Former Marine Sergeant’s Call for Vets to Lead on ‘Gun Control’ a Calculated Betrayal of Oath
“Veterans should lead push for more secure gun laws,” a Marine Corps Times opinion piece by former sergeant and current college student Matthew Hess begins. “I have always been perplexed by the knee-jerk opposition of some veterans to any mention of gun control.”
That confusion is clear from the outset. On the one hand, he says he’s for “gun control.” On the other, he says he wishes he could have done something about the San Bernardino murders, themselves the inevitable result of suicidal government immigration policies coupled with enforced citizen disarmament edicts.
With “progressives,” every day is Opposite Day.
“I understand why many people are skeptical about President Obama’s Jan. 1 announcement that he will bypass Congress in enacting stricter gun laws,” Hess admits, trying to sound “reasonable.” What he apparently doesn’t understand (except he really does) is it’s not skepticism, it’s righteous outrage. The president is not empowered by the Constitution to enact any laws, and as far as guns are concerned, the only mandate specified is “shall not be infringed.”
Yes, we all understand the military requires extensive training before deploying with armed troops on combat and support missions. That’s very different from citizens exercising unalienable rights in civilian life. And as the lessons of two Fort Hood attacks, the Washington Navy Yard shootings, and armed assaults on the Chattanooga recruiting and reserve centers should have taught those in charge, the more inviting you make it for attacks to succeed, the more you’re likely to attract consideration.
“I have found that some of the same people who accept nothing less than perfect weapons handling from their fellow Marines have much lower standards for weapons safety in the civilian world,” Hess observes. “Why did I have to go through such intense training and background clearance, when in some places you don’t even need a background check to buy a gun?”
First of all, he didn’t “have to.” He signed up. He had a choice. Gun edicts don’t allow for that. And plus, Sergeant Hess, the Second Amendment articulates a right.
If he thinks for a second that ending private sales and imposing de facto registration and prior restraint on a right will have any effect on violent criminals who – by law – are immune to registration requirements, he might want to make good use of his college studies by taking some Constitutional law classes. That’s assuming he can still find a professor who is not an agenda-driven subversive. And assuming he’s not on board with that agenda.
“While I am concerned that America’s current gun laws are too relaxed, this does not mean that I oppose gun ownership,” Hess continues digging himself into a hole. “I have always enjoyed shooting as a hobby.”
Good for you, Sarge. But I don’t think you want to go the “sporting purposes“ route, at least without figuring out where that evil concept originated.
“But I must question the yield-no-ground attitude toward gun control that I have heard from many of my friends,” Hess continues. Perhaps it would be better for all if he spent less time questioning and pretending he knows what he’s talking about, and more time shutting up and learning from people who can refute every insipid gun-grabber talking point he parrots. That makes it fair to question if he‘s simply naive, or if he knows damn well the PR effectiveness of exploiting veteran status among the less informed.
“Of course, we will never be able to prevent every gun crime or mass shooting, and criminals will always be able to obtain guns illegally,” Hess admits, again with the talking points, this time improvising off Obama’s “We know we can’t stop every act of violence, every act of evil in the world” line.
Yeah, this guy’s a willing tool, meaning there’s really no need to fisk the rest of his propaganda screed, except to say that “law-abiding” is a relative term used to disqualify rights in “progressive” strongholds, and that trying to ban what he calls “military grade assault rifles” is an act of utter betrayal to the oath he swore. Evidently Hess is not ignorant of what that oath meant—he’s just contemptuous of it.
This guy has taken the old “I’m a gun owner with a big BUT…” trick and dressed it up with medals and chevrons. That way, he can wave the flag and shred the Constitution at the same time.
It’s always sad and infuriating to see a veteran turn to the dark side after giving service to his country. When one does, it’s not out of line, to remind ourselves that at one time, one of America’s greatest military heroes, a man who proved his battlefield courage on several occasions, was a twice-wounded former patriot by the name of Benedict Arnold.
- Some Vets Demand ‘Gun Control’ in Spite of Oath
- Pentagon Says ‘No Guns’ for Recruiters: Hide Behind Partitions Instead
UPDATE: A few people on social media have taken exception to this article’s title, protesting there is no such thing as a “former Marine.” Sure there are — those who bring dishonor while serving and are so discharged, and those who bring dishonor afterward, like Lee Harvey Oswald, or anyone who betrays his oath by serving the enemies of freedom. But just to keep the discussion from devolving away from the one that ought to happen, I modified the title to refer to the subject as a former Marine sergeant.