"Military.com" wrote:Green Beret Group Lobbies Against Gun Control
Military.com| by Bryant Jordan
More than 1,100 former and current Army Special Forces troops -- Green Berets -- have reportedly put their names to a letter condemning any efforts to restrict gun ownership following the massacre of 20 students and six staff at Sandy Hill Elementary School in Newtown, Conn.
The 2,900-word letter has been distributed to media outlets and posted on Professionalsoldiers.com, which is operated by retired Army Special Forces Master Sgt. Jeff Hinton. Because of the sensitive nature of their military careers the names of those signing the letter are not being released.
Hinton -- who has routinely exposed phony Green Berets and others on his website -- said he has confirmed that everyone who put his name to the letter is a current or former Special Forces soldier. Military.com could not validate all 1,100 names by press time.
Hinton's original goal was to collect 100 signatures. He was surprised by the response he received.
The letter makes the case for allowing civilians to own and use a military-style assault rifle, in particular the AR-15, as well as high-capacity magazines that can hold in excess of 10 rounds.
While the AR-15 is designed to look like the Army's M4A1 rifle, it is not able to fire automatically and cannot be reconfigured to do so, the letter states. As for limiting magazines to 10 rounds, they wrote "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 view offered by the Special Forces soldiers is markedly different than that given by retired Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the former commander of forces in Afghanistan, who also came out of the Special Forces community.
In interviews with various media outlets McChrystal drew no hard distinctions between the AR-15 and M4, both of which fire a .223 caliber round.
"We've got to take a serious look -- I understand everyone's desire to have whatever [weapon] they want -- but we've got to protect our children, we've got to protect our police, we've got to protect our population," McChrystal said during an appearance on MSNBC's Morning Joe earlier this month. "Serious action is necessary. Sometimes we talk about very limited actions on the edges and I just don't think that's enough."
In its letter, the group states they also are "loving and caring fathers and grandfathers" who have been "stunned, horrified, and angered by the tragedies of Columbine, Virginia Tech, Aurora, Fort Hood, and Sandy Hook."
But solutions cannot and will not be found in new laws restricting gun ownership, the group wrote. The writers argue that the Supreme Court has maintained the right for citizens to own weapons in common use, which does not rule out military-style weapons.
In its letter, the group also offers several recommendations it says will help solve gun-violence, including gun-safety programs in schools, legislation mandating that court-determined mentally ill people undergo treatment, and giving border states the job of implementing border control laws to prevent illegal shipments of both firearms and drugs.
The government intercepts only about 10 percent of illegal drugs coming into the country, while its attempt to track illegal guns has also proven a failure, the group said, pointing to the "Fast and Furious" program that allowed criminals to buy and move guns.
"Given this dismal performance record that is misguided and inept … we believe that border states will be far more competent at this mission," the group says.
The group also supports passing Assisted Outpatient Treatment laws to allow courts to require individuals with mental disorders to comply with treatment.
"In each of the mass shooting incidents the perpetrator was mentally unstable," the group wrote in the letter. "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.
As for schools, which have been the sites of several mass murders in recent history, the group supports state and local boards developing security measures they deem necessary. This includes arming staff, if that is their wish. The group also calls for firearms safety instruction -- such as the National Rifle Association's "Eddie the Eagle" program -- in classrooms.
The repeal of the "Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990," does not work but establishes schools as tempting targets to anyone wanting to inflict violence, the group said in their letter.
The group also recommends that gratuitous violence in movies and video games be discouraged, citing research showing links between the exposure to those popular mediums and desensitization to actual violence.
"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," the group states. "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."
© Copyright 2013 Military.com. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Source: http://www.military.com/daily-news/2013 ... =army-a.nl
"The Green Berets" wrote:Protecting the Second Amendment – Why all Americans Should Be Concerned
29 January 2013
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 semiautomatic 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
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.
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 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.
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
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 semiautomatic 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
In a recent op-ed piece in the San Francisco Chronicle, Brett Joshpe stated that “Gun advocates will be hardpressed 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
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 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
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 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.
John Greenewald, Jr.
The Black Vault Website Owner / Operator
February 11, 2013
While I do not currently hold the power of a gun in my hands, and do not intend to own one, I consider it vital to the security of this nation under God to maintain a "citizen militia" that makes it possible for evil people to be checked in their rise to power, when Germany did not have this militia, when Germany defeated all opposing groups, then and not until then was a "totatilarian dictatorship possible"! It is historically proven that during all times in the history of the world evil men have "sought to obtain power" in the BOOK OF MORMON this is referred to as a "secret combination" meaning a "conspiracy" for the intent of obtaining both power and control over the government of the land or perhaps even the entire world, we have already had a "few very close calls" when OLIGARCHY OF POWER AND WEALTH could have lead to the complete enslavement of the entire planet under just one FIGURE HEAD which is all of course it would have been, but it would have severely impacted the freedom of our planet, while uniting no doubt the planet under the head of one man, I will recount this incident and the man who sought to acquire world control in the 20th century, while some claim it was Adolph Hitler I will prove that in this nation under God a man conspired to "take control" and was barely defeated in his attempt to "seize all power"!
His name was "DOUGLAS Mc ARTHUR" and he was a powerful general during world war II! This is what he proposed, he proposed to attack both Moskow and Bejing after world war II and to "incincerate their civil populations" with nuclear ordinance, then he claimed he could have become the "ruling monarch" of planet earth and he was "crowned" as such by a "secret combination" who merely was defeated because a president who belonged to that same secret combination himself, pulled a plug on the idea and said to "DOUGH MCARTHUR" I know what your plans are and that you are going to "kill me" once you become the sole ruler over the world, and I will call subordination, and I will fire you!
That is what he did, now imagine if there had been "No checks and balances" and this man would have been given the "GREEN LIGHT" to go ahead, we would all now be ruled by the descendants of Doug McArthur for he would have no doubt handed his power to his children, just like Hafez al Assad did in Syria! I am now calling for the "exposure and abolition" of this "conspiracy" that gives this kind of power to individuals in our government!