Diane Feinstein

[armsmaster270]

I wrote Diane Feinstein in support of CCW in National Parks and sh finally answered me. Guess which side she is on?

http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/ff207/armsmaster270/writings/CCF09232009_00000.jpg

[Rich Miranda]

I got the heeby-jeebies just reading that. While courteous and direct, it has a patronizing aftertaste.

Good on you for letting her know where you stand.

[Sevens]

When Diane can figure out how to get the criminals to follow along with her laws, then she might be upgraded to "foolish" from "worthless" in my book.

[cecILL]

She just can't get it. Some people are incapable of any understanding but their own.

[Skans]

First, let me state that I do not like Diane Feinstein. I completely dissagree with her stance on gun control as well as her position on most other issues. I also applaud you for taking the time to write her with your position on this subject and post her response here.

However, understanding that she is noted as being one of the most aggressive gun-banners out there, I can't really find any problem (other than dissagreeing with her position) with her response to you. In her defense 1) she or her staff took the time to read your letter and respond to your letter; 2) the response was direct and set out her position on the issue quite directly, 3) she was not condescending toward you in her response.

I have written letters to congressmen and county commissioners before. My congressman responded, but gave me a very wishy washy say-nothing type letter. My county commissioner doesn't bother to ever respond to my letters - He's a total piece of crap as far as I'm concerned.

I'm just calling it the way I see it - sorry if I rub some folks the wrong way by not beating up on Feinstein too harshly over her response. The real problem with Feinstein are the folks that support her and vote for her - without them, she'd probably still be collecting husbands, killing them off and re-marrying for more money. :D

[Dragon55]

I too disagree with virtually everything Ms. Feinstein is for but will have to admit. She made her position very clear. No waffling.

[KLRANGL]

Well my problem, after reading this, is she doesn't give any reasons why she thinks it will increase violent crime in parks. She just says that it will. And I have a huge problems believing things based on perception without actually looking through statistical evidence and related studies. Maybe its the scientist/engineer part of me speaking, but just because she feels that it will increase violent crime, doesn't make it so, and isn't a valid argument.

Even my pro 2A mom was totally against guns in colleges until I explained her fears were based on perception, not fact, and then I showed her the facts. Guess what... she changed her mind.

Im not out to change Diane Feinstein's mind (though it would be nice) but I would really like to see some rational behind her beliefs...

[45Gunner]

I have a problem understanding the school of thought which believes that if handguns are regulated and/or prohibited, then criminals will abide by such rules. Am I missing something?

Seems to me that if criminals know that weapons are prohibited in a certain zone or area, then it makes perfect sense to that criminal to consider it open season and take advantage of the fact that he/she can operate in relative safety and without fear of being shot by a civilian with a CCW. I would think that most of us would prefer a gun in the hand instead of a 911 operator on the cell phone (and consider that cell service is not always available in some of the Parks.)

What is wrong with these people like Feinstein? Did they not get born with the gene that dictates common sense?

[peetzakilla]

The only reason to communicate with "representatives" like Diane Feinstein is to inform them that there's not a snowballs chance in hell of your voting for them.

You're going to change her mind just as easily as she's going to change yours. "Undecideds" are the ones to talk with about the issue, anyone who has much of an opinion, on either side, is pretty much wasted breath.

[Skans]

You're going to change her mind just as easily as she's going to change yours. "Undecideds" are the ones to talk with about the issue, anyone who has much of an opinion, on either side, is pretty much wasted breath.

Agreed. Feinstein has been in office since 1992, and before that she was Mayor of San Francisco for 10 years. I'd bet that she's received hundreds of thousands of letters just like this one - she's an expert at providing a direct but canned response.

Afterall, she once said on 60 Minutes:

"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."

If you really want Feinstein out of office it will have to be done on another issue other than gun control. The real problem is her political base. Even if you got her out, there would probably be some other gun-banning idiot lined up to take her place.

[Technosavant]

Skans answered it, but I was thinking "Wasn't she the 'Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in'" person?

At least there's no doubt as to what side she's going to come down on when it comes to our right to keep and bear arms. There's none of this purported support for the Second Amendment with her- I will grant her that she's been honest there (as far as I know).

[dondavis3]

Just a rant

[Te Anau]

Just a rant

[Glenn E. Meyer]

If you want to discuss an issue rationally, go ahead. Just ranting - nah!

I'll leave it for a bit and check back latter.

[KLRANGL]

Did they not get born with the gene that dictates common sense?
Common sense brings back my point about perception... Common sense is very very arbitrary, and is based on one's own experiences in this world. To these people, gun control laws are common sense. It's just a point of view based on a perception that we don't agree with. I will even go so far as to say that many people who support RKBA do so because they are raised that way. It is their perception that guns are good. Actually getting down and doing a non-biased in depth research on the subject, and basing opinions on facts and studies, requires lots of work that many are not willing to do.
Changing ones perception based on fact also seems to be difficult. And I think one reason we are gaining significant ground these days is because people are changing their perception about guns. The media and the like no longer have a dominant effect on ones perception on the world like they did before the advent of the internet.

[Mr. James]

I'll try to do that Mr. Meyer!

:D

Sen. Feinstein probably gets hundreds of similar letters on this subject every week. Her reply is direct and honest, if canned. I received a letter from Sen. Mark Warner of Virginia on an entirely different matter (Cass Sunstein's nomination), but one where we decidedly disagreed. Although different in content, the two letters' formats are basically identical. Thank you for writing, a recapitulation of the matter/legislation/issue, statement of position, and a polite close, with a "your views are important to me" assurance.

