(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Children's Library | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload
See other formats

Full text of "Over 1000 Green Berets Sign Letter Supporting Second Amendment"

Infowars » Over 1000 Green Berets Sign Letter Supporting Second Amendment » Print 

- Infowars - http://www.infowars.com - 
Over 1000 Green Berets Sign Letter Supporting Second Amendment 

Military professionals agree second amendment is primarily a defense against government tyranny 

Paul Joseph Watson 

Infowars.com 
January 31, 2013 

Over 1000 Green Berets have signed a letter re-asserting their oath to support and defend the Constitution by protecting 
the second amendment rights of American citizens. 




The letter, which originally featured at ProfessionalSoldiers.com , was written by "current or former Army Reserve, 
National Guard, and active duty US Army Special Forces soldiers." 

It highlights the fact that the Constitution was drafted primarily as a means of protecting citizens against "governmental 
tyranny and/or oppression," further citing the words of Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, who outlined the purpose of 
the second amendment when he stated, "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." 

"Throughout history, disarming the populace has always preceded tyrants' accession of power. Hitler, Stalin, and Mao all 
disarmed their citizens prior to installing their murderous regimes," states the letter. "At the beginning of our own nation's 
revolution, one of the first moves made by the British government was an attempt to disarm our citizens. When our 
Founding Fathers ensured that the 2nd Amendment was made a part of our Constitution, they were not just wasting ink. 
They were acting to ensure our present security was never forcibly endangered by tyrants, foreign or domestic." 

The legal precedent of the right to keep and bear arms which includes weapons "in common use" by the military is also 
documented, as is the definition of the term "militia," which as Court Justice Scalia ruled in 2008, "comprised all males 
physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense." 

Tackling numerous sacred cows brought up by gun control advocates, the letter points out that the 1 994 Federal Assault 
Weapons Ban was completely useless in preventing mass shootings because instead of using high capacity magazines, 
shooters like Columbine killer Eric Harris simply bought more 10 round magazines and changed them more often. 

The letter also documents how, despite its draconian gun ban in 1996, gun crime in the United Kingdom has continually 
increased, whereas firearm related homicides in the United States decreased by 9 per cent five years after the expiration of 
the Assault Weapons Ban. 

At the end of the letter, eight steps are recommended to reduce gun violence while still maintaining the sanctity of the 
second amendment, including a repeal of the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990, which allows shooters to carry out their 
massacres unimpeded by responsible gun owners. 



1 of 6 



Infowars » Over 1000 Green Berets Sign Letter Supporting Second Amendment » Print 

Stricter border controls to tackle the flow of illegal firearms from Mexico are also advocated, as is the return of firearm 
safety programs to schools. The letter also discourages the proliferation of violence in movies and video games, citing 
recent scientific studies which draw a correlation between desensitization to violence and aggressive behavior in young 
people and adults. 

Amidst the Obama administration's effort to curtail the second amendment through both executive orders and 
legislation, numerous top law enforcement officials from across the country have gone public to assert that they will not 
follow federal orders to confiscate firearms. 

Last week,Gilberton, Pennsylvania Police Chief Mark Kessler promised not to enforce unconstitutional laws that 
eviscerate second amendment rights. 

"I will take my uniform off and I will stand with freedom before I stand with tyrannical thugs," he stated. 

Read the full letter signed by the Green Berets below. 



Protecting the Second Amendment - Why all Americans Should Be Concerned 

We are current or former Army Reserve, National Guard, and active duty US Army Special Forces soldiers (Green 
Berets). We have all taken an 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...." The Constitution of the United States is 
without a doubt the single greatest document in the history of mankind, codifying the fundamental principle of 
governmental power and authority being derived from and granted through the consent of the governed. Our Constitution 
established a system of governance that preserves, protects, and holds sacrosanct the individual rights and primacy of the 
governed as well as providing for the explicit protection of the governed from governmental tyranny and/or oppression. 
We have witnessed the insidious and iniquitous effects of tyranny and oppression on people all over the world. 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. 

