I'm a Signer! :cool:

I couldn't help but laugh when I read this. I really like this guy. :D

Very heart warming story. I will sign on to support the green berets, as I am approaching 70 yrs old but I can still march and shoot. But I may have to take a Nap in between Fire fights. I salute you all, and I will see you all at the appropriate stone wall when the time comes..

To the QPs who composed, signed and wanted to sign this letter ....

I think it's safe to say, that speaking for the majority of us, although not QPs and unable to sign, we support you 100% in this endeavor, and know that we do not stand behind you ..... but stand WITH you.

SD

Well, someone on here, a signer I reckon, has already volunteered me for KP as Pots and Pans Man. :D

Pat

Well said.

I signed.

Tahnk you all.

I signed!!

I signed.

Protecting the 2A
 

An interesting perspective on the recent attempts at gun control from a Constitutional law professor.

Op-Ed: Gun control fails rationality test
The Washington Examiner
January 29, 2013
Randy Barnett

Randy Barnett teaches constitutional law at Georgetown Law and is the author of "Restoring the Lost Constitution: The Presumption of Liberty" (2005).

On Wednesday, the Senate Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing on the various gun control proposals that have been floated in the wake of the Sandy Hook school shootings. Although they are said to be merely "reasonable regulations" of the Second Amendment's right to keep and bear arms, most or all of these proposals are irrational and unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court has established a two-tiered protection of liberty. Under the lowest tier, "rational basis review," it will uphold restrictions on liberty so long as it can imagine any possible reason why Congress might have adopted the measure. By contrast, if a liberty is deemed by the court to be a "fundamental right," it will subject restrictions of that right to "heightened scrutiny," meaning that it will skeptically examine the means Congress chose to achieve its ends. This close comparison of means to ends is intended to smoke out justifications that are really pretexts for efforts to improperly stigmatize or restrict the exercise of a fundamental right.

In 2008, the Supreme Court held that the right to keep and bear arms was a fundamental right. In DC v. Heller, the court did not specify the exact type of heightened scrutiny it would employ when legislation restricts gun rights, except to insist that it would be higher than "rational basis review," and that a complete ban on weapons "in common use" by the citizenry for self-defense and other lawful purposes -- such as handguns -- is unconstitutional under any type of heightened scrutiny.

So, when considering the constitutionality of bans on so-called military-style assault weapons, or restrictions on the capacity of magazines, senators should begin by asking whether the weapons being banned are in common use by civilians. When it comes to so-called assault weapons, like the AR-15, or 30-round magazines, the answer is clearly "yes." Millions of such weapons and magazines are in private hands.

That should settle the matter, but senators can go a step further and ask whether these or other measures are actually rational -- to articulate the end they are seeking to accomplish, then assesses whether the means adopted actually match up with the purported end. Would they actually have prevented a mass shooting or ameliorated real crimes?

This heightened "rationality review" could help ensure that the reason being articulated is the real reason for the law.

For example, "assault weapons" are a made-up category of weapons that is based solely on cosmetic features that make them look like the fully automatic weapons used by the military. Banning them leaves other rifles that are functionally identical in their lethality and rate of fire completely legal. Moreover, far more powerful hunting rifles are left untouched by the law, as are shotguns. This is simply irrational and therefore unconstitutional.

The same can be said for New York's law limiting handguns to seven rounds, while allowing both active and retired police officers to keep their handguns that hold up to 15 rounds. If retired cops need 15 rounds to effectively protect themselves and others, then so do other citizens. Arbitrarily discriminating among Americans in this way is irrational and unconstitutional.

In fact, heightened rationality review confirms what we independently know is going on. Within hours of Sandy Hook, gun control proponents were beating the drums for their long-desired measures, like background checks for private gun sales, that would not in any way have prevented that tragedy. But the exploitation of these deaths is not just morally offensive.

The measures now being rushed through Congress before emotions can subside are irrational and pretextual, which means they are also unconstitutional.

NO! :p

Letter
 

The letter was OUTSTANDING!

As the Second Amendment goes, so goes the Constitution. I do not intend to leave my children, grandchildren or their children a legacy of subjugation.

I am....
 

the 1000.

:lifter

S~,

Very well said!!! I echo your sentiments and can only hope that the SF Men on this site know how much folks like us appreciate ALL that they do, and proudly support each and every one of them!