By way of contrast, I have somewhere in my files at home a response I got from the other Sen. Warner of Virginia, not the current incumbent, but the venerable Leatherneck, John Warner. In it he excoriated me for challenging his anti-gun votes and huffily insisted he doesn't take his marching orders from any special interest (read: GOA) groups. Funny thing was, I had not used one of those cut-and-paste GOA alert letters, and very rarely do. I had composed an individual letter on the issue. What surprised me was the heat of the Senator's response - definitely from a guy who wasn't concerned about re-election.

Hey, come to think of it, Sen. Feinstein enjoys the same luxury.

[a7mmnut]

Write her a return letter of thanks. In it note that also thanks to her ancestors being disarmed, as she wishes we were today, there are at least 6 million fewer of them to fight law-ignoring criminals.:eek:

[htjyang]

a7mmnut's post reminds me of the eloquent and forceful dissent of 9th Circuit Judge Alex Kozinski in Silveira v. Lockyer (which really ought to be memorized by every supporter of the 2nd Amendment and at least read by every public official):

All too many of the other great tragedies of history -- Stalin's atrocities, the killing fields of Cambodia, the Holocaust, to name but a few -- were perpetrated by armed troops against unarmed populations. Many could well have been avoided or mitigated, had the perpetrators known their intended victims were equipped with a rifle and twenty bullets apiece, as the Militia Act required here. See Kleinfeld Dissent at 5997-99. If a few hundred Jewish fighters in the Warsaw Ghetto could hold off the Wehrmacht for almost a month with only a handful of weapons, six million Jews armed with rifles could not so easily have been herded into cattle cars.

My excellent colleagues have forgotten these bitter lessons of history. The prospect of tyranny may not grab the headlines the way vivid stories of gun crime routinely do. But few saw the Third Reich coming until it was too late. The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed -- where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once.

Fortunately, the Framers were wise enough to entrench the right of the people to keep and bear arms within our constitutional structure. The purpose and importance of that right was still fresh in their minds, and they spelled it out clearly so it would not be forgotten. Despite the panel's mighty struggle to erase these words, they remain, and the people themselves can read what they say plainly enough:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The sheer ponderousness of the panel's opinion -- the mountain of verbiage it must deploy to explain away these fourteen short words of constitutional text -- refutes its thesis far more convincingly than anything I might say. The panel's labored effort to smother the Second Amendment by sheer body weight has all the grace of a sumo wrestler trying to kill a rattlesnake by sitting on it -- and is just as likely to succeed.

Kozinski was thinking of family history when he mentioned the Holocaust. His parents were Hungarian Jews during WWII.

[a7mmnut]

Htjyang:

Thanks for finding that for us. I remember many articles and famous slogans, but an accurate search sometimes escapes me. Many more countries than just America honor their own with a Memorial Day. Why are we the only ones so quick to forget?

-7-

[Tennessee Gentleman]

armsmaster270,

Remember, we get the government we deserve!:cool:

[Glenn E. Meyer]

One problem in changing minds is that there are two channels to opinion change. One is emotional and one is rational.

However, for most people - the emotional channel is quick and more powerful.

Sen. Feinstein lived through the assassination of the Mayor of SF Moscone and Harvey Milk. The latter was killed in part because of his stand on gay issues.

Thus, convincing her that privately owned firearms are worthy would be a hard sell by controversial appeals to risk/benefit ratios. Some folks might argue if all had guns, then you could defend yourself. But others might argue that their elimination would lead to less bloodshed. It is an empirical question which would be the case. The emotional appeal of the antigun position is stronger for her.

I would also (and don't want to start a gay rights controversy) opine that correlated opinions also influence the debate. Given that White was dead set against gay rights as are many of the political right and that the right is progun for the most part - she would have a hard time identifying or accepting the logic of one of the political totems of the right (the RKBA) given it would seem related to a hateful person who used a gun to cause death close to her. It would be part of a package of unacceptable beliefs.

Once you have an emotional set - then you selectively process new information to match your beliefs - confirmation bias.

It takes a lot to break such a set. So don't expect her to do so.

Just because we see the RKBA as intrinsically obvious doesn't mean that others will. Most social issue debates have each side thinking that its position is so blazingly obvious that the others must be nuts, stupid or part of some evil conspiracy to do something really evil.

It takes deliberate training and thought to evaluate policy issues on merits. Even very intelligent people cannot do that at times.

[Kreyzhorse]

Urggggggghh.

So, allowing law abiding people with firearms in national parks would increase violence?

And of course, potentionally violent people will obey the laws banning guns and commit their crimes at areas that allow firearms?

I don't understand how any one who uses that argument could actually look at themselves in the mirror.

I'd have a lot more respect for her if she just stood up and said "I hate guns in all shape and forms and would ban them if I could." This silly ass arguement that guns cause law abiding people to break laws and commit crimes while they prevent criminals from committing the crimes because they would break the law is asinine.

[DT Guy]

I think less of Feinstein than I do my dog. Even my cat.

But I'd rather have to combat her forthright opposition to gun rights than BO's insidious, sneaky double-speak about supporting the second amendment and wanting to ban anything that goes 'bang. It's easier to oppose, less effective and demonstrates the inflexible, irrational nature of her position.

