They finally said it.

[JustinJ]

There is no "they" just as there is no real definition of an "anti" as we all have different opinions of who qualifies. There is a whole gamut of views on gun control with Diane Feinstein just being one of them, albeit one of the more extreme. There are people who believe some guns should be legal, no guns should be legal, and all guns should be legal. Heck, some even think all weapons should be legal.

 

[Spdracr39]

She's said that before. Its nothing new.

The fact that she doesn't see that as unconstitutional, or taking away guns from a future generation is the disturbing part.

no the disturbing part is people actually voted for her in the first place.

( i guess someone already said this but it is true )

 

[Sheepdog1968]

I am basically a simple voter. I vote for two issues.

Issue one and priority 1. What is their view on firearms. Pro gun or most pro gun gets my vote.

Issue two and priority 2. What is their view on taxes. Those that want to cut taxes to true middle and upper class get my vote.

As for their admissions on this topic. I don't believe it. It is all spin. They are loosing what they really wanted so they will spin anything positive they can.

 

[itsa pain]

it is silly to think they would try to dry up the supply of guns when what they have done is dry up the ammo which gun owners are their best allies. just think it is easier to cut off gas then to take or limit everyones car

 

[VVelox]

Needs to be BIGGER rallys. I think the local gun communities should spearhead this. I would love to participate/start my own but not sure where/how to start(Legalities)

Start by forming your own local meetup group that gets together and talks about local issues. I started working on that two months ago here in Chicago. Yes, it is problematic and slow to get started, but it is something that needs done. Below is the original thread with my thoughts on the subject.

http://www.thehighroad.org/search.php?searchid=11420200

 

[Gun Geezer]

Imagine if the NRA actually used the money I give them to do something other than send me letters and junk mail asking for more money. Imagine the NRA did something with the money besides building gun museums and paying LaPierre $1.5M/year?

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

The NRA-ILA, NRA-PVF, spent $24 million in the 2012 elections to promote pro-gun candidates at the national level. This is separate from the NRA, who by their charter, cannot use money they raise to lobby. Instead that money goes to things like range building, competitions, Eddie Eagle, youth shooting programs, etc. It also does not include money spent by the NRA Civil Defense Fund in lawsuits to protect the rights of gun owners.

The reason the NRA and every other charity organization spends money on junk mail is because it produces more money than it costs - which is a good thing for us. Especially since you can ask to be put on the "Do Not Solicit" list and never receive a piece of junk mail again.

 

[Torian]

And this is why there is NO COMPROMISING with the likes of these people. They have nothing but contempt for the 2nd amendment and gun owners. Let's reciprocate.

 

[Trung Si]

I feel that Diane Feinstein is taking the issue of gun-control, to the point of it being a "personal obsession" rather just a political stance. She is so consumed by it that I wonder if she is addressing anything else that is relevant to her position in office. It's like the senator has developed tunnel vision over this single political issue. Senator Feinstein has seemingly become almost FANATICAL and that is not something good, regardless of which side of the coin they are on politically.

You are correct in your assesment of her, but she will never be voted out of office, because her constituents (San Francisco) are as crazy and fanatical in their views as she is!

 

[Phaethon]

So she only wanted every modern semi-automatic firearm that held more than 10 rounds to be forcibly confiscated from the American people and supported bans on all handguns earlier; and us implying she feels that way about all firearms is a misrepresentation?

Do you really feel like you have a strong, valid argument there?

He said it was a misrepresentation of the quote, not her intentions. I'm sure we've all had things we want to say before that we haven't; if she has never publicly declared her desire to see private firearm ownership in the United States destroyed, it's very impolitic to publicly assume it, despite whatever we may believe to the contrary.

 

[Agsalaska]

So she only wanted every modern semi-automatic firearm that held more than 10 rounds to be forcibly confiscated from the American people and supported bans on all handguns earlier; and us implying she feels that way about all firearms is a misrepresentation?

Do you really feel like you have a strong, valid argument there?

Its not whether or not I 'feel' have an argument. There is no argument. I have no position to defend. In that clip she was specifically referring to the weapons grandfathered in 1994 ban. To represent it as anything other would be taking her quote out of the context of the interview. TO use that clip as evidence that she wants to take all guns is intellectually dishonest. I cant stand the woman. And I am pretty certain that, if she was king for a day, she would take every gun out of every house. But that clip is simply not the smoking gun evidence of that.

 

[stonecutter2]

I 1962 I bought this new in the box GI 1911A1 from our government.
The gun cost me $17 and was delivered to my house by the Postman.
(that's when it was "our government', now it's "the government")


You could order all manner of guns from magazine ads, which were sent to your house. Even a couple anti tank guns but I couldn't afford the ammunition.
My first two handguns, a Beretta MINX .25 and a British Webley .38, were ordered from a magazine ad when I was 17.

So you can imagine how much I despise today's anti gun politicians and the idiot Americans that vote them in.

I think there are a lot of good reasons for not being able to just mail order guns anymore. Let's just throw Lee Harvey Oswald out there as an example.

I would caution against calling Americans who exercise their right to vote idiots. They're Americans just like us, with different viewpoints and opinions. Our nation is stronger for having a diverse set of views and the right to exercise our rights, which not only includes the right to keep and bear arms but also the right to vote and have free speech. I do realize that you have the right to call them idiots if you like, but dismissing fellow Americans as "idiots" instead of trying to help inform them of our attempts to exercise our rights won't help our cause.

