Feinstein 'I Understand the Urge to Arm Yourself... That's What I Did'

I did a search, and found no mention of this, which was surprising.

Feinstein Flashback: 'I Understand the Urge to Arm Yourself... That's What I Did'

www.breitbart.com...

Reflecting on those moments, Feinstein said:

I know the sense of helplessness that people feel, I know the urge to arm yourself, because that's what I did. I was trained in firearms. I walked to the hospital when my husband was sick, I carried a concealed weapon. I made the determination that if someone was going to try to take me out, I was going to take them with me.

Sen. Diane "Smelly Cat" Feinstein

You're obviously not their favorite pet.
You may not be a bed of roses,
And you're no friend to those with noses.
I promise you when we're done
all the wold will smell as one
Smelly cat, smelly cat what are they feeding you?
Smelly cat, smelly cat it's not your fault!

More "Do as i say,not as i do" from the government. They are all well armed or have bodyguards that are. The gun issue has never been about saving lives. It is and always has been about control of the populace. The Constitution stands in the way of installing a new form of government that they prefer. Not a government that the people would prefer. We are their servants in their minds.

I had a friend i went to school with many years ago. He was constantly having parties, This was in the 70's so there were drugs etc. I moved out of state for 25 years. When i came back i found out that he was the Mayor of the town. I saw him one day and said hello. He snubbed me. We are simply pond scum to them if we are not one of them. They do not live in the world we live in. They do not represent our ideals. There may be a few who do, however they are way outnumbered and generally considered kooks.

I made the determination that if someone was going to try to take me out, I was going to take them with me.

That mindset right there says it all. THAT is what makes HER someone I'd never want to see with a gun and it shows me her thinking while trying to disarm the rest of us.

SO insecure in her own abilities, skills and training was she that she didn't even word that as a defense situation but simply a bitter and spiteful act of revenge. "Take them with me". Oh yeah.. That makes me feel REAL good. Someone who expects to die anyway and just wants to take the bad guy down with them isn't likely to care about little things like down range targets on missed shots or spray/pray in a crowded setting.

I carry a weapon, not to take them with me, but to shoot the bastard so I LIVE. Not so they simply die as well. Jeeze.... If I'm already dying from being shot or stabbed ..a whole lot of things I was trained to make sure NEVER HAPPEN have already gone horribly wrong and firing a weapon with that thought in mind just makes a perfect clean sweep of total failure for the day.

I'll agree with some, while listening to her......there ARE some Americans who aren't safe with a weapon and have NO business with one. A kitchen knife in the wrong setting may be too dangerous to trust her with.

"It's for me, not for thee"
-Feinstein (liberty taken on interpretation by beez)

She another case of the uninformed on a subject making the rules.

Originally posted by roadgravel
She another case of the uninformed on a subject making the rules.

True, unfortunately we have many more than just her that are under qualified, and uninformed, yet feel they should be proposing laws.

To me anybody in government that is trying to undermine the constitutional rights of Americans to own guns with dirty and misleading gun control laws are nothing but traitors and dirty politicians.

Feinstein just prove to be both a traitor and a dirty politicians just like the rest.

Keeping mind that the president wants to ban "high capacity clip magazines" - HIS words, not mine! How can these imbeciles, who don't even know what they're talking about, make laws on the subject???

The same applies to the terminology "Assault Rifles". Did you know those were made illegal about 100 years ago? They were actually defined as being fully automatic or "Selective-fire" weapons - NOT the semi-automatic ones we "little people" are lucky enough to continue to be blessed by our "leaders" to possess - for now.

I want these asshats making determinations on my ability to protect myself and my family as much as I want a medical diagnosis from them. Oh wait... TOO LATE!!!

Originally posted by marg6043
To me anybody in government that is trying to undermine the constitutional rights of Americans to own guns with dirty and misleading gun control laws are nothing but traitors and dirty politicians.

Feinstein just prove to be both a traitor and a dirty politicians just like the rest.

I consider her in the head of the class, with Nancy Pelosi as dirtbag politicians....

Second line.

reply to post by wondermost


Don't get me started with "Petosi" that one already won the price for "the stupidest political figure in her class"

Originally posted by marg6043
reply to post by wondermost

 

Don't get me started with "Petosi" that one already won the price for "the stupidest political figure in her class"

you mean ol' Nancy "We gotta pass it to see whats in it" Pelosi? I was under the impression that she had me and my families well being at a top priority in her shrively little black heart......

Feinstein is proposing an "assault weapons" ban... Not a ban on arming one's self... She is NOT suggesting we be prohibited from owning guns at all. Can someone explain the supposed hypocrisy?