Far better to oppose a Feinstein in an open battle than BO in a covert one.


Larry

[armsmaster270]

Kreyzhorse: The thing is she does not hate guns she has a CCW she hates other people with guns.
Htjyang: Thanks I think I will send that back as rebuttal.

[KLRANGL]

The thing is she does not hate guns she has a CCW she hates other people with guns.
ive never head that one before... quick search on google, and sure enough...

quote from here: (http://www.calccw.com/Forums/general-ccw-discussion/4149-dianne-feinstein-ccw.html)
Thank you for writing to me about my permit to carry a concealed weapon. I would like to take this opportunity to set the record straight.

I possessed a concealed weapon permit for a short time beginning in 1976. In the mid‑1970s, a terrorist organization ‑‑ the New World Liberation Front ‑‑ carried out two attacks against me and my family. In the first, a bomb was placed outside the window of my daughter's bedroom. It detonated but did not explode. We were lucky: the weather was particularly (and unusually) cold, and the explosive they used didn't explode in below‑freezing temperatures. In the second, they shot out the windows of our beach home. My husband was terminally ill with cancer at the time.

Later, some of the members of the New World Liberation Front were arrested, and the threat abated. At that point, I had the gun -- and several other weapons that were turned into the police -- melted into a cross, which I presented to Pope John Paul II when I visited Rome in 1982. Currently, I do not possess a gun, nor do I have a permit to carry a concealed weapon.

I hope this addresses what you may have heard on the subject. If I can be of additional assistance, please do not hesitate to call my Washington, D.C. staff at (202) 224‑3841.

That brings up some interesting questions... like... one is only allowed to have a gun if they are directly threatened previous to owning a firearm?
Or the more likely: "I'm rich and famous and don't have to abide by the rules."
Another instance of do as I say, not as a do...

[Tennessee Gentleman]

I think Glenn is on to something.

I have often noticed within the arguments of both antigunners and progunners a good bit of emotion.

I see folks like Sarah Brady, Tom Mauser, Carolyn McCarthy and others whose lives were savaged by gun crime turn rabidly against gun ownership.

However, I also have listened to the testimony of Susanna Gratia Hupp whose parents were murdered in the Luby's Massacre in 1991. She went the other way, became a Texas state rep and later passed CCW over the veto of Gov Ann Richards. There are others but she is the most famous one I can remember.

My question to you Glenn and the forum is what is it that makes these folk savaged by violent crime tilt one way or the other concerning gun rights?

What is in their makeup, that emotional set, that makes them want to either ban guns or make them more available for self defense?

[Skans]

Feinstein is an elitist. She thinks that she is important and thus is deserving of owning a firearm. To her most average people don't need a gun and shouldn't be permitted to have them.

She also believes that she has been annointed to determine who should and who should not own firearms. She is more dangerous than the average idiot who knows nothing about firearms and just doesn't like them because they look scary. She is an elitist. And, elitists think that they get privilages that most others don't get simply because they are better and more important than the rest of us.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

From my reading of the literature, TG - we really don't have a handle on what causes someone to decide that the way to reduce violence is to get rid of guns or get more guns.

There will be a lot of progun self-serving chestpounding that the anti is an elitist, commies, etc. There will be a lot of wailing from antis that gun owners are all blood thirst nuts, etc.

The real answer is that such pop psych blather is useless fun just for the respective choirs. We don't know.

Group polarization leads to extreme rhetoric and they drive the debate. The majority of Americans feel this way:

1. Law abiding Americans should be able to buy guns for self-defense or sport.
2. Laws should exist to prevent criminals from buying guns easily - so they would support NICS, and AWBs.

However, both extreme choirs find the other's proposition totally unacceptable and curse, spew and rant.

Gets us nowhere. Reasonable rhetoric has gotten most of the country to adopt shall issue laws, an increase in castle laws and the AWB not renewed (which that elitist George W. Bush favored :D).

Rational presentation and incrementalism works. Some areas probably will take longer. However, clever court challenges like Heller and if it works in Chicago can start to change the climate even there.

[RETG]

Not sure why people think allowing concealed weapons in National Parks would be any different than allowing concealed (or open carry) in BLM or National Forest lands; where you are legal to carry if you are legal in the state the BLM land or National Forest is located, and the State law allows you to carry on BLM or NF lands.

As for Feinstein...NO comment.:barf:

[carguychris]

Not sure why people think allowing concealed weapons in National Parks would be any different than allowing concealed (or open carry) in BLM or National Forest lands...
At the risk of starting a thread hijack, IMHO the reason is that national parks are much more popular tourist destinations. Many states have little or no BLM land (TX has none), and national forests are often remotely located and/or have very limited facilities.

BLM land and NF's may be attractive to hardcore outdoorsmen, who are likely over-represented on this forum, but these places have little to offer Ma & Pa Tourist from Anytown, USA who are looking for spectacular vistas without having to actually hike anywhere. :rolleyes:

As a footnote, my pet cause is allowing legal CCW at USACE parks, since they're quite numerous at many lakes in North Central TX that I like to visit.

[Fremmer]

So a liberal democrat is against allowing citizens to exercise thier Constitutional right to keep and bear arms in the wilderness. So what's the surprise? Liberals hate guns, and will always attempt to ban them. I guess it's good to remind us about this, but it's not worth getting upset because a hard-core liberal wants more gun control....

