Diane Feinstein

[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.

Originally Posted by RDak

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]

Originally Posted by csmsss

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".

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by Tennessee Gentleman

...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]

Originally Posted by fiddletown

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.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by Tennessee Gentleman

...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]

Originally Posted by fiddletown

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?

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]

Originally Posted by RDak

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.

Originally Posted by RDak

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.

Originally Posted by RDak

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.

[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?

[Fremmer]

I love ol' Diane!

[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.