I disagree with the ban she proposes, as it is arbitrary, but it doesn't mean she's proposing no one be armed...

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Feinstein is proposing an "assault weapons" ban... Not a ban on arming one's self... She is NOT suggesting we be prohibited from owning guns at all. Can someone explain the supposed hypocrisy?

I disagree with the ban she proposes, as it is arbitrary, but it doesn't mean she's proposing no one be armed...

Dude....

youtu.be...

Read between the lines, and stop trusting these political jokesters.

Wait a minute, no need to read between any lines, she flat out said it for all to hear!!!!!!!

reply to post by wondermost

Originally posted by wondermost
Read between the lines,

I'd rather look at the FACTS instead of adding my own meaning. Thanks.

Wait a minute, no need to read between any lines, she flat out said it for all to hear!!!!!!!

Said WHAT for all to hear? That she supports an "assault weapons" ban...? We know that. My question is how is that hypocritical, given the fact that she carries (or carried) a firearm for personal protection? Owning and carrying a firearm for personal protection is a different issue than having a ban on "assault weapons". Please explain the hypocrisy (if you can).

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Feinstein is proposing an "assault weapons" ban... Not a ban on arming one's self... She is NOT suggesting we be prohibited from owning guns at all. Can someone explain the supposed hypocrisy?

I disagree with the ban she proposes, as it is arbitrary, but it doesn't mean she's proposing no one be armed...

Quite easily: what do you think all of those armed men that protect her and the rest of Congress use and carry on a daily basis?

reply to post by retirednature


Nothing surprising about this…they're all hypocrites…we knew that already.

The facts are on the side of the pro-gun community. Has anyone seen the supposed “anon” video that came out last week? It’s full of info that the anti-gun nutters don’t want us to hear.



Something tells me more hypocrites will be outed soon. All the liberals that LOVE ANON might turn their backs and sing a different tune after this video.

reply to post by NavyDoc

Originally posted by NavyDoc
Quite easily: what do you think all of those armed men that protect her and the rest of Congress use and carry on a daily basis?

I THINK they (the United States Capitol Police) carry Glocks, but I'm not sure. Do you know? I mean, if you do, we could skip the guessing game.

The weapons that her bill would prohibit are listed here: Source

.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


You're right. Taken out of context, the video can be made to be seen as her calling for all citizens to turn in all their guns. I made a mistake, and i can admit to that. You know as well as many here that the government, when given an inch will take a mile. Alot of us here fear that if we let them infringe a small amount on the second amendment, they will take it all away.

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 meant no disrespect to you personally, as i have found myself at the behest of a fear inspired knee-jerk reaction to this news of gun control. I am trying to calm myself and see things from a different perspective, but when you look at things like NDAA, the patriot act, the push for sopa and pipa, its hard to make myself believe that they will only try to curtail the violence in our society by removing "assault weapons".

*edit. i see you have posted the gun ban list. you're ok with all these guns being outlawed?

maybe she didn't mean anything hypocritical, but i trust her about as far as i can throw her. (it's not that far)

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Feinstein is proposing an "assault weapons" ban... Not a ban on arming one's self... She is NOT suggesting we be prohibited from owning guns at all. Can someone explain the supposed hypocrisy?

I disagree with the ban she proposes, as it is arbitrary, but it doesn't mean she's proposing no one be armed...

A few simple fact to even begin the debate.

"Assault Weapons" were defined nearly a century ago as those that are issued to the military. The modern evolution of this legal definition has evolved to encompass fully automatic or selective fire weapons. All of which require a Class 2 Federal License. In short, they are already banned from civilian possession without the appropriate federal permissions.

Next, the list of weapons that Frankenstein seeks to ban include over 90% of all weapons which amounts to a de facto ban of virtually ALL weapons.

Actually, she was quoted as stating that if she had her way ALL guns would be outlawed stating "Americans, turn them all in!"

The hypocrisy stems from the fact that she a.) felt that she needed a right to defend herself such that she went through the LEGAL PROCESS of procuring a CCW and carrying a handgun. Then turns around and impedes people's legal ability to do so.

The hypocrisy stems from the fact that the very ban she proposes exempts her and her cronies.

The hypocrisy comes from the fact that she is afforded Secret Service protection - who, ironically enough, carry the EXACT weapons platforms that she is attempting to ban!

It's nice that you can at least see the pointlessness of her proposal, but to state that she is not attempting to disarm anyone is absolutely and completely disingenuous!

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... More 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.