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?

[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.

[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?

[Brian Pfleuger]

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!



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.

[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!

[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:

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...