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

reply to post by kozmo

Originally posted by kozmo
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.

Can you provide a link that backs up this statement?

The bill excludes 2,258 legitimate hunting and sporting rifles and shotguns by
specific make and model.

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

She was talking about "assault weapons". Not all firearms.

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.

How does an "assault weapons" ban impede people's ability to own a handgun?

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

Can you provide a link that backs up this statement?

The legislation excludes the following weapons from the bill:

Any weapon that is lawfully possessed at the date of the bill's enactment;
Any firearm manually operated by a bolt, pump, lever or slide action;
Assault weapons used by military, law enforcement, and retired law enforcement; and
Antique weapons.

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!

She is a Senator and does not have Secret Service protection. She is protected by the United States Capitol Police, who carry Glocks (as far as I can find).

Proposed Legislation

Sorry. Double post.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

The term “assault weapon” was a spin-off of the U.S. military’s definition of assault rifles. The U.S. Department of Defense has long defined assault rifles as fully automatic rifles used for military purposes.

Fully-automatic weapons have been prohibited in the U.S. since the National Firearms Act of 1934. Fully-automatic firearms can spray fire with a single pull of the trigger, while semi-automatic guns fire one shot with each pull of the trigger.

Clearly as is Demonstrated here, the definition of "Assault weapon" is a political creation stemming from the Military (previously designated by the Federal ban of 1934) definition of "Assault Rifle". As I demonstrated repeatedly in other threads, aside from a few cosmetic similarities, these rifles have NOTHING in common with their military counter-parts. For more information, feel free to read the National Firearms Act of 1934.

I will respond to your additional inquiries when I return from a meeting...

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
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

.

edit on 1/28/2013 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)

The capitol police also utilize FA rifles and sniper rifles. Those that deal directly with the public use sidearms, but there is a heck of a lot of heavy weapons, true assault rifles protecting capitol hill.

I have tried to stay out of these discussions lately as I have been labeled a gun nut. With that being said let's have a little discussion. Everyone has read the list of banned weapons has anyone read the whole bill and the list of approved or exempted weapons? I belive the full text wasn't available until late Friday night. The list of approved weapons is a joke. She lists each and every variation of each model firearm. Like a remington 700 for example. They are the same whether it is a remington 700 ADL or a 700 BDL. That is how she came up with so many being exempted. Now for the hypocracy of it all. The Ruger Mini 14 Tactical is banned. The Ruger Mini 14 Ranch rifle is exempted because it doesn't have a black stock. They are the same weapon. I will close with this. No handgun is listed as being exempt.

The next step is to take away handguns they are already starting the propaganda for that. Listen to NYC police chief's statement, "our problem here and in ,most urban areas is concealable handguns" paraphrased because I am lazy at the moment.

Until people are educated on the subject and not reacting to the media and high emotions we can make no progress but we can argue and devolve inot the way all of these threads have.

For everyone supporting gun control please do some real research and not from sources with a bias. Get informed.

Even if we keep only our handguns..

How does one fight a tyrannical government, who's armed with high tech weaponry and assault rifles, with a handgun?

That in itself alone makes it not okay to take any of our guns.

Feinstein is clearly a modern-day Traitor. An enemy to the American citizens. And a threat to our liberty.

The People must not accept any further firearm Rights be taken away by these modern-day Traitors who threaten our liberty.

[color=skyblue]“Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples’ liberty’s teeth”
― George Washington


"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government"
--- Thomas Jefferson

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...

BH if you go back and look at her comments in the past she has said that if she could get 51 votes for confiscation she would do it. The Washington Post also said (the day after the first AWB passed) that it was purely symbolic - because rifles are used in a tiny fraction of crimes - and that it only mattered as a stepping stone to further restrictions. If you study the progress from 1970s attempts to ban handguns to the assault on rifle, you see something. They want to use rifles as the stepping stone to get handguns and all forms of semi-auto weapons. The eventual goal is the confiscation of all weapons.

