Feinstein 'I Understand the Urge to Arm Yourself... That's What I Did'

reply to post by retirednature


From what I can see this is from 1995. I am for gun ownership, but this is dirty tactic. No point has been proven here.

What a hypocrite. Anyway, what she is talking about is NOT the point. We do not want firearms for personal protection against would be burglars or muggers, but for protection against our own government. That is the whole point of the 2nd amendment, for the 20th time. There are people who still do not grasp that, which blows my mind.

Feinstein is a big hipocrate! she carried cause as she says a terorrist group was trying to kill her but now doesnt need it since she has body gaurds!!......but yet everyday no ones knows who might try to kill them for the $2 in their wallet!?

also she admits....when she wrote the "original assault weapons ban", the guns she put on the list were chosen by looking at pictures of guns.

also she lies about the rates of fire on these guns...capable/ sustained rates of fire arent actual rates of fire or uses fully automatic rates of fire for these types of guns!

and shes lying about her gun ban bill.....she used "scary" weapons to show people the guns she want to ban! but in reality its all semi auto guns! if it wasnt why does the bill include approx. 2000+ guns by name that are allowed, ALL others will be banned!

also most of these guns are used for target and match shooting....imagine how much money will be lost to the US economy if these guns cant be used! (if you have to pay for registration, that means you cant buy ammunition!)

also people travel to events and purchase more than bullets. hotels, restaurants and other businesses will lose money. also stocks in the metal industry could fall.. lead, copper and brass alone!

so do they even worry about the economy? right now the gun industry is one of a few, that is making money now, they employ how many people?

but shes rich...so she doesnt need to worry about a job! and we pay for her body gaurds!

Originally posted by jimmiec
More "Do as i say,not as i do" from the government. They are all well armed or have bodyguards that are. The gun issue has never been about saving lives. It is and always has been about control of the populace. The Constitution stands in the way of installing a new form of government that they prefer. Not a government that the people would prefer. We are their servants in their minds.

I had a friend i went to school with many years ago. He was constantly having parties, This was in the 70's so there were drugs etc. I moved out of state for 25 years. When i came back i found out that he was the Mayor of the town. I saw him one day and said hello. He snubbed me. We are simply pond scum to them if we are not one of them. They do not live in the world we live in. They do not represent our ideals. There may be a few who do, however they are way outnumbered and generally considered kooks.

I don't know if it's a case of "Do as I say, not as I do".

I'd be more inclined to think that it's a case of trust.

I trust myself not to get angry and shoot somebody that I'm mad at; whether it be over a parking space or a deal at Walmart or car accident or whatever else people lose their minds over these days. The same can't be said for everyone else.

For the most part, I agree that she would be taking someone else out with her. I've never been the victim of a crime like robbery. But I assume that most criminals don't advertise and giver you time to reach for your gun. Unless you're the one robbing someone, your gun is probably in your holster. A criminal walks up to you unawares, pulls his gun, takes your stuff, and walks away. If you draw in that case, things are going to unnecessarily escalate and it will probably result in both people getting shot for no reason. If you have time to draw your gun, then you'd probably have been better off just walking away and letting the professionals deal with the situation.

I can also agree on her feeling she needs one. The average shlub on the streets shouldn't be drawing the ire of as many people as a public figure. Just look at this thread, it's part of her job to draw hate and blame.

I can understand wanting to protect myself and my family, but everyone who talks about fighting a tyrranical government wistfully like some wannabe freedom fighter just, man, lemme tell you. This is the thing that makes people label you "gun nuts" and immediately want to take away your guns. It just sounds like violence-mongering craziness. Tell people it's a hobby. Say something like, "you might not like or understand baseball but that doesn't mean it should be illegal. If they make me happy then would you begrudge me that". I mean, I wouldn't give you a gun if you told me that you needed it to shoot me if I made you mad. I'd be like, "Umm.... maybe I shouldn't give this to you".

Even if you had to worry about a tyrannical government (I'm not convinced), I'd definitely want you to resist it in a way that wasn't violent. I don't want my neighborhood to start looking like Syria or Lebanon or any other country I've seen on the news with rebel armies. It doesn't look glorious and I don't want people to own guns just to try and make that my reality.

