View Full Version : Feinstein Wants New Assault Weapons Ban, But Will Bide Her Time.
April 10, 2009, 02:28 PM
Headline:Feinstein: Not The Time For Gun Control
From the article:
But even if she pursued the renewal, the votes may not be there today in either the Senate or the House. Both Houses of Congress gained pro-gun Democrats this past election, some of whom won the support of the National Rifle Association. "I am not going to disagree with that at all," says Feinstein. "The National Rifle Association essentially has a stranglehold on the Congress."
Remember the Wicked Witch of the West in the Wizard of OZ trying to figure out how to get the Ruby Slippers away from Dorothy?
"These things must be done delicately".
Gee, Feinstein is from California which is about as West as you can get in America, not counting Alaska and Hawaii, but I digress.
Isn't it interesting that the democrats ran more "pro gun rights" democrats in critical districts and states to get the endorsement of the NRA and get more people who favor gun rights to vote for them. This was their strategy, dreamed up by Howard Dean, IIRC, to take control of congress. They wanted the guys who drive pickups with confederate flags and NRA bumper stickers to vote for democrats in order for the democrats to regain their majorities in Congress. Now that they have accomplished that goal, they have some of their liberal leaders whining that the NRA has too much influence in Congress.
They sold their souls for less gun control and more congress control. Now they want less control by the NRA.
Law abiding citizens and gun owners, 4 million of whom belong to the NRA, are writing letters, sending emails, and calling their representatives and senators. They are tired of the lies such as that +90% of the mexican drug cartels' guns were coming from the US because our guns laws aren't tough enough. BS. We're mad as heck and we're not going to take it anymore.
She and her gun banning cronies in Washington will be waiting for an event to occur where they can strike while the iron is hot. We must be ready and prepared.
April 10, 2009, 03:11 PM
The NRA is not the only roadblock to a gun ban. There are more than thirty million guns in the hands of law abiding citizens in the US, and there are many powerful gun rights organizations besides the NRA. And remember, the Supreme Court's 2008 landmark ruling on the Second Amendment was not funded by the NRA but privately funded by Robert Levy of the CATO institute, with his own money.
Because these rifles have a menacing appearance, they make excellent targets of proposed gun bans, a fact which anti-gun folks use to propose laws which are cynical, incremental, and disingenuous infringements on our right to keep and bear arms. This point leaves aside the fact that one of the many reasons our founders saw fit to include the Second Amendment in our Bill of Rights, was as a safeguard against future tyranny, both foreign and domestic. That's why the first clause of the amendment states a militia, or military purpose.
Let's be perfectly clear. The problem isn't that the Second Amendment isn't working. It's just that it doesn't work well enough in states that infringe on the right. The nutcase in Binghamton, NY somehow had a pistol permit, but in NY that's rare and arbitrary.
If Binghamton, NY were located an hour South in "shall issue" Pennsylvania, the chance that an ordinary law abiding citizen could have shut down this miscreant's rampage would have been exponentially greater.
No gun restriction is ever going to prevent a person, who is bent on evil, from accomplishing his ill will. Anyone capable of brutal murder is so far beyond having any concern for a weapons law as to make the point mute. We are wasting valuable time and energy proposing laws which a criminal is in the business of ignoring. These futile efforts amount to re-arranging the deck chairs on the titanic. We ought to be looking at the real causes of violence, hate, anger, disenfranchisement, poverty, ignorance and the empathy and compassion that too many in this generation seem to lack.
The Second Amendment is, first and foremost, an insurance policy for Americans to prevent the possibility of future tyranny. There is the argument that no handguns, rifles or shotguns are going to keep a government from becoming tyrannical. The Supreme Court weighed in on this in June 2008.
As Justice Scalia put it recently in the Heller vs. D.C. decision: "It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right. "
The government has clearly shown that over time, it develops a greater willingness to infringe on 1st (Speech), 2nd (Bearing Arms) and 4th (Search and Seizure), but it's doubtful that our government may have the stomach to infringe on these rights, when doing so requires them to turn their arms against a law abiding, armed populace.
In short, so-called assault weapons in the hands of law abiding folks (and yes, there are millions of them) act as the final gatekeeper which secures and protects the rest of the guarantees enumerated in the Bill of Right for our great-grandchildren.
There is reassuring irony in the fact that the exercise of the right virtually guarantees that it will never be needed for one of it's most important purposes, to prevent the future tyranny of government.
April 10, 2009, 05:51 PM
There are more than thirty million guns in the hands of law abiding citizens in the US
A 1994 Department of Justice report (http://www.smallarmssurvey.org/files/portal/issueareas/victims/Victims_pdf/1997_Cook_Ludwig.pdf) cited 192 million firearms and 44 million owners. The number of firearms had grown to 200 million by 1997. The 2007 Small Arms Survey estimated 270 million.
April 10, 2009, 07:08 PM
Well I bet the next AWB will not have an expiration date. To top this off the powers that be will let it ride a few years and then tell us "Obviously the assault weapons are not enuff, we need to ban more..." This is just a rednecks opinion and I may well be wrong but don't want to find out...
