Feinstein's thoughts on her AW Ban.

Status
Not open for further replies.

Desertdog

Member
Joined
Dec 26, 2002
Messages
1,980
Location
Ridgecrest Ca
I sent Senator Feinstein my thoughts on her AW Ban;

Senator,
As you have sworn to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America, I expect you to uphold ALL of it.
Here is a copy of the Bill of Rights, to refresh your memory as you seem to have forgotten at least one of them since you are for banning a semi-automatic weapon that has been miss-named "Assault Weapon" and has many lawful uses in hunting and target practice.

Pay particular attention to the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America and ask yourself how you can ban something the founders of our country said we are free to possess.

As you read the 2nd Amendment take particular note of the last 4 words which read, "shall not be infringed" which an "assault weapons" ban does.


Bill of Rights
Amendment I....

Here is her stupid form letter reply that says nothing, except go to h*ll;:barf: :barf:

June 17, 2004


Mr. XXXXXXXX
XXX XXXXXX XX
Ridgecrest, California 93555

Dear Mr. XXXXXX:

Thank you for writing to me regarding the assault weapons ban. I appreciate hearing from you and I welcome the opportunity to respond.

In 1994, Congress passed the Omnibus Crime Bill, which was signed into law. One provision of this bill banned the manufacture, transfer, or possession of semi-automatic assault weapons for a preliminary period of ten years. Since 1994, it has become even clearer through chilling examples, such as the 1999 shootings at Columbine High School in Colorado and at the Jewish Community Center in Los Angeles, that military-style assault weapons are a danger on our streets and to our children. Semi-automatic assault weapons-which fire up to 250 rounds of ammunition within seconds and without warning-are weapons of war that do not belong on the streets of our communities.

Unless acted upon by the United States Congress and President Bush, the assault weapons ban will expire, as scheduled, in September 2004. On March 2, 2004, I introduced an amendment to S.1805, the "Lawful Protection of Commerce in Arms Act," to renew the assault weapons ban for another ten years. Although the amendment passed by a vote of 52-47, S.1805 ultimately did not pass by a vote of 90-8. Therefore, the renewal of the assault weapons ban, which was amended to this bill, did not pass either. The future success of the extension of the ban depends on support of the House, the Senate, and the Administration. President Bush and Attorney General Ashcroft have both publicly stated their support for an extension of the ban, and I intend to hold them to their promise.

Again, thank you for your letter. I hope you will keep in touch on issues of importance to you. Should you have any further questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact my Washington, D.C. office at (202) 224-3841.

Sincerely yours,

Dianne Feinstein
United States Senator

http://feinstein.senate.gov

Further information about my position on issues of concern to California and the Nation are available at my website http://feinstein.senate.gov. You can also receive electronic e-mail updates by subscribing to my e-mail list at http://feinstein.senate.gov/issue.html.
 
What do you expect? :)

"Hi. I'm sorry for trying to get the AWB renewed. I realize the error of my ways, and it won't happen again."

"Hi. Due to overwhelming response from my constituents, even though I still believe the AWB is necessary to prevent crime I will no longer seek its renewal."

:rolleyes:
 
Several months ago I watched the Good Senator respond to a question which asked why she thought the "AW" ban should be extended.

Her only answer was that it raised the price of guns so that fewer could be purchased.

Is that a window into her world or what?

Now she has added the claim that AWs are being used less frequently in crime despite all of the post-ban AWs being produced and purchased.

Heck, I've even found a source on her own web site:

http://feinstein.senate.gov/03Releases/r-awpresscon1.htm
I remember people taking me aside and saying: 'Don't do it. The gunners are too powerful. You'll never ever win.'

We won. The first national assault weapons ban became law. Since September 13, 1994, it has been illegal to manufacture and import military-style assault weapons.

The hope has been to drive down the supply of these weapons and make them more expensive to obtain over time.

And in the years following, crimes using assault weapons were reduced dramatically, according to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms:

* In 1993, assault weapons accounted for 8.2 percent of all guns used in crimes;
* By the end of 1995, that proportion had fallen to 4.3 percent - a dramatic drop;
* and by November 1996, the last date for which statistics are available, the proportion dropped to 3.2 percent.

We have had trouble getting updated statistics from this Justice Department, but it is clear that after we banned these guns, they were used less frequently in crime.

Unfortunately, to get the bill passed in 1994, we had to agree to a ten-year sun

Rick
 
Here is a copy of the Bill of Rights, to refresh your memory as you seem to have forgotten at least one of them since you are for banning a semi-automatic weapon that has been miss-named "Assault Weapon" and has many lawful uses in hunting and target practice.

Hunting, target practice, and most importantly defending the our natural rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.
 
Hmmmm, I was thinking about this stuff today and had a new thought about it.

Has anyone ever thought that maybe these people own the gun stores/warehouses that stand to gain a huge amount of money from making these things harder to get?

It makes sense to me in a tin foil hat sort of way.:what:
 
Semi-automatic assault weapons-...are weapons of war

Somebody might want to inform/remind Ms. Feinstein that - according to Miller v. US, the only 2nd Amendment Supreme Court case in this century (1939) - firearms of "military value" (weapons of war) are precisely the weapons the 2nd Amendment was written to protect. Decisions by the 9th Circuit (the most overturned circuit in the Federal Judiciary) should not be construed to support her position.
 
