posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 11:22 AM
reply to post by wondermost
Originally posted by wondermost
Alot of us here fear that if we let them infringe a small amount on the second amendment, they will take it all away.
I understand that position, but can only agree to an extent. I don't think they will ever be able to take away the right to bear arms. I'm not
convinced of the Slippery Slope argument in this case, as there is a LOT of room for a "middle ground" that many firearms enthusiasts are NOT
willing to consider or accept.
And if you think giving up assault weapons isn't infringing, i suggest you take a look at the gun ban list that she has proposed.
I did look through it. Admittedly, I don't know what most of them even are.
But I don't see a Glock among them, which is, as far as I can find,
the weapon that protects her.
*edit. i see you have posted the gun ban list. you're ok with all these guns being outlawed?
I posted my opinion of the gun ban in my first post in this thread. www.abovetopsecret.com...
specifically, I would be OK with a ban on full-autos and large magazines. I am not OK banning semi-automatics, just because they look scary or for
other cosmetic reasons. But, as usual, I find myself in the lonely center ground... surrounded by those who think we should legally be allowed to own
ANY firearm we want - and those who think all guns should be banned...
But for this thread, I'm trying to understand on what facts people are basing their charges of "hypocrisy" of Dianne Feinstein. So far, I find
none, but I'm open to learning.
I can understand not trusting politicians. I think anyone who blindly does is a little naive. There is not ONE
politician I trust completely. Some less than others. But that's beside the point. People are charging that Feinstein is a hypocrite and I am asking
for the basis of that charge, because I find nothing in the proposed ban that would preclude anyone from owning and carrying their weapon.