[csmsss]

Glenn, the "reasonable" approach is also what's gotten such execrable pieces of legislation as the 1934 NFA, 1968 GCA and 1994 AWB enacted. Moreover, I'm sure Neville Chamberlain thought he was being "reasonable" in 1938 when he gave away eastern Europe.

One person's reasonable is another person's capitulation.

[carguychris]

Liberals hate guns, and will always attempt to ban them.
Many of my political views are quite liberal, but I strongly oppose gun control. There are quite a few other TFL forum members with similar viewpoints.

Assuming that "liberals" are a unified voting bloc who march in lockstep with politicials such as Mrs. Pelosi is an oversimplification that hurts the gun rights cause.

[Fremmer]

I know, it just doesn't make sense! All of those liberals who hate guns keep electing liberal politicians who also hate guns, and who keep proposing anti-gun legislation, and who are consistently re-elected by....liberals. Who would have thunk it?!? I just can't figure it out..... :confused:

[chemgirlie]

My question to you Glenn and the forum is what is it that makes these folk savaged by violent crime tilt one way or the other concerning gun rights?

In my completely uninformed opinion it seems that people might already have a bit of an idea where they stand, but not have that idea very high up on their priority list.

Barring undeniable evidence I probably won't change my mind on issues I'm really passionate about (gun control being one of them). However, there are other issues that, while I still care about them, I don't think are as high of a priority. If something happens to make those issues a priority (for example the murder of a loved one as it relates to the death penalty) I would certainly become more active in the legislative process regarding those issues.

However, it does seem to me (again, this is just speculation) that the apple usually doesn't fall far from the tree politically speaking. It seems that to really make a dent in how the public perceives gun control some moderates would need to "come to our side" and pass this along to their children.

This happened with one of my old roommates from a few years ago. She started off moderately not liking guns, grew to like them with help from her boyfriend and myself, and now has a baby who will probably grow up with similar political leanings. Has this "swayed the balance" by one future voter?

[Kreyzhorse]

Kreyzhorse: The thing is she does not hate guns she has a CCW she hates other people with guns.

Armsmaster - She had a CCW in the 70's or 80's. Her gun has long since been melted into a cross and presented to a religious someone or other, but in general, I agree with you, she hates the masses owning guns more so than guns themselves.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Reasonable approaches have gotten us the 40 shall issue states. I would note that absolutists opposed the idea of permits and licenses because we don't need them - the 2nd is all we need.

So in several states, absolutists opposed the bills and sometimes derailed them for a period.

Empirically, absolutistism has not worked but it is more fun on the Internet.

As far as liberal not liking guns - read my sig articles for a more nuanced view. Of course, it's more fun to be in an exclusive club who MUST hold all your beliefs. I'm a more effective advocate of the RKBA with many because I don't hold social conservative beliefs.

But we've had this absolutist, you must be conservative argument before. It's boring.

[44 AMP]

So, maybe someone more computer search savy than I can find one...but I recall hearing that

Feinstein did indeed make a big political point of turning in her gun, and having it melted down. However, according to what I have heard over the years (someone help find a reference if you can) she also kept a gun, for her own use.

According to the story, she had two .38 cal revolvers, ONE she turned in, and one she kept!

Anybody able to confirm this?
If true, it does seem typical of the elitist attitude.

[fiddletown]

...Reasonable rhetoric has gotten most of the country to adopt shall issue laws, an increase in castle laws and the AWB not renewed......the "reasonable" approach is also what's gotten such execrable pieces of legislation as the 1934 NFA, 1968 GCA and 1994 AWB enacted.......Reasonable approaches have gotten us the 40 shall issue states....On balance, I'd say the reasonable approach wins. "Shall issue" and Castle Doctrine laws are very big wins for the ordinary, honest citizen. They can have a real meaning in day-to-day real life.

[Webleymkv]

With regards to the apparent cognitive dissonance over Feinstein's political views vs. her CCW, has it ever occurred to anyone that she doesn't believe that gun control works either. Did it ever occur to anyone that Feinstien supports gun control not out of some moral crusade but because it gets her re-elected?

[fiddletown]

...Did it ever occur to anyone that Feinstien supports gun control not out of some moral crusade but because it gets her re-elected?That is, methinks, a very basic truth that we tend to ignore. With politicians, it's less about what is good social policy and more about keeping their jobs.

I frequently hear (or see in print) someone saying something like, "The politicians don't trust me with guns" or "The government won't trust us with gun."

Actually, I doubt that the politicians really care. They live lives so removed from the rest of us, our guns aren't really much of a factor for them personally. What they care about is getting and keeping their jobs.

So what it comes down to is that enough of our neighbors, enough of the people in our community, enough of the people in our town, enough of the people in our county, enough of the people in our state, and enough of the people in our country don't like guns, and don't trust the rest of us with them, that politicians who take anti-gun stands can get elected and re-elected (and bureaucrats who take anti-gun stands can keep their jobs).

So we need to remember that part of the battle to keep our guns needs to be waged with our fiends and neighbors in out communities.

[raftman]

assuming that "liberals" are a unified voting bloc who march in lockstep with politicials such as Mrs. Pelosi is an oversimplification that hurts the gun rights cause.

Exactly. Demonizing liberal-minded people, turns them into enemies, makes them all the less interested in gun rights. People tend to listen to your position more if you don't go around calling them commies.