I would say the true "idiots" are the ones not voting and exercising their rights. Many who don't vote will say "i'm not informed enough so i'm not going to vote ignorantly." They need information, and not the fearmongering the anti-gunners are spewing everywhere right now.

 

[JRH6856]

Let's just throw Lee Harvey Oswald out there as an example.

Let's not. The mods would just close the thread.

 

[Loc n Load]

Feinstein in 94

After the 94 AWB was passed...Feinstien was on national TV then stating that the ban did not go far enough, she said that if she had the votes she would have passed a bill outlawing all of them and told "Mr. & Mrs America - turn them all in".....this has always been their agenda and always will be....regardless of the rhetoric.

 

[joeschmoe]

I think there are a lot of good reasons for not being able to just mail order guns anymore. Let's just throw Lee Harvey Oswald out there as an example.

What difference does it make that the rifle was delivered by mail? There was certainly no difficulty in getting rifles in Texas. Unless all rifle sales had been banned, there is no ban that would have stopped Oswald. Maybe the fact that he had renounced his citizenship, declared his alligence to the Soviet Union and was openly working for the overthrow of our country should have played a part in his ability to get a gun. Instead, like all other "gun control" laws, it's used as an excuse to restrict everyone instead of the obvious problem child.

 

[brickeyee]

Th first amendment needs to be modified to limit everyone to 2,258 words in their vocabulary and only ten at a time can be used.
:banghead:

 

[98C5]

Quote:
Originally Posted by 98C5
Needs to be BIGGER rallys. I think the local gun communities should spearhead this. I would love to participate/start my own but not sure where/how to start(Legalities)

Start by forming your own local meetup group that gets together and talks about local issues. I started working on that two months ago here in Chicago. Yes, it is problematic and slow to get started, but it is something that needs done. Below is the original thread with my thoughts on the subject.

http://www.thehighroad.org/search.php?searchid=11420200

Thanks! The link didn't work though. Please PM any info you have!

 

[Agsalaska]

After the 94 AWB was passed...Feinstien was on national TV then stating that the ban did not go far enough, she said that if she had the votes she would have passed a bill outlawing all of them and told "Mr. & Mrs America - turn them all in".....this has always been their agenda and always will be....regardless of the rhetoric.

Yes. But she was referring specifically to the weapons banned in the 1994 bill. She was asked a question on why it just banned manufacturing and importation and not ownership and transfer. She said that if she had the votes she would have told Americans to turn them all in.

Never mind.

 

[PabloJ]

Feinstein said on the news yesterday that the goal and purpose of the gun bills were to "dry up the supply". In other words they want our guns. The anti's want to disarm the American Citizen.

So are you going to actually get involved or just say you sent an email. Its Time folks. Time to get involved with campaigns. Time to offer our money and time to those who support us. If it means running for office then run for office. Our silent majority needs to step up and be counted.

Make appointments to visit with your reps during the upcoming Easter recess. Call their home office today and make that appointment. Get that "face time" with your rep.

That was goal from the start to eliminate number of guns sold through legal channels so fewer would be in circulation. Next step is to disarm the criminal element. I hope you didn't just realize this approach.

 

[Agsalaska]

That was goal from the start to eliminate number of guns sold through legal channels so fewer would be in circulation. Next step is to disarm the criminal element. I hope you didn't just realize this approach.

That is absolutely their plan. It is a 50-100 year plan. And it has been set on its path.

 

[Lost Sheep]

I think there are a lot of good reasons for not being able to just mail order guns anymore. Let's just throw Lee Harvey Oswald out there as an example.

I seems to me that blaming the Postal Service for JFK's assassination is as logical as blaming Bushmaster for Sandy Hook.

(joeschmoe beat me to it, but, uncharacteristically, I said it with fewer words.)

That was goal from the start to eliminate number of guns sold through legal channels so fewer would be in circulation. Next step is to disarm the criminal element. I hope you didn't just realize this approach.

True for the most radical of the anti-gunners. But they have got it exactly backwards. The current plan disarms the law-abiding first, and disarms criminals afterwards.

The scary part is the likelihood they will stop when the job is only half done.

Lost Sheep

 

[BigG]

But to them the criminal element includes gun owners, doesn't it?

 

[joeschmoe]

But to them the criminal element includes gun owners, doesn't it?

That's fair, since we think they are criminals for violating the Constitution and our rights. The only thing that matters is who wins.

 

[yokel]

Alas, it seems that there are some forum members who truly believe that those who want to disarm the law-abiding public have the public’s best interest at heart.

Injustice is never in the public’s best interest, and it is unjust to respond to gun crimes by depriving the innocent and the victims of their God-given right of self-defense and their constitutional right to carry the means of that defense on their person.

 

[JRH6856]

Alas, it seems that there are some forum members who truly believe that those who want to disarm the law-abiding public have the public’s best interest at heart.

Injustice is never in the public’s best interest, and it is unjust to respond to gun crimes by depriving the innocent and the victims of their God-given right of self-defense and their constitutional right to carry the means of that defense on their person.

Some of them really do think they are acting in the best interest of society.

If one doesn't believe in God and believes the Constitution is just a quaint historical document that stands in the way of social progress, then it is easy to disregard both "God-given rights" and the Constitution that protects them and do so in the best interests of the public.

They're sincere, they're just misguided and wrong in their sincerity.