Columns

Sen. Dianne Feinstein's Gun-Control Firebomb

By: Nancy Smith | Posted: January 7, 2013 3:55 AM
I Beg to Differ
If any subject can overtake the fiscal-cliff aftermath on the D.C. Richter scale, it's a gun-control bill.

Get ready. There's a doozie of a seismic shift coming on Jan. 22 when Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., is due to introduce her "Grand Plan," a sweeping bill that would go further to rock the Second Amendment off its foundation than any legislation in the previous 112 sessions of Congress. 

The author of the federal “assault weapon” and “large” ammunition magazine ban of 1994-2004 is seizing the Newtown moment to introduce what many protectors of the Second Amendment characterize as "a firebomb."

Dianne Feinstein

Dianne Feinstein

According to a posting on Feinstein's website two days after Christmas and a draft of the bill obtained by NRA-ILA, the bill would, among other things, adopt new definitions of  “assault weapon.” It would affect a much larger variety of firearms, require current owners of such firearms to register them with the federal government under the National Firearms Act, and require forfeiture of the firearms upon the deaths of their current owners.

The post-election-frisky Obama administration apparently is cheering the bill on.

Less than a week ago, The Boston Herald reported that Vice President Joe Biden “guaranteed” gun-control advocate and Boston Mayor Thomas M. Menino this: President Obama will pass wide-ranging firearms reforms by the end of the month.

RedState blogger Ulysses Arn writes, "This gun grab, this attack on the Second Amendment, is just the latest in a long list of usurpations of our Constitution."

Alex Jones of InfoWars calls it "the effective END of the Second Amendment in America."

But, wait. Before the earth moves, consider this:

Feinstein's gun-control legislation has about as much chance as a rabbit in a dog show. And most thinking liberals agree: Despite the almighty dust-up likely on the Senate floor, any attempt to ban guns is going up in flames.

But liberals are blaming the wrong party. The reason the California senator's bill won't pass isn't as they think, because of those blockheaded numbskulls running the NRA. They can blame the Second Amendment to the Constitution.

When all is said and done, most Americans hold the Second Amendment sacred. Most Americans understand full well that the Constitution isn't an a la carte menu from which we can choose the laws we like and discard the rest. Our Constitution is the whole meal, all of it -- it's everything this nation stands for, everything that makes it great in a single succinct document, including the right to bear arms.

Nicholas J. Johnson, professor of law at Fordham University -- one of the country's most respected authorities on the Second Amendment -- puts this overreaching bill into perspective on the Library of Law and Liberty website:

"Senator Feinstein will get lots of opposition to this bill," Johnson writes. "That it is an unconstitutional taking of property; that it irrationally treats semi-automatics more harshly than true machine guns; that it is an unconstitutional application of the taxing power that grounds the National Firearms Act; that it attempts to ban guns in common use in violation of D.C. v. Heller;  that it attempts to ban the quintessential militia weapon which seems protected even under Justice Stevens' dissent in Heller; that it will drive the targeted guns into the black market; and, that it will trigger militant resistance."

If any part of Feinstein's bill is passed -- even the smallest part -- it likely will be challenged, will make a lot of lawyers rich, will drone on for years and most importantly, will obscure, as Johnson states, "the core question of how to protect the 7-year-old in the classroom, with tired oversold ideas that mainly serve to mask the structural state incompetence that the progressive political class cannot profitably acknowledge."

Where are the bills to help frustrated and frightened family members quickly get help for their mentally ill or troubled and socially isolated sons and daughters, husbands and wives? Communities need resources and ideas. They need support. Where are the bills to augment real help in preventing another Sandy Hook?



Reach Nancy Smith at nsmith@sunshinestatenews.com or at (850) 727-0859.










Comments (70)

Inquisitor
12:25PM JAN 16TH 2013
The issues are not would we support sensible, common-sense steps that make sense and work; it is what constitutes “sensible, common-sense” and what is the definition of “works” and how is that evaluated. I for one will not support any steps, until what is considered sensible, common-sense and would work is completely defined; the same as I would not sign a contract until the requirements, costs and penalties for non-compliance were clearly and completely defined and disclosed.

The currently proposed Feinstein “assault weapons ban” defines an estimated 50% of all rifles and 80% of all pistols as “assault weapons” and makes all magazines over 10 rounds illegal. It then requires us to pay a $200 tax on each item we already legally own, apply to a government bureaucracy to determine if we can continue to own what we already legally own, give a government bureaucracy the power to approve where we can store and transport what we already legally own, creates a federal registration list of every “assault weapon” including the identification of the registered owner and the physical address where it is stored, possibly allow a government bureaucracy to enter our residences without prior notice to verify that we are storing our legally owned property in accordance with their regulations, prohibits us from selling or transferring our legally owned property, and then finally requires that we forfeit to the government, upon our death, property we legally own. Is such a law a sensible, common-sense, approach that has a high probability of being effective, and is it even Constitutional?

