is heated because people who like the thrill of firing a badass gun don't want to be told what to do. Sorry. I'd like to drive 90 miles per hour on the freeway, but that's not safe. And neither is unregistered ownership of assault rifles.

Finally, though not the real point of this blog, I have an additional point. Mr. Boston seems to think he is entitled to some type of reverence or deference because he was a Marine for 8 years.   No. It doesn't work that way. I respect his service to the country and I respect his right to have and express an opinion. But his opinions have no more or less value than mine or yours. And in my opinion, Mr. Boston is almost as scary as he is wrong.  He has vowed, publicly, to violate federal law (if the bill is passed and signed) to keep unregistered assault rifles.

Wasn't Tim McVeigh also a veteran?