Like you, we are also loving and caring fathers and grandfathers. 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. However, unlike much of the current vox populi reactions to this tragedy, 
we offer a different perspective. 

First, we need to set the record straight on a few things. The current debate is over so-called "assault weapons" and high 
capacity magazines. The terms "assault weapon" and "assault rifle" are often confused. According to Bruce H. Kobayashi 
and Joseph E. Olson, writing in the Stanford Law and Policy Review, "Prior to 1989, the term 'assault weapon' did not 
exist in the lexicon of firearms. It is a political term [underline added for emphasis], developed by anti-gun publicists to 
expand the category of assault rifles." 

The M4A1 carbine is a U.S. military service rifle - it is an assault rifle. The AR-15 is not an assault rifle. The "AR" in its 
name does not stand for "Assault Rifle" - it is the designation from the first two letters of the manufacturer's name - 
ArmaLite Corporation. The AR-15 is designed so that it 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. In 1986, the federal government banned the import or manufacture of new fully automatic firearms for sale to 
civilians. Therefore, the sale of assault rifles are already banned or heavily restricted! 

The second part of the current debate is over "high capacity magazines" capable of holding more than 10 rounds in the 
magazine. 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. Outlawing such "high capacity magazines" would, however, outlaw a class of firearms that are 
"in common use". As such this would be in contravention to the opinion expressed by the U.S. Supreme Court recent 
decisions. 



2 of 6 



Infowars » Over 1000 Green Berets Sign Letter Supporting Second Amendment » Print 

Moreover, 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 1 999, 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. 

Now that we have those facts straight, in our opinion, it is too easy to conclude that the problem is guns and that the 
solution to the problem is more and stricter gun control laws. For politicians, it is politically expedient to take that position 
and pass more gun control laws and then claim to constituents that they have done the right thing in the interest of 
protecting our children. Who can argue with that? Of course we all want to find a solution. But, is the problem really 
guns? Would increasing gun regulation solve the problem? Did we outlaw cars to combat drunk driving? 

What can we learn from experiences with this issue elsewhere? We cite the experience in Great Britain. Despite the 
absence of a "gun culture", Great Britain, with one-fifth the population of the U.S., has experienced mass shootings that 
are eerily similar to those we have experienced in recent years. In 1987 a lone gunman killed 18 people in Hungerford. 
What followed was the Firearms Act of 1988 making registration mandatory and banning semi-automatic guns and 
pump-action shotguns. Despite this ban, on March 13, 1996 a disturbed 43-year old former scout leader, Thomas 
Hamilton, murdered 16 school children aged five and six and a teacher at a primary school in Dunblane, Scotland. Within 
a year and a half the Firearms Act was amended to ban all private ownership of hand guns. After both shootings there 
were amnesty periods resulting in the surrender of thousands of firearms and ammunition. Despite having the toughest gun 
control laws in the world, gun related crimes increased in 2003 by 35% over the previous year with firearms used in 9,974 
recorded crimes in the preceding 12 months. Gun related homicides were up 32% over the same period. Overall, gun 
related crime had increased 65% since the Dunblane massacre and implementation of the toughest gun control laws in the 
developed world. In contrast, in 2009 (5 years after the Federal Assault Weapons Ban expired) total firearm related 
homicides in the U.S. declined by 9% from the 2005 high (Source: "FBI Uniform Crime Reporting Master File, Table 310, 
Murder Victims - Circumstances and Weapons Used or Cause of Death: 2000-2009"). 

Are there unintended consequences to stricter gun control laws and the politically expedient path that we have started 
down? 

In a recent op-ed piece in the San Francisco Chronicle, Brett Joshpe stated that "Gun advocates will be hard-pressed to 
explain why the average American citizen needs an assault weapon with a high-capacity magazine other than for 
recreational purposes."We agree with Kevin D. Williamson (National Review Online, December 28, 2012): "The problem 
with this argument is that there is no legitimate exception to the Second Amendment right that excludes military-style 
weapons, because military-style weapons are precisely what the Second Amendment guarantees our right to keep and 
bear." 