Is using the Terror Watch List, which is a secret, non-reviewable, non-challengeable government list, to deny citizens US Constitutional rights without any legal recourse, a sensible, common-sense, approach that has a high probability of being effective, and is it even Constitutional?

Is limiting magazines to 10 rounds the result of a “very thorough [thought] process”? Without justification, why not pick 11 or 9, or 5 or eventually none? What is the basis for determining the probable effectiveness of that approach? As an example, New York State currently has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country, among them a 10 round magazine limit and some of the highest violent crime rates in the country. The new NY SAFE Act changed the magazine limit from 10 to 7, again without any rational justification and greatly expanded the definition of “assault weapons”. My personal opinion is that the number 7 was selected because almost no manufacturer of modern handguns produces a magazine with a capacity of less than 10 rounds, thus eventually making almost every modern pistol illegal in New York State. Is that a sensible, common-sense, approach that has a high probability of being effective, and is it even Constitutional?

Other than expanding the background checks and fixing the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) database, nothing that I have seen in the media meets the test of “sensible, common-sense steps” and “what makes sense, what works.”

Also, what is their next step after the next mass shooting; because there will be a next one? In view of this, the buying of all available ammunition, magazines, and firearms makes absolute sense before these laws are enacted. New York has already passed their SAFE Act yesterday!
Frank
2:10AM JAN 10TH 2013
Just for all you who somehow still fantasize that all gun regulations are unconstitutional:

"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms." [Scalia; DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER]
John Paul Jones
11:24AM JAN 10TH 2013
P.S. I'll gladly take a shootout over an unopposed massacre any time. Particularly if its me against some mentally challenged untrained freak. No guarantees but a helluva lot better odds.
Frank
1:04PM JAN 10TH 2013
Yes, wild west movie open fire theaters . . . fantasize yourself a "hero" all you want . . . and of course, once again you've addressed the point I raised above . . .

Pathetic . . . .
John Paul Jones
11:15AM JAN 10TH 2013
I got to give you credit Frank, you have wasted more of my time on this one than I planned. But this is my last reply as this article is getting long in the tooth. I have read all of that. Now here is some more which you interestingly did not include:

"Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding...The natural meaning of “bear arms,” as used in the Second Amendment, means wear, bear, or carry upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person...The Second Amendment guarantees the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation...“Well-regulated,” as used in the Second Amendment, implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training...“Security of a free state,” as used in the Second Amendment, meant “security of a free polity,” not security of each of the several States...A limitation on the right to keep and carry arms is that the sorts of weapons protected by the Second Amendment are those in common use at the time...Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them, whether or not future legislatures or future judges think that scope too broad...It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M–16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right...We are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country, and we take seriously the concerns raised by the many amici who believe that prohibition of handgun ownership is a solution. The Constitution leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures regulating handguns...But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home. Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.

See Frank I am aware of the scope of allowable regulation. I am also aware of what Feinstein and Biden and Bloomberg and others like you want to achieve. They will not succeed, trust me. However, they will only b prevented from complete banning and confiscation by the efforts of those of us who fight and continuously remind them and the people about the 2nd amendment and what it protects. Now you quit your fantasizing.
Frank
1:06PM JAN 10TH 2013
You've proved that you get to keep your guns at home for your self-defense . . . not take them to movie theaters, or to use them because you perceive a need to kill off your government officials, or someone who might be going to restrict your use of AR-15 type military assault rifles . . . . I have NEVER proposed a prohibition on owning guns (I have multiple handguns and rifles myself) . . . to imply that I propose otherwise, as most do on this site the moment I or anyone mentions ANY TYPE of gun restrictions . . . . is just continuing politics of the "Big Lie" and