[peetzakilla]

Assuming that "liberals" are a unified voting bloc who march in lockstep with politicials such as Mrs. Pelosi is an oversimplification that hurts the gun rights cause.

While that is fundamentally true, the problem comes in unifying a group of people around one issue of agreement when their core beliefs are radically different.

I have seen many situations wherein a group or even 2 peoples beliefs systems were 99% in accord with one another and yet they would separate from one another based on that 1% passionate difference.

It is EXCEEDINGLY difficult to create unity around that single passionate issue when the the other 99% is not in agreement at all. A problem made all the more complicated by the infinite variation within that other 99% within a large group.

The inability to cooperate on an agreed issue due to other disagreements is one of the basic reasons why groups of people on both sides of ANY issue tend not to coalesce into organized resistance until the threat against their beliefs is extremely severe. Severe enough to essentially overwhelm any other issues between them.

[RETG]

carguychris

I won't do a long hijack, just a statement that you do no understand the areas controlled in the west by the BLM and NF. (I understand your statement on those states west of the the continental divide:D)

I was talking concealed...which means ma and pa should not know you are carrying.

[orionengnr]

One thing I noticed in her response was the use of the code term "reasonable restrictions" (it's twin brother is "common-sense laws"). Who among us does not want to be reasonable (or use common sense)? Implying, of course, that if you disagree with her position, you are not being reasonable (or using common sense). A favorite weapon in the anti's arsenal, used by everyone from Sarah Brady to Charles Shumer to Barack Obama.

As long as we allow "them" to frame the discussion, we come up short in a lot of peoples' minds. We need to extoll the virtues of self-defense in terms of "common sense" and "reason". We are behind the power curve in this area.

[orionengnr]

Oh, and as an aside:

I think less of Feinstein than I do my dog.
I think that was a poorly thought-out statement. My dogs are well-behaved and have never done anything to harm me or my neighbors. They have no ill will toward anyone.

[a7mmnut]

I'll never forget this one:

52080

Finger on trigger, 75 rd. drum in gun, bolt in battery in a crowded room full of people. A real gun safety classic for a [person] who hates guns. -7-

[Shane Tuttle]

Let's get one thing straight, here. You can attack the position Feinstein takes on our 2nd Amendment. However, the name calling ENDS HERE!:mad:

[RDak]

She will never change her attitude IMHO.

It is an interesting attitude since she once had a concealed carry permit. And it was issued by the City of San Francisco. VERY rare.

So, if she can see the need for owning a firearm (i.e., for self defense), her position is illogical and hypocritical IMHO.

I have written her off as a total lost cause because she apparently does not, or has not, practiced what she preaches.

I simply cannot respect a hypocrite in such a serious moral area.

She did respond to my letter many years ago stating she needed the CPL to protect her and her husband from serious threats she had received. She went on to state that she had turned in that CPL and no longer has one.

People can be attacked in National Parks by thugs and predators. That is a simple fact, and people should be able to defend themselves accordingly. Afterall, that's what she did when threatened.

[roy reali]

California has Feinstein, we have Reid. You want to trade?;)

[RDak]

I think Glenn is on to something.

I have often noticed within the arguments of both antigunners and progunners a good bit of emotion.

I see folks like Sarah Brady, Tom Mauser, Carolyn McCarthy and others whose lives were savaged by gun crime turn rabidly against gun ownership.

However, I also have listened to the testimony of Susanna Gratia Hupp whose parents were murdered in the Luby's Massacre in 1991. She went the other way, became a Texas state rep and later passed CCW over the veto of Gov Ann Richards. There are others but she is the most famous one I can remember.

My question to you Glenn and the forum is what is it that makes these folk savaged by violent crime tilt one way or the other concerning gun rights?

What is in their makeup, that emotional set, that makes them want to either ban guns or make them more available for self defense?

IMHO, some people are willing to perform their own self-defense acts while others are not willing to do so. So those who are unwilling to defend themselves with a weapon, just want what they see as a murderous implement outlawed. That way they do not have to defend themselves and can remain sheep.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Glenn,
Sorry, I have been out of the thread. I was down south watching my alma mater get beat in a disgusting performance of college football but I digress.

I have another question for you. One of the most interesting developments in gun rights has been the de-right winging of the gun issue. I remember the issue seemed to be always portrayed as a redneck, knuckle dragging, racist exercise and now that has changed somewhat. So, how has that happened where social liberals, gays, African Americans et al have becaome more active in the idea of gun rights? Perhaps that is a start to understanding how violent experiences shape which way one leans on the gun question.

IMHO, some people are willing to perform their own self-defense acts while others are not willing to do so. So those who are unwilling to defend themselves with a weapon, just want what they see as a murderous implement outlawed. That way they do not have to defend themselves and can remain sheep.

Sorry, but I must disagree with this and furthermore label it a stereotype. I have talked to a lot of antigun people and they are neither sheep nor pacifists. They think the world they live in is generally safe if you stay out of bad areas and therefore nobody needs a gun. I believe fully that if they were armed and they or their love ones were threatened they would use the gun. They just don't believe it will happen to them and statistically they are correct.