April 13, 2009, 05:14 PM
The fight is far from over. We've figured out a way to stop them leading with their jab, but they are still waiting for an opportunity to throw a right uppercut. We're winning rounds on points right now, but the final bell has not been rung. Here's an example as to why:
Obama Gets Gun-Shy
Despite a recent spate of killings, the president and fellow Democrats choose not to wage war on assault weapons.
From the body of the article at the top of page 2 we have this paragraph(emboldened by me):
Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, a New York Democrat, is one of those who are impatient with their party's silence. She has reason to be: a gunman firing randomly on a Long Island commuter train on Dec. 7, 1993, killed her husband, Dennis, and severely injured her son, Kevin. But when she pressed Obama transition officials to take up the issue, they were clear about their priorities: "They told me that's not for now, that's for later."
It's still on their wish list. They need to bide their time. The economy, North Korea, Iran with nukes, and Somali pirates must be dealt with first. They'll get around to it eventually. The ironic issue is that it may very well be democrats themselves who are putting the skids on this. The Blue Dogs from rural, gun-rights-supporting, districts, appear to have a pretty good hand of cards right now. Obama, Pelosi, and Reid don't want to take them on at this time.
We can't say we've won. We've managed to slow them down quite a bit from what was predicted, which is a good thing. It's not the end of the fight, however. Ms. McCarthy gives us the insight on that in her statement.
April 13, 2009, 06:26 PM
To top this off the powers that be will let it ride a few years and then tell us "Obviously the assault weapons are not enuff, we need to ban more..." This is just a rednecks opinion and I may well be wrong but don't want to find out...
Of course they will. Socialist doctrine that decrees dependence on government has never been the friend of freedom to keep a reasonable amount of the money you earned, own a gun, or expect government to serve the people instead of the other way around. They need followers, not the type of independent Americans that created and built our country (including businesses), and are capable of fending for themselves.
It's important to look at the big picture and realize that this type of gun or that isn't the issue. Those are just steps on the way to confiscation or strict regulation.
Mixed in with socialists are people who are opposed to guns for personal reasons (like Carolyn McCarthy) and who think it would reduce crime.
When the Clinton AW ban was the issue, it was Feinstein who said "if I could say Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in, I would do it". The reference was to all guns.
She was traumatized when she stood over the body of Harvey Milk after his murder by Dan White and noticed the damage the bullets made. She described putting her "finger in the hole" while trying to help him.
Of course, any innocent victim who lay dead may look the same, including those who wouldn't have died in the first place if they'd been armed and capable of defense. Whether shot, knifed, bludgeoned, etc.
But Diane doesn't see that side of it. Guns are bad (except when she needed a permit) and that incident is forever burned into her brain. She's otherwise efficient and highly capable--unlike Barbara Boxer and Carolyn McCarthy.
Diane Feinstein is actually smart, quiet while she bides her time, and far more dangerous.
Hope I'm not rambling, but the roots of gun control go deep and are more complicated than meets the eye. It's not just about AW's.
April 13, 2009, 06:35 PM
I pretty much figured the recent media blitz of antigun stuff was building up to, or greasing the skids for, a push for new legislation. So I am not expecting a long quiet period on the gun ban front.
April 13, 2009, 06:59 PM
I agree that we the gun owning (and enjoying) public cannot relax. Power hungry people in a free society will unlikely take away a freedom in one fell swoop. It will be more like cancer and less like a heart attack.
They know to 'control' the populace completely they must eliminate freedoms a little at a time. It's like a tug of war and if you slide just a little bit that's one bit they have gained and will not give up.
The Japanese took up all the 'weapons' from the Okinawans before they overran the country. Hitler severely limited travel right before his greatest conquest.
However, in the very early stages of the American revolution the British forgot to take up the squirrel rifles and eventually paid the price.
We won't see it in our lifetime but there will be a time when some guys will come to folks' front doors and demand their guns. That's when a hard decision will have to be made. Because, for the situation to reach that point there will have been a lot of little freedoms ****** away because of an uninvolved uninformed citizenry.
That's why we need to hound the heck out of our politicians when they start talking nonsense. This is especially important on the local level for 3 reasons:
1. It will affect you immediately
2. You can actually make them explain face to face.
3. Local represents one of those 'little bits' I spoke about above.
I say it is great that this forum is provided for us by TFL and they make it very easy for us to communicate with each other about subjects we are very interested in BUT>>>
In addition to us preaching to each other we need to write letters, send petitions, send emails, call and whatever else to let the politicians know we are not just a bunch of rednecks and hicks mumbling amongst ourselves but a voice.... a loud voice that pays taxes and VOTES and advises others on voting.
Sorry.... but every time I hear that heifer throwing out threats as I heard her last night I really get aggravated at the 'silent majority' in general.
April 15, 2009, 08:55 PM
Feinstein Want's New Assault Weapons Ban, But Will Bide Her Time.
I need a voodoo doll of her.:barf:
April 16, 2009, 02:14 PM
each have CCW permits in locales where they are almost impossible for "ordinary"people to obtain.:mad:
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.