PATHETIC . . . .
John Paul Jones
2:24PM JAN 10TH 2013
Keep reading Frank. Of course you don't have the right to bring your guns onto the private property of another if they don't allow it. However, you should have a right in public places with exceptions, as mentioned in the opinion, for sensitive areas such as schools or public buildings. I would support all of that if it included a caveat that, when carry is prohibited in public places, there must be professional armed security present. Unfortunately that is not true at schools and therefore we have massacres. As for the theater, their policy was foolhardy and ended up deadly. Oh, and quit claiming that you and your crowd do not want to prohobit owning guns. I don't need to know what you own, I just need to read what Feinstein proposes and listen to what Obma, Biden, and Bloomberg and Cuomo say to know what type of opposition needs to be presented. They are not arguing that we need restrictions. Like you keep saying we already have a lot of restrictions. They are saying we need substantial NEW restrictions and prohibitions including severe burdens to gun ownership and severe hindrance to the ability to meet the stated intent of the SCOTUS opinion of being ready to defend oneself with effective and commonly used firearms. If their efforts are not vigorously opposed, the 2nd amendment will be violated. None of your mushy obfuscation makes that less true.
Frank
12:03AM JAN 11TH 2013
Your clear, provable lies:

(1) Your "Of course you don't have the right to bring your guns onto the private property of another if they don't allow it" - - Perhaps you'd like to tell that to private businesses that they have the "right" to keep their customers or employees from bringing weapons onto their private property, even if such property is not considered to be "public" - - Florida law says otherwise s.790.251, FS

(2) Your earlier "this is my last reply" - obviously not.

(3) Your "quit claiming that you . . . . do not want to prohobit (sic) owning guns" - - I've made it very clear that I oppose an overall ban (and own my own guns) . . . that's just an inconvenient truth that you wish to spin with your politics of the "Big Lie" . . . . in your continuing efforts to be just . . .

Pathetic . . . .
Eric
12:25PM JAN 9TH 2013
The second amendment was put into place because the original colonists had just fough a war against a tyrannical government. They intended, if the need ever present itself in the future, that we be able to do so again. Imagine if there had been a widespread ban on the "assault weapons" aka muskets of the 1700s, there would probably be no america. The British realized the colonists could fight back and tried to take their weapons which sparked the revolutionary war and our freedom.
Gun owners, for the most part, are not "afraid of black helicopters" but we recognize the need for the people to be able to stand up and fight for what this country is, even if it is a losing fight. There was no gaurantee that the founders would fight successfuly fight off the British but they tired anyway.
People who don't understand guns see the media presented photos of scary looking "assault rifles" and don't realize that their function is no different than not as scary looking huting rifle. As a matter of fact my 308 "hunting rifle" is much more powerful than the 223 cartridge used in the ar-15 and I could easily modify the huting rifle to accept magazines. The fact that the ar 15 has a "folding stock" or a "forward grip" doesn't make it any more dangerous.
The police can't protect everyone! The only 2 times we have had a false alarm at our house it took the police a very long time to respond. Our alarm went off at 8:15 Saturday morning, a police officer showed up around 11:30. When I asked about the 3+ hour response time he replied that most alarm calls on Saturday morning are false alarms. I'm not sorry in saying this grabbing my handgun is a lot quicker than waiting for police. If that alarm had been caused by an intruder and we had been attacked we would probably not be alive. Even if we were just badly injured any chance of saving us would be long gone 3 hours later.
Crime goes down in right to carry states. I feel safer in my home state due to the right to carry laws because criminals here are not virtually guaranteed that their victim is unarmed, they have to take more of a chance here than in other states with strict carry laws.
School shootings almost never happened before the "gun free zones"
If guns are the cause why are the mass shootings happening in gun free zones as opposed to at gun conventions. Clearly there is something to be said about the fact that there is never a mass shooting at a gun show. Why not? because you wouldn't be able to aim the thing before 50 other people aimed back. In gun free zones the criminal is guaranteed no armed opposition.
Let's apply this logic: If a gun ban wil get all the guns off the street and correct the violence problem in the country then we should also ban drugs because clearly that will end the cocaine, speed, meth etc problem.
Bans don't work, prohibition didn't end alcohol consumption, the war on drugs hasn't ended the drug problem and an "assault weapon ban" won't end the violence problem.
I personally think every politician who votes for this ban should be stripped of their armed guards and see what it would feel like to be alone and defenseless against a criminal with an illicit gun. But hey don't worry, the police will be there in 20 minutes.
Frank
3:26PM JAN 9TH 2013
Three quick points:

(1) If more guns make us safer, why aren't we the safest country in the world?

(2) A war of treason against your country will involve armed drones, gunships, fighter planes, M-1 or better tanks on the government's side . . . . guess you can't have enough weapons . . . .

(3) Raising the "black helicopter" UN takeover image clearly demonstrates you need real professional help to address your delusional state . . . . please seek it . . . .

