Showing posts with label Dianne Feinstein. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Dianne Feinstein. Show all posts

Friday, January 4, 2013

We Must Control the Second Amendment Conflict

- William A. Levinson

The side that controls the language of an argument controls the argument, and the side that takes and maintains the offensive controls the entire conflict. The enemy must then react to our actions instead of making us react to his, and continue to react until he is no longer capable of fighting. We are indeed at war with an adversary with whom good faith and win-win negotiation are not possible.

Recognize Incrementalism for What It Is

Incrementalism is the process whereby an aggressor who cannot achieve his entire long-term objective immediately will seek to do it a piece at a time. The free world's failure to take seriously "Germany today, tomorrow the world" brought untold misery to millions of people. The Arab approach to the destruction of Israel also is incrementalist: Gaza and the West Bank today, and Tel Aviv tomorrow.

The anti-Second Amendment camp's agenda also is incrementalist. Dianne Feinstein now talks about so-called assault weapons, but we must not forget her openly stated desire to ban all handguns -- even revolvers. "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." That's all we need to hear, and all we need to know. This is the civil rights version of "Germany today, tomorrow the world."

I do not own any firearms with high-capacity magazines, so Feinstein's success would not affect me. Only a fool, however, negotiates with or tries to appease an incrementalist, because this simply encourages him or her to take even more. An intelligent person destroys the incrementalist before he grows too strong to stop, putting a permanent end to his entire agenda. This is what England, France, and Czechoslovakia should have done to Germany when it demanded the Sudetenland in 1938, noting that Germany was not yet ready for war. Israel should have done the same to the Arabs when it had the upper hand in 1967; the demolition of the Aswan Dam would have rendered Egypt incapable of further violence for a long time.

Legal and nonviolent methods are meanwhile available with which to demolish anti-Second Amendment organizations and political careers, and we must now use these methods with no restraint whatsoever. The anti-Second Amendment Million Mom March had a no-debate policy, so I did not try to debate my civil rights with it; I destroyed it by helping to expose its misuse of tax-exempt money for electioneering. No more Million Mom March, no more problem. As stated by Shakespeare's Richard of York, "Sword, hold thy temper; heart, be wrathful still / Priests pray for enemies, but princes kill."

Control the Argument and Take the Offensive

It was one matter for Cato the Elder to say "Carthago delenda est" ("Carthage must be destroyed"), and another for Rome's legions to lay the city in ruins and then sow the fields with salt. Intelligent and diligent effort was necessary then, and it is now. The first step is to control the language of the conflict.

The enemy has committed himself to the demonization of certain semiautomatic firearms by calling them "assault weapons," which is itself an outright lie that we can turn against the enemy. An assault weapon is, by definition, a firearm that is capable of fully automatic fire: an Uzi, M-16, or full-auto AK-47. It is already illegal to own any assault weapon without a $200 federal permit. The Violence Policy Center can meanwhile be targeted for using tax-exempt money to deceivethe American people as to what an assault weapon really is:
Assault weapons-just like armor-piercing bullets, machine guns, and plastic firearms-are a new topic. The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons-anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun-can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons.
There it is, in Josh Sugarmann's own words. The Violence Policy Center, a 501(c)(3) "tax exempt educational organization," says openly that it plans to exploit the public's ignorance as to the difference between semiautomatic and fully automatic weapons. This provides our side with a potentially devastating scandal with which to discredit the enemy, by turning his own language against him.

The language issue also applies to so-called Saturday Night Specials: small,inexpensive handguns with relatively small ammunition capacities. Our side must call them Negrotown Saturday Night Specials, and add that "Negro" was not the word that the racists who coined this term used. Their agenda was, of course, to make handgun ownership prohibitively expensive for black people who wanted to protect themselves from night riders and other Kluxers.