"The purpose of the Second Amendment is to secure our ability to oppose enemies foreign and domestic, a guarantee 
against disorder and tyranny. Consider the words of Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story": '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.' 

The Second Amendment has been ruled to specifically extend to firearms "in common use" by the military by the U.S. 
Supreme Court ruling in U.S. v Miller (1939). In Printz v U.S. (1997) Justice Thomas wrote: "In Miller we determined that 
the Second Amendment did not guarantee a citizen's right to possess a sawed-off shot gun because that weapon had not 
been shown to be "ordinary military equipment" that could "could contribute to the common defense". 

A citizen's right to keep and bear arms for personal defense unconnected with service in a militia has been reaffirmed in 
the U.S. Supreme Court decision (District of Columbia, et al. v Heller, 2008). The Court Justice Scalia wrote in the 
majority opinion: "The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a 
militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.". Justice Scalia went on 

3 of 6 



Infowars » Over 1000 Green Berets Sign Letter Supporting Second Amendment » Print 

to define a militia as " . . . comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense . . . ." 

"The Anti-Federalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens' militia, 
enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the 
ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens' militia would be preserved." he 
explained. 

On September 13, 1994, the Federal Assault Weapons Ban went into effect. A Washington Post editorial published two 
days later was candid about the ban's real purpose:" [N]o one should have any illusions about what was accomplished [by 
the ban]. 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." 

In a challenge to the authority of the Federal government to require State and Local Law Enforcement to enforce Federal 
Law (Printz v United States) the U.S. Supreme Court rendered a decision in 1997. For the majority opinion Justice Scalia 
wrote: ".... this Court never has sanctioned explicitly a federal command to the States to promulgate and enforce laws and 
regulations When we were at last confronted squarely with a federal statute that unambiguously required the States to 

enact or administer a federal regulatory program, our decision should have come as no surprise It is an essential 

attribute of the States' retained sovereignty that they remain independent and autonomous within their proper sphere of 
authority." 

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? 

The answer is "The Battle of Athens, TN". The Cantrell family had controlled the economy and politics of McMinn 
County, Tennessee since the 1930s. Paul Cantrell had been Sheriff from 1936 -1940 and in 1942 was elected to the State 
Senate. His chief deputy, Paul Mansfield, was subsequently elected to two terms as Sheriff. In 1946 returning WWII 
veterans put up a popular candidate for Sheriff. On August 1 Sheriff Mansfield and 200 "deputies" stormed the post office 
polling place to take control of the ballot boxes wounding an objecting observer in the process. The veterans bearing 
military style weapons, laid siege to the Sheriff's office demanding return of the ballot boxes for public counting of the 
votes as prescribed in Tennessee law. After exchange of gun fire and blowing open the locked doors, the veterans secured 
the ballot boxes thereby protecting the integrity of the election. And this is precisely why all Americans should be 
concerned about protecting all of our right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed by the Second Amendment! 

Throughout history, disarming the populace has always preceded tyrants' accession of power. Hitler, Stalin, and Mao all 
disarmed their citizens prior to installing their murderous regimes. At the beginning of our own nation's revolution, one of 
the first moves made by the British government was an attempt to disarm our citizens. When our Founding Fathers 
ensured that the 2nd Amendment was made a part of our Constitution, they were not just wasting ink. They were acting to 
ensure our present security was never forcibly endangered by tyrants, foreign or domestic. 

If there is a staggering legal precedent to protect our 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms and if stricter gun 
control laws are not likely to reduce gun related crime, why are we having this debate? Other than making us and our 
elected representatives feel better because we think that we are doing something to protect our children, these actions will 
have no effect and will only provide us with a false sense of security. 