Pathetic . . . .
Eric
3:58PM JAN 9TH 2013
Oh yeah! I forgot. Where's your argument that the police will help? Don't have anything to come back at me for the 20 minute response comment? BTW I live less than 2 miles from the state police troop. Yeah, the ones that took 3 hours to get to me. I guess next time I should call the secret men flying the magical black UN helicopters for a lift to the hospital cause they can teleport!
jackass
Eric
3:52PM JAN 9TH 2013
Reply
(1) The Swiss seem to be doing ok :)

(2) The British were better funded, trained and armed. It's happened before

(3) Seriously? I was referring to the ones who DO think that, not me. It's no secret the the paranoid-of-guns anti gunners think that we all harbor some sort of paranoia about secret societies and black helicopters when it is the anti gun crowd suffering from delusions. It seems irrational to me that anyone could believe an inanimate object could be capable of causing harm on it's own. That's like a kid telling his dad that the ball magically flew up in the air and broke the window.
And it was YOU not I that mentions specifically a UN takeover.... I therefore believe it is you who "demonstrates you need real professional help to address your delusional state"
Please, for the good of us all "seek it"
I do agree with you on one point after reading your post, it is in fact pathetic
Frank
4:01PM JAN 9TH 2013
Perhaps you've haven't been reading the Swiss press recently, or their statistics on gun violence (i.e. maybe you shouldn't always believe what you hear on Fox News) . . . .

Washington's arms were comparable to the British arms, and in some cases, superior for the type of war they often fought.

Yes, "black helicopters" is NEVER a reference by the far right to the UN takeover conspiracy theory, now is it . . . . just more politics of the "Big Lie", so . . .

Pathetic . . . .
Eric
4:29PM JAN 9TH 2013
A simple Google search revealed this from a left-leaning newspaper, posted Oh my gosh! Today!

"Switzerland has many guns but few murders …. The country hosts some of the largest rifle shooting events in the world. Swiss households use firearms mainly as a peaceful, sport-shooting family occupation at contest festivals where eating, drinking, socializing abound. Shooting-range festivals have come to be recognized as a wholesome community activity. Well-enforced rules apply to permits, safety training, and gun/ammunition handling. Ammunition sold at ranges must be used there. Males 20 to 42 must keep their rifles and pistols at home. This culture fosters gun safety. Over time, these social attitudes have helped to keep Swiss total gun and non-gun homicide rates far below those of the U.S.!"

So since I believe in a right to bear arms for self defense I now believe that the black helicopters are coming? Dude, I'm not Alex Jones. The far right does not inclue everyone on the right.

And why must you end every post with "pathetic"? Does that make you feel bigger by attempting to belittle someone? Can't you have a reasonable debate without an attempt to start a 1st grade sandbox fight?
Frank
10:37PM JAN 9TH 2013
What didn't you understand about "the Swiss Press" . . . oh, and try firearm related deaths . . . not just murders . . . . try reading the Swiss-German press (Oh, but you probably don't read Swiss-German, do you) . . . . . .

Ah, yes, the "Dude" phrase . . . . now I understand the immaturity . . . .

Pathetic . . . .
Eric
11:48AM JAN 10TH 2013
ugh, immature because of one word? And yes, I speak and read German fluently, and NO Swiss-German is not THAT different as to make it incomprehensible to a fluent German speaker. My grandparents were from Austria, My dad also lived in Austria through most of his teenage years, his wife was from Germany. Hard not to pick up the language when that's all family speaks at home. Yes I've been to Germany, yes But I'm sure you'll have an empty statement about how pathetic that is.
Isn't the issue firearm murders? Isn't that what everyone is getting all up in a fuss over? Or did I miss the news report that the Newtown shooting was the result of the gun accidentally discharging? Accidents happen, there's not cure for stupidity (you will probably spin that comment around and say something degrading about me, blah blah blah) No law will prevent stupid people from either accidentally blowing their heads off (or leaving guns around for kids to get to and do the same) nor will it prevent the emotionally unstable from committing suicide. So what are we left with? Murder
Are you aware that there are more deaths caused by blunt objects in the US than guns? BAN HAMMERS! HOME DEPOT IS THE DEVIL! Serial numbers, background checks, licensing, training for all hammers now!
That would put a serious burden on contractors. I wonder if they will grandfather all the hammers that were made prior to the ban.
http ://www .breitbart . com/Big-Government/2013/01/03/FBI-More-People-Killed-With-Hammers-and-Clubs-Each-Year-Than-With-Rifles