Apply Psychological Warfare

Psychological warfare is the only military weapon that it is legal for anybody -- be he a government, private organization, or individual -- to use during peacetime. The enemy is already using it by exploiting the Sandy Hook massacre to advance his agenda. We can turn this around by arguing persuasively that Dianne Feinstein, Michael Bloomberg, and Barack Obama welcomed this atrocity as an opportunity to appeal to emotion instead of reason. Rahm Emanuel's "Never let a good crisis go to waste" is a matter of record, and we can hang these words around the other side's neck like the Ancient Mariner's albatross. To this we can add Obama's total lack of remorse over the 150 Mexican citizens and the U.S. law enforcement officer his Justice Department helped to murder through Operation Fast and Furious. This involved more than 2,000 gun felonies (straw purchases).

Tuesday, January 1, 2013

'TURN 'EM ALL IN': FEINSTEIN SAID SHE WANTED ALL GUNS BANNED



- Warner Todd Huston

One of the lines that many progressives and TV talking heads are reiterating is that no one really wants to take away Americans' guns. Senator Dianne Feinstein apparently missed that directive. She admitted as far back as 1995 that she does, indeed, wish to take everyone's guns away from them.

In a 1995 broadcast of CBS' 60 Minutes, Feinstein admitted she would love to have instituted an "outright ban" on all guns.
Feinstein was the driving force to the failed (and now lapsed) 1994 “assault weapons” ban, and it was upon her success at getting the law passed that she made her admission.
If I could've 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.
This is not the way many lefties are trying to sell their latest attempts at violating the 2nd Amendment, of course. Led by President Obama, the latest tactic is to claim that no one really wants to take away guns and that any claim to the opposite is just "fearmongering."
In 2008, President Obama went out of his way to tell the nation that he "believes" in the Second Amendment.
I, I, just want to be absolutely clear, all right? So I don’t want any misunderstanding, when, when y’all go home and you’re talkin’ to your buddies, and they say, "Aww, he wants to take my gun away." You’ve heard it here; I’m on television, so everybody knows it. I believe in the Second Amendment. I believe in peoples’ lawful right to bear arms. I will not take your shotgun away. I will not take your rifle away. I won’t take your handgun away… But I am not going to take your guns away. So if you want to find an excuse not to vote for me, don’t use that one because it just ain’t true. It ain’t true.
U.S. Congressman Raul Grijalva (D, Ariz.) mirrored this tactic: "I think the majority of the American people want us to have a rational discussion that protects their fundamental rights and the Second Amendment, but also protects the public safety. I don't that's a contradiction," Grijalva said in July.
This talking point is echoed by many in the media. During his "townhall" event on CNN a few weeks ago, Piers Morgan made the claim that he believes in the U.S. Constitution and doesn't support taking all guns from every American, despite his constant refrain that guns need to be banned.
U.S. News writer Susan Milligan agreed, saying in November that there is "no evidence" that any one wants to take away American's firearms.
The sentiment is also deployed by small, local papers, like that of the Albany Herald, who's Carlton Fletcher scoffed at the notion that anyone wants to take away guns.
"Despite what the latest ultra-right-wing posts assure you is happening even now as you're reading this, President Obama and the United Nations are not putting the finishing touches on their nefarious plot to 'take away our guns,'" Fletcher wrote in September.
Vice Magazine also recently engaged in this subterfuge. "Basically no one wants to take anyone’s gun away, at least not in America," wrote Associate Editor Harry Cheadle in June.
Even the extremist, left-wing media-watching group, Media Matters, proclaimed any thought that progressives want to take guns away is nothing but "fearmongering."
Senator Feinstein, though, is far more direct. This attempt to hide the left's true motives is not a tactic that she bothers with. Feinstein is quite open: Her goal, like that of the rest of the left in America, is to undermine the Second Amendment and take away all Americans' right to own firearms of any kind.

MARINE TO GUN-GRABBER DI FEINSTEIN: 'NO MA'AM'

Warner Todd Huston



Joshua Boston, a retired Corporal in the U.S. Marine Corps, has a message for Senator Dianne Feinstein (D, CA) concerning her newest gun banning bill. Corporal Boston says, "No Ma'Am."