[csmsss]

Sorry, but I must disagree with this and furthermore label it a stereotype. I have talked to a lot of antigun people and they are neither sheep nor pacifists. They think the world they live in is generally safe if you stay out of bad areas and therefore nobody needs a gun. I believe fully that if they were armed and they or their love ones were threatened they would use the gun. They just don't believe it will happen to them and statistically they are correct.That may well be, but there are tons of people in this world who believe and act as RDak stated above. I assure you that not all anti-gunners are as sophisticated and enlightened and courageous as you seem to believe. Are you really suggesting that there aren't a ton of folks in this world and this country who are irrationally afraid of firearms?

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Are you really suggesting that there aren't a ton of folks in this world and this country who are irrationally afraid of firearms?

Sure there are, but that doesn't mean they wouldn't defend themselves if they felt threatened. Furthermore they might be tough hard nosed physical hombres as well. Just because someone does not like guns does not make them "sheep" anymore than one who likes guns a "killer". We need, as Glenn has said too many times, to get beyond childish rhetoric and stereotypes and engage in dialogue thoughfully.

Edit: I am not sure BTW that all people who defend themselves are necessarily "courageous" or "enlightened" or "sophisticated" rather perhaps just scared and up against the wall. Same, same for those who seek to avoid conflict are not "cowards".

[fiddletown]

...Just because someone does not like guns does not make them "sheep" ...But there are also influential people and groups who specifically oppose, on principle, the right of self defense.

See, for example, Armed by Gary Kleck and Don Kates (Prometheus Books, 2001). On pages 116 - 121, they discuss various liberal, moral objections to the notion that one may be justified to defend himself.

Feminist Betty Frienden is cited as denouncing the trend of women to arm themselves for self defense as, "...a horrifying, obscene perversion of feminism...." Her ridiculous notion that , "...lethal violence even in self defense only engenders more violence and that gun control should override any personal need for safety...." is probably widely held in liberal circles. Indeed, according to Kleck and Kates, Mario Cuomo avowed that Bernie Goetz was morally wrong in shooting even if it was clearly necessary to resist felonious attack.

Kleck and Kates also report that an article was published by the Board of Church and Society of the United Methodist Church condemning defensive gun ownership. In the article, Rev. Allen Brockway, editor of the board's magazine, advised women that it was thier Christian duty to submit to rape rather than do anything that might imperil the attacker's life.

Kleck and Kates also note that the Presbyterian Church (U. S. A.) has taken a strict anti-self defense view. Rev. Kathy Young testified as a representative of that group before a Congressional Panel in 1972 in support of handgun control that the Presbyterian Church (U. S. A.) opposes the killing of anyone, anywhere for any reason (including, in the context of the testimony, self defense)

While these positions appear to us to be nonsense, they have some following. Note, for example that self defense is not considered in many countries to be a good reason to own a gun. Indeed in Great Britain, the natural right of self defense has been significantly curtailed by law. For an excellent (and very pro "our side") study of the erosion of gun and self defense rights in Great Britain see Guns and Violence, the English Experience by Joyce Lee Malcolm (Harvard University Press, 2002).

The point of the foregoing is that the universal acceptance of the ethics of self defense can not be taken for granted.

(However, the Roman Catholic Church takes a much more sensible view of things. Under its doctrine, one's life is a gift from God and one has a moral obligation to preserve it even if doing so means taking the life of an attacker. Unfortunately, as outlined by Kleck and Kates, this rational perspective is not universally accepted either.)

[MLeake]

... as they don't always conform to stereotypes.

I have one friend who doesn't think there's a good reason for private citizens to carry firearms. Granted, he is originally from Long Island, and was raised in a historically anti part of the country.

But on the other hand, he earned a Silver Star for rescuing a downed airman not too many years ago, and still serves on active duty. He's a sharp guy. I don't think there are too many folks on this forum who would be on solid ground challenging him on bravery or intellectual capacity, and challenging him on patriotism would be just plain ridiculous.

Note: Nobody in the office realized this gentleman had a Silver Star until the unit DCO mentioned it at the DCO's farewell; after that, several of us looked it up. The gentleman doesn't talk about it; he earns respect based on present performance, not past history.

Stereotypes and name-calling are not going to help us win over people who are on the fence on gun issues. In fact, behavior that comes across as childish or bullying is only likely to do our cause a fair amount of harm. What does work is a mix of intellectual and emotional argument, so long as the emotional arguments are honest.

[armsmaster270]

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dianne_Feinstein

[edit] Gun politics
In 1993, Feinstein, along with then-Representative Charles Schumer (D-NY), led the fight to ban many semi-automatic firearms deemed to be assault weapons and restrict the sale of high-capacity firearm magazines. The ban was passed as part of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. In 2004, when the ban was set to expire, Feinstein sponsored a 10-year extension of the ban as an amendment to the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act; while the amendment was successfully added, the act itself failed.[37] The act was revived in 2005, but was ultimately passed without an extension of the assault weapons ban.