BTW, where's your opinion on the fact that the police can't get to you in time? There was a recent shooting in Colorado where one victim was able to call police. The dispatcher heard her scream "NO", then a gunshot, then silence. You're telling me that the police can protect us? Get out from under your rock DUDE. If she'd had a .357 she might have survived. Isn't her life worth saving at the cost of a maniac?
Police in the UK still have bullet proof vests, why? 'Cause criminals don't surrender their guns!
Here's what I propose:
Without your childish comments, without getting off topic and attacking me for some perceived inferiority, answer this:
Why should I be put in a position where a criminal should be allowed to have his way? What you suggest is that I should be unable to prevent a gang of thugs from beating me possibly to death in my own home. We have been victim of a home invasion, the perp was later caught and was a drug user with a record a mile long. Fortunately he ran when he heard me coming down the hall (I was NOT a gun owner at the time). But what if he'd been more "jonesin' " for a fix?
My wife is an ER RN, she regularly leaves work late at night and believe me the walkway to the parking lot is DARK, and the lot isn't that much better. (the hospital should look into and fix the issue, but that's not the point right now) If a rapist/murderer were to attack her at 3am while she is leaving work I would rather have her explain to the police the dead rapist than the police tell me about my dead wife.
Seriously, give me a good, well thought out rebuttle to why I should be at the mercy of the very people who can't be required to register weapons (self incrimination) and simply won't turn them in. Why?
Eric
12:51PM JAN 10TH 2013
On second thought, I agree with John Paul Jones, this is a waste of time. It was fun for a while though :)
Frank
1:15PM JAN 10TH 2013
Glad to waste your time and annoy you . . . perhaps it'll help you burn off some of that anger you possess . . .

Oh, by the way, your - - "Are you aware that there are more deaths caused by blunt objects in the US than guns?" - - that is an outright lie . . . perhaps you need to learn to better read and understand with a little more preciseness what you read in English on SSN (or hear on Fox News) . . . . .

Pathetic . . . .
Eric
1:23PM JAN 10TH 2013
Ha, Typical liberal. Just keep running around the questions you can't answer.
When will you ask me to turn in my hunting knives?
Love it!
Frank
12:19AM JAN 11TH 2013
I'm not the liar stating as fact - - "Are you aware that there are more deaths caused by blunt objects in the US than guns?" . . . . .

We'll just use some of the data from Nancy Smith's blog article here on SSN . . . she indicated that "By 2011 there were . . . . 496 hammer-and-club murders" . . . . . . FBI data also indicates that for 2009, there were 10,224 homicides that involved a "GUN" of one type or another . . . . . those number are typical year-to-year with some variation . . . . taking a particular sub-set of a type of guns you may be able to make a statement like you wanted to make (barely), but that's NOT the shrill spin point you made . . . you said "guns" and based on total gun deaths, you're off by a factor of at least 50 fold. . . . .just . . .

Pathetic . . . .
BeeBee
8:44AM JAN 8TH 2013
Let's get real. If elements inside the military or government wanted to 'take over' the counrty, they could do it inside of a week no matter how many assault weapons were in the hands of citizens. We have the largest most powerful arsenal on the planet. With air power, drones, chemical weapons, and more we'd be totally screwed. Not to mention that by simply cutting off electricity, we'd lose communications, heat, light, and the ability to pump gas. But fortunately, most all of the people-- left, right, and center--believe in the rule of law. And so we argue about how to balance freedom with responsibility. Yes, it is like trying to define pornography; limits are publicly agreed on compromises, like the speed limit or tax rates. Most of them are designed to serve the common good because WE LIVE IN COMMUNITY with one another. Statistics show that certain gun safety rules decrease violent death by guns. There must be some common ground that, as a nation, we can find. For those of you who think owning assault weapons will prevent a government takeover, well, I think you're dreaming. It's a strong democracy and good people willing to serve in both government and military (and police and teachers and first responders and courts and . . .) that will protect us best.
Eric
1:33PM JAN 9TH 2013
Military is not permitted to police the US.
Police can't be waiting at the door of every home in the country to prevent crimes from happening. Average police response time is over 10 minutes.
What the hell are teachers going to protect us from?
Even with all the weapons the military has there would still be chance considering the number of civilian gun owners in the country. Go ahead and keep underestimating
Kid Martin
3:00PM JAN 8TH 2013
Sure, we have such a strong military force that we've been dealing with goat herders and camel lovers for how many years in Afghanistan? If you truly believe that we the people do not have the ability to stand up and use force against our government IF it became tyrannical, I pity you.
Frank
12:29AM JAN 9TH 2013
As much paranoia and racial hatred as we need to know about from you to make a clinical diagnosis that you don't pass the sanity test to be allowed to play with guns . . . . as General McChrystal just put it, there's no reason to have AR-15 military style weapons on the streets of America today . . . . you clearly aren't military (no one I know who has been in service brags in public about their body count) . . . . you just seem to have a real paranoia problem . . . . seek professional help for that hatred and kill mentality you espousing. . . . and soon . . .
Kid Martin
4:09PM JAN 9TH 2013
"Killing people we don't know to defend the people we don't like." That phrase means a lot more to me after reading your verbal vomit. Made God have mercy on your pathetic soul.
Frank
10:35PM JAN 9TH 2013
Obvious maturity (and coherent sentences) . . . . good luck with that anger . . .