Boston posted an open letter to Senator Feinstein at CNN's ireport site on December 27 to let DiFi know that he, at least, would not submit to the government denuding him of his Second Amendment rights.
Boston informed Sen. Feinstein that he will not register his weapons nor does he believe the Senator or anyone else in government has the right to require him to do so. Boston also scoffed at someone proclaiming "the evil of an inanimate object" even as she bestows upon herself the ability to carry a gun in contravention to her own proclamations.
"I am not your subject," Boston insists. "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 will not be disarmed to suit the fear that has been established by the media and your misinformation campaign against the American public.
Mr. Boston's message intrigues and he has even more to say than his open letter reveals. I took the occasion of his open letter to reach out to this brave member of our military. Here is our conversation:
Warner Todd Huston: What drove you to post this reply to Senator Feinstein?
Joshua Boston: I've been seeing this nonsense about gun control in the news since forever. Senator Feinstein regularly touts the effectiveness of the first Assault Weapons Ban while pointing out the "loopholes." So she proposes this new ban legislation. Given the tragedy that happened recently it has considerably more traction with folks, most who rely in some major way on emotions and what they're being told by the media about these "Weapons of Mass Destruction." My Windham Weaponry SRC sits in my home loaded and ready to be used should the need ever arise. It does not make me a criminal.
I'm sick of being told by people in Washington D.C. what is okay for me to own for my own personal defense while they enjoy the safety of many armed guards with better firearms than I have access to. It's hypocritical.
WTH: In your opinion, what do you think the Second Amendment is for?
JB: Looking at the founder's times and what they had just gone through, it was something they put in there for us should we ever find ourselves in their shoes and have to reassert, because of whatever manifestation of tyranny, our inherent right to freedom and liberty.
WTH: Do you support concealed carry laws?
JB: I hold a CHL with the state of Texas. I would prefer there not be a bureaucratic apparatus whose hoops I have to jump through so that I may defend myself should the need ever arise outside of my home. Who are these legislators to tell me that I may not defend myself outside of my home because they don't have my fingerprints on file?
WTH: Do you believe in any sort of gun restrictions?
JB: The only gun restriction I would favor is one in which only VIOLENT felons are prevented from purchasing or possessing a firearm. Other than that, why does the government or the police need them if I am not allowed to have one?
WTH: Some liberals say regular Americans shouldn't be allowed to have guns because they aren't trained. As a trained member of the military yourself, do you think average citizens have the ability to use guns correctly?
JB: Despite the training I received while in the Marines, I am a regular American. I am not exceptional. I am not superior. I am an American just like any other citizen. I've seen "average citizens" use guns extraordinarily efficiently when I go to the range. This is because they are responsible people who seek knowledge when they don't know something. So yes they have the ability, and they should be able to purchase whatever weapons they deem sufficient for their needs.
WTH: Some people fear that government will use the military to forcibly disarm the public if gun banning laws get passed. What is your sense of your fellows in the armed forces. Do you think they'd follow orders to forcibly disarm the public?
JB: In my 8 years of service I could probably count on one hand the number of people that I met who would forcibly disarm the American public. The vast majority of American service members that I know and that I served with recognize that the Constitution is what we pledge to obey.

For more of the article go to: http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/12/30/Marine-Tells-Di-Feinstein-No-Ma-am-Over-Gun-Grabbing

Gun Owners Mad As Hell And Will Not Take It!

- J.D. Longstreet

There is a purge of Congress in the offing.  It will be historic in its magnitude.

Allow me to be as clear as I possibly can about this because the disconnect between the people of America and their government has become so complete, the distance between the citizen and the government has become so broad, that Washington is hearing only a faint whisper (If they hear anything at all!) coming from those of us outside the beltway.

So let me say this clearly, loudly, and in a declarative manner:  Attention Senators and US Representatives: If you vote for the new Assault Weapons Ban your political career in the US Congress is OVER.  That is O V E R!  Complete, finished, ended, kaput!

For the past few days I have been going over and over Senator Diane Feinstein’s proposal for a new Assault Weapons Ban and it reads like some sort of “edict” handed down from the politburo in old Soviet Socialist Russia.  (The politburo is the chief executive and political committee of the Communist Party.)

It IS as bad as I had suspected— but it is much, much, worse!

If you have not read the proposed bill, there is a “Summary” of the bill in PDF format you must read.  You will find it here:

The full text of the proposed bill has been taken down from the Senator’s website and, instead, we find the summary.

