More than 1,100 retired and current Army Special Forces troops, Green Berets, have put their names to a letter that condemns the efforts by Washington politicians to restrict in any manner gun ownership, following the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School. Their 2,900 word letter has been distributed to media outlets and was originally posted at Professionalsoldiers.com.
According to the post at Professionalsoldiers, “1100 Green Berets Signed this Letter. We have a list of all their names and unlike any MSM outlets we can confirm that over 1100 Green Berets did sign. The list includes Special Forces Major Generals & Special Forces Command Sergeants Major down to the lowest ranking “Green Beret”.”
The letter begins by those citing their oath to ““…support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same.…”
“We have witnessed the insidious and iniquitous effects of tyranny and oppression on people all over the world,” the letter continues. “We and our forebears have embodied and personified our organizational motto, De Oppresso Liber [To Free the Oppressed], for more than a half century as we have fought, shed blood, and died in the pursuit of freedom for the oppressed.”
The letter conveyed the emotions and expression of sympathy from these brave men. “Like you, we are also loving and caring fathers and grandfathers,” the letter reads. “Like you, we have been stunned, horrified, and angered by the tragedies of Columbine, Virginia Tech, Aurora, Fort Hood, and Sandy Hook; and like you, we are searching for solutions to the problem of gun-related crimes in our society. Many of us are educators in our second careers and have a special interest to find a solution to this problem.”
They continue in the letter to make the case that the term “assault weapon” and “assault rifle” is a political term, which began to be used around 1989. Its use has been clear and that is to be used by anti-gun lobbyists against the Second Amendment.
The letter then makes the case for the differences between the AR-15 and the M4A1. The AR-15 is a rifle that “cosmetically looks like the M4A1 carbine assault rifle, but it is impossible to configure the AR-15 to be a fully automatic assault rifle. It is a single shot semi-automatic rifle that can fire between 45 and 60 rounds per minute depending on the skill of the operator. The M4A1 can fire up to 950 rounds per minute.” The letter doesn’t comment on the use of “bump stocks” which significantly increase the number of rounds one can put through an AR-15. In fact, these bump stocks would allow similar operation to the M4A1 with incredible control over the firearm.
The letter also takes issue with the debate over high capacity magazines. While we have heard the Left’s comments that “just a few seconds of changing magazines could have saved the lives of people. According to the letter, “As experts in military weapons of all types, it is our considered opinion that reducing magazine capacity from 30 rounds to 10 rounds will only require an additional 6 -8 seconds to change two empty 10 round magazines with full magazines. Would an increase of 6 –8 seconds make any real difference to the outcome in a mass shooting incident? In our opinion it would not.” The letter even expressed that to outlaw these would outlaw a class of firearms that are “in common use” and would be a contravention to the opinion expressed by the U.S. Supreme Court.
The letter went on to point out the complete and utter failure of the first “assault weapons ban” that was introduced by the same Dianne Feinstein that we are dealing with now and their conclusion is devastating to her position.
When the Federal Assault Weapons Ban became law in 1994, manufacturers began retooling to produce firearms and magazines that were compliant. One of those ban-compliant firearms was the Hi-Point 995, which was sold with ten-round magazines. In 1999, five years into the Federal Assault Weapons Ban, the Columbine High School massacre occurred. One of the perpetrators, Eric Harris, was armed with a Hi-Point 995. Undeterred by the ten-round capacity of his magazines, Harris simply brought more of them: thirteen magazines would be found in the massacre’s aftermath. Harris fired 96 rounds before killing himself.
Supreme Court Justice Story writes concerning the Second Amendment:
„The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defense of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.‟
A Washington Post editorial is cited from September 15, 1994, two days after the first assault weapons ban was put into place. purpose:“[N]o one should have any illusions about what was accomplished [by the ban],” the editorial read. “Assault weapons play a part in only a small percentage of crime. The provision is mainly symbolic; its virtue will be if it turns out to be, as hoped, a stepping stone to broader gun control.”
They finally ask the question, “So why should non-gun owners, a majority of Americans, care about maintaining the 2nd Amendment right for citizens to bear arms of any kind?”
Their answer was The Battle of Atehns, TN. They also cited disarming of citizens throughout history such as with men like Hitler, Stalin, and Mao. In fact, they even cited the very tyranny of the British government over our Founding Fathers and it was that tyranny that led them to make sure the Second Amendment was at the top of the list to guard against tyranny in our own country.
So what do these men think would be effective? They cited no single course of action that would solve the problem. However, they did put forth eight diverse steps that they said should be “undertaken” and “will require patience.”
First they supported that the Second Amendment in that “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”.
Second, they support that State and Local School Boards provide security as they deem necessary and adequate.
In addition, they also support the passing of Assisted Outpatient Treatment (AOT) laws in every State. AOT is formerly known as Involuntary Outpatient Commitment (IOC) and allows the courts to order certain individuals with mental disorders to comply with treatment while living in the community.
The liberals will love this one. The Special Forces troops support “the return of firearm safety programs to schools along the lines of the successful “Eddie the Eagle” program, which can be taught in schools by Peace Officers or other trained professionals.”
The letter also brought up the issue of gratuitously violent movies/video games. “War is not a game and should not be “sold” as entertainment to our children.”
They support the repeal of the Gun Free School Zones Act of 1990. So far they are with your current author on all these points and remember, these guys are the ones putting their lives on the line for liberty.
Number Seven in their steps takes a shot at the Obama administration and points out something that many of us in America, who are awake clearly see. “We believe that border states should take responsibility for implementation of border control laws to prevent illegal shipments of firearms and drugs. Drugs have been illegal in this country for a long, long time yet the Federal Government manages to seize only an estimated 10% of this contraband at our borders. Given this dismal performance record that is misguided and inept (“Fast and Furious”), we believe that border States will be far more competent at this mission.”
Finally, the letter states that the issue of personal responsibility for choices and actions should come to the forefront. Then there is a challenge that all Americans should be able to affirm: “We have a responsibility to stand by our principles and act in accordance with them. Our children are watching and they will follow the example we set.”
The question in my mind is, is this a warning to those who are attacking the Second Amendment? After all the first thing posed was these fine men’s oath of office to defend the Constitution against “all enemies foreign and domestic.”
I salute these brave men who not only have fought against foreign enemies, but in this letter are taking on the domestic enemies of America. May God grant victory in this fight!
