Tinfoil Hat Alert: Gun Control Isn’t The Next Reich (VIDEO)

fox idiotsA gun control myth you’ll hear pretty often has been — unsurprisingly — repeated and rehashed on Fox News as of late. Why? Because Joshua Boston, the marine that wrote a silly (re: idiotic) letter to Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), is being practically worshiped by the pundits over at Fox. The myth in question is that gun control will result in a government takeover akin to the Third Reich or Stalin.

Here’s the video from Fox & Friends, with a partial transcript below:


 Transcript (all emphasis mine):

JOSHUA BOSTON: Uh, thank you for having me.

HOST: Why’d you write the letter to Senator Dianne Feinstein?

BOSTON: Uh, well, it’s…our firearms, uh, they’re important to us, and they’re something that we have to have in order to keep what we have as a country going. And, uh, this starts us on a slippery slope, they take these away, [assault weapons] next they come for the bolt-action guns, and there is really no reason to register other than to confiscate at a later date and time.

Although you might have noticed he never explained exactly what it is as a country that we have to keep going, or how guns help with that, I’ll ignore it. “Next they come for the bolt-action guns” is utterly stupid. In order for something like that to happen, there has to be majority support — which usually means bipartisan. The second part to that, “there is really no reason to register other than to confiscate at a later date and time,” is — simply put — a lovely piece of cognitive defecation. There is another reason to register, in fact; the fact that crimes committed with your gun, should it be stolen (or should you do it yourself), are something you should be liable for. Conservatives love to compare cars to guns, and although that’s a false equivalency, you’ll notice that cars are registered.

HOST: Well the letter you wrote her has gone viral, and it’s caught wildfire on the internet. It’s lengthy, but I’d like you to read, if you would, a passage from it, because it really summarizes your point.

BOSTON: Uh, okay. Uh, it’s uh, it says, “I am not your subject. I am the man who keeps you free. I am not your servant. I am the person whom you serve. I am not your peasant. I am the flesh and blood of America. I am the man who fought for my country. I am the man who learned. I am an American.”

Actually, buddy, nobody serves you, either. You are in service to your country. And in that capacity, while you’re in uniform and on duty, I don’t give a damn what weapons you have. Assault weapons? Definitely. You’re in the military, after all. But at home, as a civilian? What, exactly, do you need that gun for, sir?

HOST: Okay, so that’s what you wrote to Senator Feinstein. Her office did respond to say, “Senator Feinstein respects Corporal Boston’s service. She has heard from thousands of people — including many gun owners — who want to stop the sale of assault weapons. The legislation will be carefully focused to protect the rights of existing gun owners by exempting hundreds of weapons used for hunting and sporting purposes.” What do you think of her response?

BOSTON: Well, this idea that the rights of existing gun owners is strictly limited to hunting and sporting purposes is just absurd, and has no basis in the Bill of Rights. That’s not what it was for.

Ah. So regulation of weapons isn’t part of the Second Amendment, then, despite the bit that says “well-regulated.” How interesting.

HOST: I think you, like a lot of people, Joshua, are worried that the federal government is going to come after our guns.

Wow, way to legitimize the irrational fear of right-wing idiots. You notice that he says “our,” insinuating that he’s worried, too.

BOSTON: It’s something we’ve seen happen time and time again in history. With Stalin, it happened in Cambodia, and then, of course, the Third Reich. No one saw that coming until it was too late.

HOST: Well, of course, this was in the wake of the massacre up at the Newtown elementary school. Do you feel that any changes should be made to the gun laws as they are? I mean, there are 2,000 of them out there right now, in many cases simply not effective.

BOSTON: One change we need to really honesty look at is this idea of a gun-free zone. Essentially all it does is advertise a hunting ground for the predators in our society. It forces people to be disarmed.

If you’re worried that the government is going to swoop down and snatch your weapons in order to enslave you, have no fear — they already can. Any weapon you can legally acquire isn’t within the scope of the current military technology of the US government.

Let’s say that we allow people to have assault weapons. Any guns you like. Well, then, it seems obvious — every gun manufactured later than 2013 must have a biometric trigger that must be keyed to whomever will be using the firearm. All guns made previous to the installation of biometric controls must be placed in a biometrically controlled safe, in order to prevent theft. You are liable for any damages done with your guns, even if you did not pull the trigger (unless it’s a biometric fail, in which case the company that built it is).

But wait! If you register, it means they’ll be confiscated by the government … on what legal grounds, again? The entire argument is ridiculous.


Political Writer, Justin Acuff Please join me on Facebook for instant access to my articles, or visit my home site.