Either a majority of people who vote in California don't own guns and support her or a majority of California gun owners vote for her. She keeps getting elected. :what:
 
Colonel:

I like your argument, however, the Miller vs. US decision specifically refers to "weapons of war" as you said. Semi-auto rifles are not technically weapons of war. They are civilian versions of their select-fire counterparts.
If you really want to see DiFi spin, convince the Supreme Court that this ruling means the 1934 NFA is unconstitutional (which may have happened had Mr. Miller showed up, and his lawyer knew that sawed off shotguns have been used in war). (Thanks, Mr. Ross!)
Who wants an AR-15 when I can get an M-16 for the same price? She would probably have a heart attack and die. We could only hope.

Edit: Further note: If using only a small part of a copyrighted work constitutes copyright infringement , then isn't every gun control law on the books an infringement of the 2nd Amendment? And therefore unconstitutional? Hmmm....
 
Semi-auto rifles are not tecnically weapons of war. They are civilian versions of their select-fire counterparts.

No argument. But in the rhetorical DiFi logic, it is "weapons of war" that are the evil, which flies in the face of the Supremes. After we establish that "weapons of war" are, indeed, protected, the rest is easy.

If you really want to see DiFi spin, convince the Supreme Court that this ruling means the 1934 NFA is unconstitutional (which may have happened had Mr. Miller showed up, and his lawyer knew that sawed off shotguns have been used in war).

Really. It was awfully inconsiderate of Miller to get himself murdered before his court date. The testimony of the effectiveness of "trench sweeper" shotguns in WWI would have made '34 NFA tough to sustain...
 
...that military-style assault weapons are a danger on our streets and to our children. Semi-automatic assault weapons-which fire up to 250 rounds of ammunition within seconds and without...


250 rounds in only seconds? From a semi-auto?

Diane Feinstein is an outright liar and con artist.

Nice to see my Republican Senator John Warner (RINO-Va) right in there with Feinstein on the AWB.
 
Last edited:
Reminds me of when I sent a letter to my government (criticising their desire for compulsory ID cards).

I got a two-page reply basicaly saying "Thankyou for sharing your opinions. However, we think it is a good idea".
 
iapetus wrote:
Reminds me of when I sent a letter to my government (criticising their desire for compulsory ID cards).

I got a two-page reply basicaly saying "Thankyou for sharing your opinions. However, we think it is a good idea".

Almost without exception, form letter responses contain something like "I welcome the opportunity to share my views." Frankly, I don't give two bowel movements about the Senator's personal views. Her job is to listen to MY views, as well as those of her other consituents, and REPRESENT THOSE VIEWS. Sadly, many voters are all too ready to abdicate the responsibility to decide what's best for themselves, and too many elitist politicians ready to claim that responsibility, evidenced by DiFi continuing to be re-elected.

God, I hate her. No, no, that's not The High Road. Let me try again: I intensely disagree with everything she has ever, or will ever, say, think, or do.

316SS
 
Since 1994, it has become even clearer through chilling examples, such as the 1999 shootings at Columbine High School in Colorado and at the Jewish Community Center in Los Angeles, that military-style assault weapons are a danger on our streets and to our children.

She's doing this for "our children".
 
which may have happened had Mr. Miller showed up, and his lawyer knew that sawed off shotguns have been used in war
It was awfully inconsiderate of Miller to get himself murdered before his court date.

Don't cry too many tears for Mr Miller-he was a bootlegger, a criminal, who was killed doing what criminals do. Miller also had a co-defendant, whose name escapes me. Said individual was in prison for a crime unrelated to the Supreme Court case by the time the case made it to SCOTUS.

The lawyer probably actually did know his stuff-he won in district court, which caused the ATF to appeal to SCOTUS. But with one client dead and the other in prison, he wasn't getting paid anymore, so he didn't show up.
 
I thought most eveyone would understand what she's up to. She, and the rest of the gun grabbers, are using the "assault gun" ban as a wedge issue to divide and conquer gun owners.

Their real goal is total civilian disarmament. Any lie, distortion, or political slieght of hand is permissable in their quest to render all of us sheep, to make us subjects to their whims rather than citizens of a free country. The Assault weapon ban is just one step towards that goal.

The only way to combat them, is to get them kicked out of office, and replaced with pro-freedom candidates. Writing them will only get you on their "nut" list.
 
Still...

I thought it was a BIG DEAL to get to argue in front of SCOTUS. I would have thought the guy would have jumped at the chance. It's like the Olympics for lawyers or the Wimbledon. I thought he would have still gone regardless of client status. Maybe the original players all had to participate... Any one know more about this? Not that it is anything but moot now, just curious.
 
I think the fame involved with arguing in front of the SCOTUS has increased mostly since the FDR court and then more since the civil rights decisions. I think it's always been on an upward trend. Polsby's Institutionalization of Congress* deals a bit with the institutionalization of the SCOTUS, and just like Congress, it's become more institutionalized and gathered more reputation as it's gone along. The reputation of the court spiked up with several obvious cases during the 19th century, but I'm not sure those translated as much into increased honor conferred by arguing before the court.

* I've got an html copy if anyone wants it. It's a (well-known) journal article from 1968.
 
Semi-automatic assault weapons-which fire up to 250 rounds of ammunition within seconds and without warning-

Well, if this is her concern, she should sponsor a bill to ban any semi auto containing and capable of firing 250 rounds in 3 seconds, unless when you pull the trigger a loud electronic voice blares out

WARNING! This weapon will spit out 250 rounds in 5..4..3..2...1... brrrrrraaaaap!
 
250 rounds in 3 seconds is almost a good as the GE Minigun. Just think of the weight savings if the military replaced all of the miniguns on their aircraft with "semi-automatic assault weapons." :rolleyes:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top