OUTSTANDING Gentlemen!!!!:lifter

Holly

Gentleman thank you for all the work you did drafting this letter. It is very well written and has the facts supporting your view. I know that it has been re-posted on many different site, which will help get the information to as many people as possible. As a retired Airborne Infantryman, I will proudly stand with my Special Forces Brothers to ensure the freedoms guaranteed in the Constitution are not taken from American citizens

I signed.;)

Gentlemen,
I extend my gratitude to the authors and signers of this document and commend you for crafting such an appropriate response to what has become such a controversial topic.

And while I didn't write it or sign it, I wouldn't hesitate to defend it.


Make it 5 keyboards, you better start buying by the dozen James!

While it's certainly not a surprise that many on this site think the same way, it's nice to see that one is not alone when pondering the larger issues. In short, thank you for posting this.

Proud to be one of the "1000"

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig3/victor7.1.1.html

This guy crafted a prose right to the point to answer the question, "why do you need an AR?"

It was a privilege to sign this letter.:lifter

Can this guy run the NRA!

Great words of wisdom! :D

God Bless Texas.

"In Texas, we know a heck of a lot about fighting oppressive government intrusion. To President Obama and his elitist, liberal allies I say what Texans have said for generations: Come and Take It!"

http://www.daviddewhurst.com/blog/te...our-guns-alone

Did these guys agree to have their faces shown with this article?
 

I'm sure they didn't. :(

That photo has been out on the web and MSM from an awards ceremony. Guarantee they did ot sign a release but as you know they never ask.....

Still won't vote for that guy after the way he acted in the run off with T. Cruz!

It has been out there....however it was not an awards ceremony.

They are paying respects during the transfer of the Fallen... Ramstein AB if I recall correctly.

OK I remember one article about awards and they had that photo. Just another MSM cut and paste to do a story. Thanks for the correction....

This is a very well written letter. A "Must read"
This...
I thank all here of the more than 1000 professional soldiers who signed.
"salute"

Best I have seen
 

Kudos to the author(s) of this letter, and its thousand plus signatories. I have seen it posted on firearms, shooting and political sites everywhere. It was through a link that I found and joined this site. Great work.

Well said!
 

The Income Tax is found in Subtitle A of Title 26 USC (IRC). It is the most pervasive control mechanism of the US government on American citizens. It only applies to the class of persons on which Congress laid the Income Tax. Are you part of that class? Can you state the attributes of that class? Do you know where in the IRC the details of that class are published? What, if any, are the circumstances that brought you into that class? Does not being able to answer these questions suspend your right to property?

As a 25+ year veteran of the ache, pain, terror, pleasure and utter exhilaration that is the life of a Special Forces Trooper, I have taken De Oppresso Libre to the masses at www.nontaxpayer.us. If you would require the US government to obey the Constitution, join me in defunding their antics today. Or you can accept being spanked with a plank of the Communist Manifesto in sullen resignation. The choice is yours. :munchin

Proud to stand with my brothers as a signer.

Chet18Z, interesting profile. Apparently during your European Escapade, South of the Border Snookering, and Oriental Orientation, you forgot how to follow instructions.

Edit.
Chet18Z, Post an introduction

^ I was thinking the same!

It looks like the good people of upstate NY are responding to the state assault on the 2A. Pray that the misguided politicians come to their senses and listen to the words of otherwise law abiding citizens. A short 4 minute video.

http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=BTdhV...KQ%26index%3D1

Those who own, won't answer, or deny owning a gun in congress.
 

Handy little interactive map of those in congress that either own guns, won't answer or say they do not.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/...f_congress.htm

Seems favorable to not passing new laws, or showing the level of hypocracy in congress if something new does pass.

That's a very interesting chart....I hope they continue to push those 17 Democrat Senators who've declined or not answered. According to the Pew Research Center, 25% of gun owners are Democrats. Already 31% (16 out of 52) of the Dem Senators have indicated they're gun owners, which is more than their constituents, and I suspect the percentage is even higher than that.

But I know there are many gun owners, or people neutral to guns, that have fallen into the trap of condemning anything labeled "assault" or "hi cap". According to Pew, this is especially true of women, minorities, young people, urbanites and north easterners. The percentages are pretty clear. If we want to drive a grass roots effort, or drive the national lobby, it needs to be directed towards re-educating those groups on what the 2A means, and why the current gun laws are not effective in eliminating gun crime.

Pew Research Center article: [LINK]

One of the local towns here in the Phoenix area has a good idea. An elementary school principle asked the local police if they would like to utilize an empty office at the school as a police substation. The police agreed and now the police can do paperwork, make phone calls etc from that substation without the need to return the police HQ and get the small stuff done.

Not a bad idea.