Pathetic . . .
John Doe
5:33PM JAN 7TH 2013
What a hypocrite! (remove spaces)
http ://www. youtube. com/watch?v=vQMwpbSjC1A
Jonathon
4:13PM JAN 7TH 2013
Some of our elected officers believe more gun control is what we need due to the acts of a few unstable individuals, instead of focusing on what we can do to correct the instability of these few individuals. Our elected officers continue to make cuts to our educational programs that would give these unstable people an outlet and help everyone in the world.
Another question comes to mind; do we punish millions of law abiding citizens for the crimes of the few? If so, shouldn't we round up the entire middle eastern population just because of the acts of so few?
let history speak for itself:
Here’s a history of what happens after governments have disarmed their citizens:

1911 – Turkey disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1915 – 1917 they murdered 1.5 million Armenians.

1929 – Russia disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1929 – 1953 they murdered 20 million Russians.

1935 – China disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1948 – 1952 they murdered 20 million Chinese.

1938 – Germany disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1939 – 1945 they murdered 16 million Jews.

1956 – Cambodia disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1975 – 1977 they murdered 1 million Educated people.

1964 – Guatamala disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1964 – 1981 they murdered 100,000 Mayan Indians.

1970 – Uganda disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1971 – 1979 they murdered 300,000 Christians.
If you say "That would never happen in America" that's because they haveen't been able to... Yet!
Frank
6:11PM JAN 7TH 2013
And who exactly in the U.S. is talking about your "red herring" of totally disarming all U.S. Citizens . . . . NO ONE . . . .

Pathetic shrill . . . .
drab
7:39PM JAN 7TH 2013
People like you help create a starting point for the government to secure complete control over it's citizens by allowing them to restrict our ways of living. That train of thought led me down the path of being a subject rather than an individual. Question everything, trust no one. Best choice I've made in my life. It's starts with this and in 10 years it'll continue to expand until all of America is disarmed. Makes it easier to over power citizens whenever it is necessary and reduces the likelihood of any resistance via firearms usage. Remember what happened to the natives of this country? They'll do that to those who don't follow and conform to what the government says so. By then, it'd be too late to change anything as the powers that be are securing their foundation, now and have been for years. It might just be my imagination but history tells a wonderful story about disarming citizens and I'd rather learn a lesson from history itself vs. from someone who tells me what to believe because that's what I should believe because they say so. Question everything and trust no one. This bill extends beyond mere political parties and killing sprees.
Frank
11:39PM JAN 7TH 2013
Yes, learn the lesson of dictatorships . . . but not democracies . . . . if you can't tell the difference, well that's just . . . .

Pathetic . . .
ReadTheLaws
12:08PM JAN 8TH 2013
Oh yes! Learn the history of all democracies......they all fall into dictatorship at some point. If you refuse to understand that, well...
Then look who is pathetic.

Senseless factoids with no perspective or context...pathetic.

Welcome to your new home, slave. Prison Planet Earth.
Frank
12:31AM JAN 9TH 2013
Delusional and full blown fantasy paranoid . . . .

Pathetic . . .
sirand
4:06AM JAN 9TH 2013
Frank,

Feinstein admitted to wanting to take all the guns when doing an interview for 60 minutes back in the 1990's. She said she couldn't do it because she didn't have the votes. And gun confiscation during the aftermath of Katrina was ubiquitous. There are lots of examples; you just have to pay attention.
Frank
2:53PM JAN 9TH 2013
Yes, the paranoid always find evidence to support what what they believe to be true . . . . found the aliens among us yet . . . . . or that evidence (that will stand up in court) of that UN takeover of U.S. sovereignty . . . . . thought not . . . . . just plain . . . .