Sarah Brady herself said, "I don't believe gun owners have rights." This is a coalition of politicians and NGOs that believe owning a gun makes you a criminal and a danger to society.

reply to post by kozmo


You're telling me things I already know and I'm not disagreeing with, while ignoring my basic question. But thanks, anyway. I seem to have figured it out with a little help from NavyDoc.

reply to post by NavyDoc

Originally posted by NavyDoc
The capitol police also utilize FA rifles and sniper rifles

In looking into this claim, I realize that LEOs are exempt from the ban, so naturally, the United States Capitol Police are exempt from it, also, but SHE is not exempt from it. So, there is an argument to be made that she is being hypocritical because she is being protected by the same weapons she seeks to ban. (Rosie O'Donnel style)

Fair enough. I now understand why people are calling her hypocritical (even if they are unable to articulate why, themselves)

Thank you for your (eventual) reasoned and helpful responses.

Feinstein is out in the press calling the NRA 'venal'. She clearly doesn't even understand the meaning of the word and using it is SO ironic. Venal means subject to bribery. Let's face it, if there was any one group that tops the list of being venal it's clearly politicians! Between the K-Street mafia, their campaign financing shenanigans, and the litany of back-door sweetheart deals that are part-and-parcel of politics these days, politicians are the most venal bunch of carion-eating trash on the planet. Way to go Feinstein. You're a moron.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by kozmo

 

The bill excludes 2,258 legitimate hunting and sporting rifles and shotguns by
specific make and model.

According to ATF (Feel free to follow the ATF link as well within the article) there are 5,400 licensed firearm manufacturers in the US with an additional 950 licensed importers for a total of 6,350 total manufacturers permitted to sell within the US.

Let's be conservative and assume that each manufacturer makes 20 models (most make far more than that) - the number of makes and models exceeds 65,000. Allowing only 2,258 of them is the equivalent of 3.4% permissible. That is unacceptable.

reply to post by retirednature


And nothing she is proposing in legislation is hypocritical.

She isn't proposing to ban concealed carry, she isn't proposing banning handguns, she is proposing banning assault weapons.

There is zero hypocrisy on her part, the only thing going on here is intellectually dishonestness and ignorance on the part of the pro-gun crowd.

reply to post by kozmo


Are you talking about RIFLES only? 2,258 RIFLES and shotguns are exempt. It doesn't address handguns at all.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by kozmo

 

Originally posted by kozmo
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.

Can you provide a link that backs up this statement?

The bill excludes 2,258 legitimate hunting and sporting rifles and shotguns by
specific make and model.

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

She was talking about "assault weapons". Not all firearms.

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.

How does an "assault weapons" ban impede people's ability to own a handgun?

You know they are two differing parts of one proposal, right? Pistols are reclassified under her proposal and would be subject to the restriction on ammo capacity.

But, alas, let's move to the "Feinstein doesn't want to ban guns" argument. Try these on for size:


"The national guard fulfills the militia mentioned in the Second Amendment. Citizens no longer need to protect the states or themselves."

Dianne Feinstein
U.S. Senator (D-CA)


"Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of Americans to feel safe."

Dianne Feinstein
quoted by the Associated Press
U.S. Senator (D-CA)
1993-11-18


If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them ... "Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in," I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here.

Dianne Feinstein
60 Minutes
U.S. Senator (D-CA)
1995-02-05


Because less than twenty years ago I was the target of a terrorist group. It was the New World Liberation Front. They blew up power stations and put a bomb at my home when my husband was dying of cancer. And the bomb didn't detonate. ... I was very lucky. But, I thought of what might have happened. Later the same group shot out all the windows of my home" "And, 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'd walk to the hospital when my husband was sick. I carried a concealed weapon. I made the determination that if somebody was going to try to take me out, I was going to take them with me.

Dianne Feinstein
during Senate hearings on terrorism, 1995-04-27
U.S. Senator (D-CA)

OR... How about we read direct quotes from some her ilk: Quotes From Liberals Calling For Firearm Bans!

Pretending that there is not a contingent of liberal politicians calling for the complete disarming and/or confiscation of firearms is either a lie, uninformed rhetoric or willful ignorance!

reply to post by kozmo

Originally posted by kozmo
But, alas, let's move to the "Feinstein doesn't want to ban guns" argument.

Why? I have not made that argument, nor do I agree with it. She clearly DOES want to ban some guns. I don't want to have an argument about something we agree on. You continue to answer questions I haven't asked and ignore questions I have... I think I'll just stick with the members who DO want to answer my questions and help with my education on the matter. Thanks anyway.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


Like I said in my earlier post. Read the bill in its entire text. She exempts each different model of a firearm. It is politics at its finest. She is hoping people latch onto the number of firearms she exempts, and not knowing it is just political. If evryone knew what the different models of firearms were we could see through the theatrics. If you look at the exempted weapons it is broken down by rifles and shotguns. It is broken down even more by sub catagories, ie. bolt action, semi auto, and single shot/combo rifle shotgun.