So, what do we believe will be effective? First, it is important that we recognize that this is not a gun control problem; it is 
a complex sociological problem. No single course of action will solve the problem. Therefore, it is our recommendation 
that a series of diverse steps be undertaken, the implementation of which will require patience and diligence to realize an 
effect. These are as follows: 

1. First and foremost we support our Second Amendment right 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". 

2. We support State and Local School Boards in their efforts to establish security protocols in whatever manner and form 
that they deem necessary and adequate. One of the great strengths of our Republic is that State and Local governments 
can be creative in solving problems. Things that work can be shared. Our point is that no one knows what will work and 
there is no one single solution, so let's allow the State and Local governments with the input of the citizens to make the 
decisions. Most recently the Cleburne Independent School District will become the first district in North Texas to consider 
allowing some teachers to carry concealed guns. We do not opine as to the appropriateness of this decision, but we do 



4 of 6 



Infowars » Over 1000 Green Berets Sign Letter Supporting Second Amendment » Print 



support their right to make this decision for themselves. 

3. We recommend that Assisted Outpatient Treatment (AOT) laws be passed 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. In each of the mass shooting incidents the perpetrator was mentally 
unstable. We also believe that people who have been adjudicated as incompetent should be simultaneously examined to 
determine whether they should be allowed the right to retain/purchase firearms. 

4. We 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. 

5. Recent social psychology research clearly indicates that there is a direct relationship between gratuitously violent 
movies/video games and desensitization to real violence and increased aggressive behavior particularly in children and 
young adults (See Nicholas L. Carnagey, et al. 2007. "The effect of video game violence on physiological desensitization 
to real-life violence" and the references therein. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 43:489-496). Therefore, we 
strongly recommend that gratuitous violence in movies and video games be discouraged. War and war-like behavior 
should not be glorified. Hollywood and video game producers are exploiting something they know nothing about. General 
Sherman famously said "War is Hell!" Leave war to the Professionals. War is not a game and should not be "sold" as 
entertainment to our children. 

6. We support repeal of the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990. This may sound counter-intuitive, but it obviously isn't 
working. It is our opinion that "Gun-Free Zones" anywhere are too tempting of an environment for the mentally disturbed 
individual to inflict their brand of horror with little fear of interference. While governmental and non-governmental 
organizations, businesses, and individuals should be free to implement a Gun-Free Zone if they so choose, they should also 
assume Tort liability for that decision. 

7. 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. 

8. This is our country, these are our rights. We believe that it is time that we take personal responsibility for our choices 
and actions rather than abdicate that responsibility to someone else under the illusion that we have done something that 
will make us all safer. 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 undersigned Quiet Professionals hereby humbly stand ever present, ever ready, and ever vigilant. 



Similar/Related Articles 



1. 57 Senators Sign Letter To Protect Second Amendment Rights From UN 

2. Ron Paul on the Second Amendment Battle in DC 

3. A Constitutional Look at The Second Amendment 

4. Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Rules 2nd Amendment Does Not Apply to States 

5. VIDEO: Obama Supports Feinstein's Roll Back of The 2nd Amendment 

6. Federal judge severely limits Second Amendment rights 

7. Pennsylvania Police Chief Proposes '2nd Amendment Preservation' Ordinance 

8. California Gun Decision Muddies 2nd Amendment Waters 

9. Second Amendment Intended to Prevent Absolute Despotism 

10. Second Amendment Opponents Regroup as Dust Settles Following Illinois Concealed Carry Ruling 

11. Anti- Second Amendment Democrat Arrested With Gun at Chicago's O'Hare 

12. Second Amendment: My Line In The Sand Is Drawn Here! 



5 of 6 



Infowars » Over 1000 Green Berets Sign Letter Supporting Second Amendment » Print 

Article printed from Infowars: http://www.infowars.com 

URL to article: http://www.infowars.com/over-1000-green-berets-sign-letter-supporting-second-amendment/ 

Click here to print. 
Copyright © 2013 Infowars. All rights reserved. 



6 of 6