Pathetic . . .
E
9:24AM JAN 10TH 2013
This guy Frank is a troll. Get a life, dude.
Frank
12:28AM JAN 11TH 2013
Of course, I always listen to immature children who want to call someone else "dude" because they saw someone else used it earlier in comments . . . .

Oh, and welcome to your use of a highly original alternative alias for an another membership in my SSN fan club . . . . . oh, but "troll" again? . . . can't you get any more original as you continue to switch to new alternate aliases . . . . sad to know I've reached your neuron limits . . . .

Pathetic . . . .
David Winchell
3:09PM JAN 7TH 2013
Is there a "Ban Dianne" PayPal account Americans from all 50 states can contribute to ? California is currently under a "Assult Rifle Ban" i hope the other 49 states can stop her. It's time for Harvey Milk to RIP.
Joel Everidge
2:49PM JAN 7TH 2013
As Mr. Burton so elegantly stated we are not the governments servants they are elected to serve us. Something they have seemed too forgotten.
Repubtallygirl
1:19PM JAN 7TH 2013
Congressman Van Holland (D) was on Fox News Sunday yesterday. He was asked if this bill were to pass, how could it prevented the Newtown massacre??
Answer: It wouldn't.

Senator Dianne Feinstein,

I will not register my weapons should this bill be passed, as I do not believe it is the government's right to know what I own. Nor do I think it prudent to tell you what I own so that it may be taken from me by a group of people who enjoy armed protection yet decry me having the same a crime. You ma'am have overstepped a line that is not your domain. I am a Marine Corps Veteran of 8 years, and I will not have some woman who proclaims the evil of an inanimate object, yet carries one, tell me I may not have one.

I am not your subject. I am the man who keeps you free. I am not your servant. I am the person whom you serve. I am not your peasant. I am the flesh and blood of America.
I am the man who fought for my country. I am the man who learned. I am an American. You will not tell me that I must register my semi-automatic AR-15 because of the actions of some evil man.

I will not be disarmed to suit the fear that has been established by the media and your misinformation campaign against the American public.

We, the people, deserve better than you.

Respectfully Submitted,
Joshua Boston
Cpl, United States Marine Corps
2004-2012
BeeBee
3:35PM JAN 7TH 2013
Joshua, will all due respect, the domain of our government is the safety and well being of our citizens, which you have contributed to by your service. The government knows what car you drive, where you live, and who your spouse and children are. We register to vote, a constitutional right. Why won't you even consider registering your gun? What do you have to lose by that, really?
John Paul Jones
7:36PM JAN 8TH 2013
The more important domain of our government is to remain inside it's constitutional limits. That is the only way we remain a free people. I know you are trying to sound reasonable but what you suggest is grossly unreasonable. The federal government has no authority to maintain a list of what firearms anyone lawfully owns. That would amount to a target list if the government ever decided to confiscate which Feinstein clearly is intent on. There is no room for compromise on this issue. As a free people our founders gave extra emphasis on the right to bear arms being necessary to the security of a free state. No other right in the Constitution says that. It is not window dressing and it has nothing to do with participation in a government "militia." The right is for individuals to protect themselves from any threat including the government if necessary. Liberals really should leave this one alone. Restricting lawful firearms ownership will NOT reduce gun crime but it will remove vital freedoms and it will cause great conflict.
Frank
12:48AM JAN 9TH 2013
Firearms are already restricted (e.g. automatic weapons, bazookas, and gun accessories such as silencers, etc.) . . . . you just don't agree that further restrictions are legal, and not even Judge Scalia agrees with that position . . . . oh, and in case you haven't studied law 101, taking up arms and waging war against one's country is commonly known as treason . . . . is that what you're promoting with your rhetoric, promoting rebellion, insurrection or treason . . . clearly all just . . . .

Pathetic . . .
Bob
12:27AM JAN 11TH 2013
Frank ,
Eat a bag of dicks.
John Paul Jones
11:51AM JAN 9TH 2013
Yawn... Get a new schtick Frank. I'm pretty sure I know more law than you and I can certainly read court opinions. If it can reasonably be classified as an "arm" and CAN be used for a lawful purpose (like self defense) then the right to "bear" it is protected. Arms would include anything up to and including what is typically carried by an infantryman (so no bazookas, tanks, or nukes like you liberals are so fond of crying about). Automatics require an extra license but that wasn't at issue in Heller so a future case may determine that those are protected as well, though I doubt anyone will challenge that restriction. I don't really seek an automatic because I am comfortable with a semi and it wastes less ammo.

I also took an oath to support and defend the Constitution (unlike you). The Constitution, Frank, not a government. But if it makes you feel good keep creating strawmen and inventing what you want your opposition to say.