Feinstein said on CBS-TV's 60 Minutes, February 5, 1995, "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."[37] In July 2006, Feinstein voted against the Vitter Amendment to prohibit Federal funds being used for the confiscation of lawfully owned firearms during a disaster.[38]

Feinstein was accused of hypocrisy when it became public information that despite her stringent anti-gun record, the Senator maintained a Concealed Weapons permit and actively carried a .38 caliber Smith & Wesson revolver] for her personal safety. It is unknown if she still carries the concealed firearm or maintains the permit, but according to The Stentorian, San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown stated in 2000 that she had voluntarily relinquished both the concealed weapons permit and the firearm.[39][40] [41] When challenged, she stated "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."[42]

In 1999, Jill Labbe, of the Wilkes-Barre Times Leader, recounted Mrs. Feinstein's actions at an anti-gun press conference, where Mrs. Feinstien displayed an AK-47 assault rifle. Despite her assertions of being trained in handling firearms, after picking it up, she broke multiple basic and commonly known firearms handling safety rules; placing her finger on the trigger, and then sweeping the muzzle across the room, pointing at people who were present.[43]

[Tennessee Gentleman]

The point of the foregoing is that the universal acceptance of the ethics of self defense can not be taken for granted.

Agreed, but antipathy toward gun ownership does not make one necessarily a pacifist either.

As to Sen Feinstein, I certainly see a great deal of hypocrisy in her position on gun ownership but the emotional mark she experienced long ago as Glenn pointed out earlier, probably blinds her to it.

[fiddletown]

...As to Sen Feinstein, I certainly see a great deal of hypocrisy in her position on gun ownership but the emotional mark she experienced long ago as Glenn pointed out earlier, probably blinds her to it...And we need to continually remind ourselves that her views on gun control, as do her views on other issues, reflect the attitudes of the constituency who elected, and continues to elect, her -- just as is the case with every other successful politician out there. If a majority of the voters found her gun control, and/or other, views sufficiently repugnant, she would not be in office.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

If a majority of the voters found her gun control, and/or other, views sufficiently repugnant, she would not be in office.

That is the truth and our work to fix as well.

[carguychris]

carguychris

I won't do a long hijack, just a statement that you do no understand the areas controlled in the west by the BLM and NF. (I understand your statement on those states west of the the continental divide)

I was talking concealed...which means ma and pa should not know you are carrying.
What don't I understand? :confused:

My point is simply that most American citizens- including a great many urbanites- don't have any desire to visit NF/BLM lands and therefore don't care about the policies regarding carrying firearms there, regardless of what those policies are. The issue is off their radar screen. Many Americans don't even realize that NF/BLM land exists.

OTOH far more Americans want to visit national parks, including vast numbers of people who would never even consider any other "outdoorsy" type of vacation. (If you ever visit NPs, you know these people- they're the ones crowding the drive-up scenic overlooks. ;) ) Since a great many Americans are attracted by the idea of a vacation to Yellowstone, the Grand Canyon, or whatever, it's not surprising that some of these people would be diehard CCW opponents upset by the very idea that someone near them could be carrying.

The fact that someone could be carrying at a nearby gas station upsets them too, but they feel that they can do something about people carrying at the NPs, hence the outcry.

Sorry to extend the hijack further. ;)

[RDak]

Sorry, but I must disagree with this and furthermore label it a stereotype. I have talked to a lot of antigun people and they are neither sheep nor pacifists. They think the world they live in is generally safe if you stay out of bad areas and therefore nobody needs a gun. I believe fully that if they were armed and they or their love ones were threatened they would use the gun. They just don't believe it will happen to them and statistically they are correct.

That hasn't been my experience TG. That's about all I can say on this question because the answer is subjective.

I stand by what I said. The vast majority of anti-gun people I have met would turn tail and run in a dire situation IMHO. They simply do not had the mental mindset to defend themselves with lethal force from my experience.

However, this is a subjective opinion just like your's is.

ETA:
..........So, how has that happened where social liberals, gays, African Americans et al have becaome more active in the idea of gun rights? Perhaps that is a start to understanding how violent experiences shape which way one leans on the gun question.

TG - I grew up in Detroit, lived there for 28 years and worked there for another 32 years. I never knew an African American family who did not own a firearm for self-defense purposes and I've probably known over 1,000 African Americans in my lifetime. I'm still very close to many of them and visit them often.

They, as individuals, have taken it for granted, in my experience, that a person has a right to own a firearm for self-defense purposes. Maybe the leaders are anti-gun but not the ordinary Joe based on my life long experience.

(You don't hear the ordinary Joe talking much about this due to the distrust many African Americans have towards LEO's and politicians IMHO. They worry they will be "targeted" IMHO. But believe me, they have guns at home.)

As a side note, I purchased my beloved nickel plated Model 10-5 years ago from a WWII veteran who was African American.

So, please stop the stereotyping. ;)

[Tennessee Gentleman]

That hasn't been my experience TG. That's about all I can say on this question because the answer is subjective.

Experience can be long and it can be broad if you get my meaning. Perhaps this is another data point to add to your experience. Labeling those who are anti gun as cowards, sheep, selfish or unamerican adds nothing to the argument and I think is not very thoughtful.

I stand by what I said. The vast majority of anti-gun people I have met would turn tail and run in a dire situation IMHO. They simply do not had the mental mindset to defend themselves with lethal force from my experience.

And I stand by what I say. You might want to broaden your acquaintances and experiences and you might be surprised. That is the beauty of these forums.

So, please stop the stereotyping.

Might want to read my quote again but I will expand on it.

I did not say that those folk did not own guns but rather that they were not active in the cause of gun rights.

Take the example of African Americans. Look at the majority of those who are touted as their traditional leaders; Jesse Jackson, Andrew Young, Al Sharpton etc. All historically anti-gun.

Colin Powell would be a notable exception but not sure even he would fair well on TFL;)

However, that has changed today and I enjoy for instance the podcast of Ken Blanchard or the films of Lee Elder today where 20 years ago those voices weren't around.