I am including a copy of the text of that summary below which was taken from the Senator’s website:

Summary of 2013 legislation


Following is a summary of the 2013 legislation:

  Bans the sale, transfer, importation, or manufacturing of:
  • 120 specifically-named firearms;
  • Certain other semiautomatic rifles, handguns, shotguns that can accept a detachable magazine and have one or more military characteristics; and
  • Semiautomatic rifles and handguns with a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10 rounds.
  Strengthens the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban and various state bans by:
  • Moving from a 2-characteristic test to a 1-characteristic test;
  • Eliminating the easy-to-remove bayonet mounts and flash suppressors from the characteristics test; and
  • Banning firearms with “thumbhole stocks” and “bullet buttons” to address attempts to “work around” prior bans.
  Bans large-capacity ammunition feeding devices capable of accepting more than 10 rounds.
  Protects legitimate hunters and the rights of existing gun owners by:
  • Grandfathering weapons legally possessed on the date of enactment;
  • Exempting over 900 specifically-named weapons used for hunting or sporting purposes; and
  • Exempting antique, manually-operated, and permanently disabled weapons.
  Requires that grandfathered weapons be registered under the National Firearms Act, to include:
  • Background check of owner and any transferee;
  • Type and serial number of the firearm;
  • Positive identification, including photograph and fingerprint;
  • Certification from local law enforcement of identity and that possession would not violate State or local law; and
  • Dedicated funding for ATF to implement registration.
A pdf of the bill summary is available here:

What we have here is a full-out, frontal assault on gun owners of America—not to mention a complete infringement of the rights of gun owners as spelled out, clearly, in the Second Amendment to the US Constitution.  It is as if the 2nd Amendment does not exist. 

“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.” ... 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution

I keep wondering what part of “shall not be infringed” do they not understand???  The definition of “infringe” is:“to go against.”  That, then, would mean, it seems to me, the entire proposed 2013 Assault Weapons Ban is unconstitutional from the git-go!  It is clearly an “infringement” on the rights of US citizens as spelled out in the 2nd Amendment.

As we learn, by dribs and drabs, what’s in Feinstein’s bill it becomes even more disturbing.
In my family we have a long standing tradition of “handing-down” our guns to the next generation.  I have been looking forward to the day I will hand-down my weapons to my grandson.  Now I learn that should Feinstein’s bill pass into law, I will not be able to do that.  Nor will you.

“According to the outline of Feinstein’s bill, it will grandfather in all legally owned weapons, but it will require they be registered and the owner fingerprinted. It will require a $200 per weapon tax be paid. The guns will not be transferable, meaning that upon the death of the owner the guns will become the property of the Federal government. It will allow the sale of 900 specifically named weapons, but none that can accept a detachable magazine that holds more than 10 rounds.”  SOURCE

All this is bad enough, but consider this:  If the Congress refuses to pass Feinstein’s bill into law, isn’t it reasonable to expect that Obama will issue the necessary Executive Orders to do much the same thing by way of rules and regulations, which have the force of law, and those rules and regs will be executed by the alphabet agencies under his control such as BATFE and the DHS, and even the agency, or agencies, charged with the supervision of Obamacare.

ELECTIONS HAVE CONSEQUENCES!  Losing our freedom, our liberty, and our COUNTRY is a consequence of the November 6th election.  But to be honest, we have to admit the problem began when the American people turned to socialism and a strong central government.  THIS is the price we pay. 

But what the heck!  It’s only freedom.  It’s just our liberty.  It’s just our birthright!  And finally—it is just the soul of our country.

There's more of the article go to: http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/52104

U.S. Marine Veteran Pens Letter To Gun Grabbing Hypocrite Dianne Feinstein



diannefeinsteintyrant
diannefeinsteinhagly
Josh Boston was a Marine deployed to Afghanistan between the years of 2004 through 2005. He is no longer in the Marines but penned this letter to Senator Dianne Feinstein following her announcement to outlaw 120 specifically-named firearms including certain semiautomatic rifles, handguns, and shotguns..
CNNi reported:
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
Warner Todd Huston spoke with Joshua Boston about his letter.
diannefeinsteinhypocrite
guncontrolworks