Now hurry and see if wikipedia or huffpo has a good counter argument.
Frank
3:49PM JAN 9TH 2013
Of course you must be right (at least in your own mind) . . . you're the Constitutional expert, so tell me, exactly which automatic and semi-automatic weapons did our Founding Fathers have in mind that they felt should be allowed to be typically carried by a militia infantryman under the protections of the 2nd amendment . . . . . . . .

Yes, you must be right (at least in your own mind) . . . . you totally know which oaths I've taken throughout my 64 years (or even how much law I've written) . . . . . although it's becoming increasingly clear that you're willing to promote activities that would violate yours if carried out (armed insurrection, rebellion, treason) . . . . regardless of whichever SSN fan club member you happen to be (and that's becoming clearer) . . . sad and . . . .

Pathetic . . . .
John Paul Jones
1:00AM JAN 10TH 2013
Wow, you have obviously hit rock bottom yet continue to dig. Frank, there is no way I can avoid telling you how stupid you are.

There were no autos at our founding. The elite infantry weapon then was the musket. You know, the same weapon private citizens owned and used in the "rebellion." Use simple logic (I know that is asking too much from you). Those treasonous colonists kept their weapons rather than allow the brits to confiscate them and, as a result, we won freedom, ratified an amazing Constitution, and now have the most powerful country on the earth today. Now we all know that if the colonists had been like you, we would never have had the opportunity to have a Constitution. But that doesn't phase you because the colonists were evil white racists right Frank, and the Constitution doesn't matter to you. You prefer to be a slave to your beloved celebrity leader (Boxer the horse I will call you from now on). I prefer to actually DEFEND the Constitution and take whatever measures necessary (hopefully only peaceful measures will be necessary) to ensure that all of the rights protected in it remain intact for all Americans.

Now tell me more Frank about how the president is going to order the military and other agencies to employ drones, tanks and other high tech weaponry to slaughter American citizens for exercising their Constitutional rights. You must be insane. Who do think will follow any order like that? All those military personnel who are also citizens and most of whom are lawful gun owners? Right Frank...pretty sick that you even fantasize about that but just stupid that you might think it a possibility...

Jackass...
Frank
1:59AM JAN 10TH 2013
I'm not the one discussing the "right" to overthrow their government by force of arms . . . . I'm not the one who believes that arms are the solution, not the problem . . . . . I'm not the one who believes that the true solution to Aurora would have been to be carrying a ".45 with a laser grip sight (because its kind of dark)" and have a panicked theatre shoot-out . . . . .I'm not the one who desires to espouse that the Constitution's original meaning and circumstance is absolutely unchangeable, except when he has to argue that its interpretation must be changed to fit his argument . . . . I'm not the one who is clearly . . . .

Pathetic . . . .
Eductaed idiot
5:44PM JAN 7TH 2013
BeeBee, another thing to remember about this registration is that it is essentially a Federal watch list type registration. It would be something that the feds could use against its citizerns as a whole should it ever decide to. Car registration, by comparision, is held by each state, not the Federal government whom we are protected from uder the 2nd Ammendment according to the intent by its creators. Registration itlsef does not seem bad but in the form they propose it is more or less a large watch list database much like you'd use for sex offenders or criminals. The majority of gun owners are not criminals, so why treat them as such. Background checks and a short waiting period though, go for it. I support that. Large magazines though is relatively arbitrary though. It's like trying to define pornography... what makes 10 better 9 rounds or worse than 12? What does 10 have to do with anything? Most peopel will point outt hat they could fire one thirty round magazine in X seconds or thye could fire and reload 3 10 round magazines in X + about 2 or 3 seconds. It is not going to stop bad people.
Robert Nichols
5:35PM JAN 7TH 2013
The reason that registering weapon, or for that matter any private property should be illegal is privacy. What reason does the government have for knowing what firearms I have? If I'm law abiding it doesn't matter, and if I'm not law abiding ill simply obtain one illegally, so it still doesn't doesn't matter. Murder is illegal and guess what- they still occur- passing laws against it doesn't stop it it only provides a penalty for committing the act. Gun laws won't keep those determined to obtain a firearm for illegal from getting one- but those laws may keep someone who has a legitimate purpose for owning one from having one. On a separate note are you aware of the second amendment is meant for? It's to balance power between the people and the government. The right to form militias isn't intended to defend the country, but as way to defend the people against the tyranny of the government should occur.

Leave a Comment on This Story

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
To prevent automated spam submissions leave this field empty.