Even if you had to worry about a tyrannical government (I'm not convinced), I'd definitely want you to resist it in a way that wasn't violent. I don't want my neighborhood to start looking like Syria or Lebanon or any other country I've seen on the news with rebel armies. It doesn't look glorious and I don't want people to own guns just to try and make that my reality.

Whether you would want it or not is irrelevent.....it's just the way it is and that is just the way it is in countries that oppress the people. It doesn't look glorious because it isn't, but it also isn't glorious to be ground under the heel of a dictator. You can ask jewish people of WWII how glorious it was to be led away from thier homes in trains, I'm sure they'd tell you, well.......that is they would if they were still alive that is.

How this all plays out is up to those who run things, if they get back to not threatening the rights and liberties of the people and restore those we have had taken the situation will defuse and go back to the way it was. If they keep pushing to erase freedom then things are going to get really really ugly my friend, whether you want it or not.

Originally posted by Darkphoenix77

Even if you had to worry about a tyrannical government (I'm not convinced), I'd definitely want you to resist it in a way that wasn't violent. I don't want my neighborhood to start looking like Syria or Lebanon or any other country I've seen on the news with rebel armies. It doesn't look glorious and I don't want people to own guns just to try and make that my reality.

You know, this is the main reason that alot of people just want to ignore why the second amendment is there and just let the government take away whatever freedoms they seem fit to STEAL in order to make society more "safe".

"Don't stirr the pot! We don't want our comfy lives altered to fight against evil. Give them your guns, so they won't start a war!"

Pathetic.........

edit on 29-1-2013 by wondermost because: (no reason given)

edit on 29-1-2013 by wondermost because: (no reason given)

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by kozmo

 

The bill excludes 2,258 legitimate hunting and sporting rifles and shotguns by
specific make and model.

Actually, she was quoted as stating that if she had her way ALL guns would be outlawed stating "Americans, turn them all in!"

She was talking about "assault weapons". Not all firearms.


Proposed Legislation

edit on 1/28/2013 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)

I use my AR-15 to hunt. It is an excellent weapons platform for hunting for the same reasons it is a superior weapon for the military.

That point aside, what gives her, or any other politician, the right or authority to determine what I need or what is appropriate for me to use for hunting?

That doesn't address the indisputable fact that the 2nd amendment was not written to protect hunting. That contention is absurd.

Originally posted by Darkphoenix77


Whether you would want it or not is irrelevent.....it's just the way it is and that is just the way it is in countries that oppress the people. It doesn't look glorious because it isn't, but it also isn't glorious to be ground under the heel of a dictator. You can ask jewish people of WWII how glorious it was to be led away from thier homes in trains, I'm sure they'd tell you, well.......that is they would if they were still alive that is.

How this all plays out is up to those who run things, if they get back to not threatening the rights and liberties of the people and restore those we have had taken the situation will defuse and go back to the way it was. If they keep pushing to erase freedom then things are going to get really really ugly my friend, whether you want it or not.

edit on 29-1-2013 by Darkphoenix77 because: spelling

I know it seems that way, but I try and do what little I can to make it not happen.

I think I'd rather have people give up their guns then start shooting each other. I'd give up a lot myself if it would keep the peace in my neighborhood.

I still stand by my belief that threatening and actually using violence is not the way to prove your point. Especially when you're point is that people should be allowed to have guns. The Jews were allowed to be treated the way they were because that course of action enjoyed popular support. It's all about gaining popular support. People act as if the politicians can do what they want with impunity; ban guns, take away freedoms, whatever. The truth is that they are only allowed to do what you let them do. You see it all the time. Every once in a while a politician gets in a sex scandal or uses a word like niggardly and the people get all up in arms (metaphorically). Their popularity takes a dive and everyone rushes to sever any link they have with the person in question. If you want to have your guns or whatever, then you have to get the people to think that's what they need whether it's the right answer or not.

Like I've said, if I'm in anyway representative of the average person, then threatening to shoot stuff up is not the way to go. Would I prove to my parents that I should be trusted with scissors by going on a stabbing spree?

Now, how would I get the people to be pro-gun? I don't know.