She doesn't list any handguns as being exempt. She carried a handgun and has exempted government officials and LE/ retired LE from this law. The bill doesn't call for handguns being banned as of now. That is the next step. They are getting the propaganda out there now.

If/when this gets past by congress and gun fatalities don't go down in the big urban areas they will then ramp it up for handguns. They have already started.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


Oh, well beg your pardon. Please do... move on that is! I've attempted to answer every question you've posited - even placing them in context. Perhaps they're not satisfactory enough. I agree, tis best to be simply dismissive and condescending. Good day!

Originally posted by rockledr
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

 

If/when this gets past by congress and gun fatalities don't go down in the big urban areas they will then ramp it up for handguns. They have already started.

THE COALITION TO STOP GUN VIOLENCE
“It is our aim to ban the manufacture and sale of handguns to private individuals.”451

“We will never fully solve our nation's horrific problem of gun violence unless we ban the manufacture and sale of handguns and semiautomatic assault weapons.”452

451 Recruiting flyer, 1996
452 Jeff Muchnick, Legislative Director, USA Today, December 29, 1993

VIOLENCE POLICY CENTER

“[We are] the largest national gun control advocacy group seeking a ban on handgun production.”467
467 Politics, paranoia fuel war of words over guns, The Times Union, October 18, 2004

Barack Obama
Principles that Obama supports on gun issues:
Ban the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons.
Increase state restrictions on the purchase and possession of firearms.
Require manufacturers to provide child-safety locks with firearms.

Source: 1998 IL State Legislative National Political Awareness Test Jul 2, 1998

Obama was being misleading when he denied that his handwriting had been on a document endorsing a state ban on the sale and possession of handguns in Illinois. Obama responded, “No, my writing wasn’t on that particular questionnaire. As I said, I have never favored an all-out ban on handguns.”

Actually, Obama’s writing was on the 1996 document, which was filed when Obama was running for the Illinois state Senate. A Chicago nonprofit, Independent Voters of Illinois, had this question, and Obama took hard line:

35. Do you support state legislation to:
a. ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns? Yes.
b. ban assault weapons? Yes.
c. mandatory waiting periods and background checks? Yes.

Obama’s campaign said, “Sen. Obama didn’t fill out these state Senate questionnaires--a staffer did--and there are several answers that didn’t reflect his views then or now. He may have jotted some notes on the front page of the questionnaire, but some answers didn’t reflect his views.”
Source: FactCheck.org analysis of 2008 Philadelphia primary debate Apr 16, 2008

Of course they admitted his notes were on the paper after denying that he had written anything on it. So he had a chance to look it over and made notes. However, he just let it be sent out in his name without checking answers or making sure it reflected his views?

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by kozmo

 

You're telling me things I already know and I'm not disagreeing with, while ignoring my basic question. But thanks, anyway.

I seem to have figured it out with a little help from NavyDoc.

reply to post by NavyDoc

 

Originally posted by NavyDoc
The capitol police also utilize FA rifles and sniper rifles

In looking into this claim, I realize that LEOs are exempt from the ban, so naturally, the United States Capitol Police are exempt from it, also, but SHE is not exempt from it. So, there is an argument to be made that she is being hypocritical because she is being protected by the same weapons she seeks to ban. (Rosie O'Donnel style)

Fair enough. I now understand why people are calling her hypocritical (even if they are unable to articulate why, themselves)

Thank you for your (eventual) reasoned and helpful responses.

In addition, expanding on the hypocrisy of Dianne Fienstein, one must understand that CCW permits are and were almost impossible to get in San Francisco. The very fact that, when she felt she needed one and used her political standing to get one when all of the other citizens of her district were not afforded the same opportunity, is another example of hte hypocrisy in question.


Respecfully,

NavyDoc

reply to post by kozmo


They're the same ones that have always been there... You know, the ones we keep sending back time and time again...

The ones who decide what doctors can and can't do, but have not a lick of medical training.

The one's who criticize foreign policy with having a clue about it themselves...

So we're surprised by this? I'm not. What I am, is pissed. Using the tragedies of these mass shootings to push a political agenda that she's held (hypocritically) for many years.