The gun rights world has IMO changed for the good in that we are a much bigger tent than before.

Yes other races, creeds, politicial persuasions and genders owned guns but now they are active in gun rights and that is a very powerful tool agains the Feinsteins and Boxers.

Guns Rights, it's not just for redneck bubbas and right-wing kooks anymore.:cool:

[RDak]

Well we subjectively disagree on the typical anti-gunner but you are definitely correct when it comes to African American leaders. And, like you state, that is slowly changing as far as the ordinary Joe's are concerned IMHO.

[stevelyn]

When Diane can figure out how to get the criminals to follow along with her laws, then she might be upgraded to "foolish" from "worthless" in my book.

For elitists like Diane Feinstein it isn't about crime. Should could care less about crime other than it just happens to be the perfect subterfuge that best suits her purpose of pushing more gun control. She is all about control of the masses.

Colin Powell would be a notable exception but not sure even he would fair well on TFL

Powell has let it be known that he is just another anti-gun .

[44 AMP]

Last warning, any more violations of L&CR rules and this one is done.
Think twice, post once, and remember where you are, and what the rules are.

[Kleinzeit]

What does anyone think they are going to accomplish by branding Feinstein as worthless, as an agent of subterfuge, as a fiend who is engineering for control of the masses, as a hypocrite, etc?

OK, I get it. You don't agree with her views. But is this really the best response you can manage? Is this really all the imagination you've got -- to turn her into a rabid evil-doer?

Give me a break.

The fact that she once CCW'd and now opposes it might make her a hypocrite. Or it might mean that she's looked at it from both sides and reached a considered opinion. Yes, it might not be your opinion. Big deal. Argue your case, if you've got the brains to do it; but lay off with the demonizing. It's childish and stupid and makes us all look bad.

As far as NP goes, the key word in her reply, I think, was "sacred" - "our sacred national parks." For a lot of people, these places are meant to be treated with a special kind of respect that preserves them from the taint of all human ugliness. Yes, that's a little naive. And yes, laws against guns in parks don't stop some people from taking them in anyway. But it isn't evil or hateful to be motivated by a desire to protect something that is sacred to you.

Of course, if you want to play at Us vs. Them conspiracy theories, you can tell yourself that these aren't really her motives and carry on labeling her as the spawn of Satan. But go do it somewhere else, will you? There are people trying to have a conversation here.

[Kleinzeit]

Sorry... I'm a little peeved right now. I've just had one thread deleted and another one locked because of this kind of behavior. There's a lot of interesting, important stuff that pretty much can't be discussed on TFL because of this.

You extremists are taking my freedom away.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Hang in there Kleinzeit. The mods generally take care of the bad actors and we can still converse. I remember a psych class (a loooong time ago) that talked about adversaries building negative mirror images of the other. Accusing each other of the same thing. However, it is clear to me that reasonable minds can disagree as to gun rights. I am more interested in why they think that way.

[Kleinzeit]

I had a nice cold glass of milk and I feel better now.

[Fremmer]

Argue your case, if you've got the brains to do it; but lay off with the demonizing. It's childish and stupid and makes us all look bad.

Feinstein deserves the demonization. She wants to have the police come to your house and confiscate your handguns. She wants to have firearm and ammunition manufacturers sued out existance in the civil courts. She wants to prohibit citizens from owning an enormous number of firearms because she has decided that the common folk don't "need" to own them for hunting. Simply put, she openly advocates the violation of your Second Amendment Constitutional Right to keep and bear arms.

With Feinstein, there has to be an "us against them" mentality, because Feinstein will take every opportunity to encourage and vote for legislation that is unconstitutional. And legislation that will make it very difficult for anyone other than a police officer to privately own any kind of firearm. There is no middle ground with Feinstein - or with the idiots who keep voting her into office. They just want your guns. All of 'em. You give a little here and a little there, you get nothing in return, they take everything they can and give you nothing, and aren't you happy to support "sensible" and "common-sense" "gun safety" legislation? Well, at least you're being "reasonable." :barf:

But it isn't evil or hateful to be motivated by a desire to protect something that is sacred to you.

Goodness, you sure are comfortable with complimenting her motive to deny law-abiding citizens the right to keep and bear arms in the forest. :barf: First, her motive is easily revealed with her voting record. It is replete with examples of doing everything possible to prevent citizens from exercising their Second Amendment Rights. Seriously, she's already stated that if she could, she would send folks to your house to confiscate your handguns. But we'll ignore that, and just pretend that the forest is somehow a "sacred" place that must be (for some reason) devoid of guns. Secondly, her motive is irrelevant: she actively works to pass legislation that is unconstitutional. I don't care whether she's doing it for the children, for the trees, or to satisfy George Soros and MoveOn.org, she's an idiot that deserves all of the criticisim she's getting.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

So Fremmer, how do you really feel about SEN Feinstein?:p

[Fremmer]

I love ol' Diane! :D

[Arondos]

This is one CA boy who will not be voting for either senator from CA. Feinstein shoudl be ran out of town, tarred and feathered as far as I am concerned.

[Shane Tuttle]

I'm calling this one as done. The few that had the inablilty to refrain from the name calling after MULTIPLE WARNINGS from staff has ruined this thread from further discussion.

PMs inbound....

CLOSED.