Diane Fienstein wastes no time...

[Grunwald]

Thank you python.

It's the kind of mind numbingly stupid comments like gaijinsamurai said above that makes me wonder about my gun loving community sometimes. It seems they are always quick to invoke Constitutional arguments for this and that and voice concerns the Constitution is being trampeled and yet come up with the bovine excrement above.

You mean as stupid as running guns to Mexican drug cartels?

How about not enforcing laws because he does not agree with them - specifically not deporting illegals because Congress did not pass his DREAM Act. Keep in mind that it is the job of the president to enforce all laws. The only exception that could be argued is if the law was unconstitutional. This is not the case here and yet he gave his cabinet orders to ignore the law.

...and yes Bush did this kind of crsp too

 

[gehrheart]

maybe...

So hard to find a good unicorn.

 

[Blitzkrieg]

Ugh. Ugh. Ugh.

What exactly will make you ABSOLUTELY and TOTALLY comfortable?

My full liberties restored. Anyone impeding that is a domestic enemy

 

[Spray-n-pray]

Actually, Diane Feinstein wastes everyone's time (and tax dollars), and is, in fact, herself a waste of time. She is nothing more than a hypocritical elitist who thinks her constituents exist to provide her safety and security, and not the other way around.

Then again, she is a politician, so what else can you reasonably expect?

 

[thurston24]

Seriously, I don't understand why anyone votes for these idiots? They publicly state that they want to take away our rights and liberties while taxing us more (Remember: Obama Care is considered a tax) and they get elected and reelected. I have always voted independent and leaned slightly towards the democrats but they threw me completely off of their part with their latest platform and their recent agenda. The truth is that I may even go as far as to register as a Republican. This is supposed to be a free country and these crazy people are turning it into a nanny state while bankrupting social security and racking up so much debt that my daughter will see the country owned by China. Enough is enough, please look at everything including your 2nd amendment rights and start voting for freedom.

 

[fd15k]

Seriously, I don't understand why anyone votes for these idiots?

Most of California voters are urban citizens and couldn't care less about guns. It's like I am not gay, and couldn't care less about gay marriage. Although I force myself to care, for the matter of being consistent

There is also the thing about name recognition, I think it was even covered in my college polsci class many years ago - incumbent senator has a higher chance of reelection.

 

[fd15k]

Because Democrats re-distribute wealth, and almost half the country just loves to get stuff for free.

Because Democrats cater to the needs of the urban population. Urbanization is still in progress, and Republicans will continue to lose average constituents. Or perhaps Democrats will just increase as a group due to immigration ?

 

[Misterbill]

I love those guys who are so deluded to believe that their ONLY choice for POTUS was one guy who clearly doesn't support our rights and another guy who ALSO OBVIOUSLY FROM HIS RECORD doesn't support our rights, are the only legitimate choices. and that anyone who said: Thanks I'll take another choice." was clearly for the ONE anti-gun guy among the two MAIN anti-gun guys running.

You keep telling yourselves that. The NRA will make a bunkload of money for it's execs, nothign will change and we'll be in this exact same situation in 4 years.

Status Quo is the ENEMY.

You deserve the votes you made. Personally, I voted for freedom. I sleep at night with that vote first in my mind.-HAPPILY. You voted for Tyranny on what you THINK is a smaller scale.

Who is the freedom voter here?

 

[Kelzebubba]

I wish people would just wake up. If you aren't happy with the way things are now, take off your party blinders, and vote anti-incumbent across the board. If the senate and house won't set term limits like they did for the president for themselves, well then we need to set them for them.

 

[Kelzebubba]

I love those guys who are so deluded to believe that their ONLY choice for POTUS was one guy who clearly doesn't support our rights and another guy who ALSO OBVIOUSLY FROM HIS RECORD doesn't support our rights, are the only legitimate choices. and that anyone who said: Thanks I'll take another choice." was clearly for the ONE anti-gun guy among the two MAIN anti-gun guys running.

You keep telling yourselves that. The NRA will make a bunkload of money for it's execs, nothign will change and we'll be in this exact same situation in 4 years.

Status Quo is the ENEMY.

You deserve the votes you made. Personally, I voted for freedom. I sleep at night with that vote first in my mind.-HAPPILY. You voted for Tyranny on what you THINK is a smaller scale.

Who is the freedom voter here?

Which one was the main anti-gun guy, the one who said he would support a bill on it or the one who had previously already signed a bill?

 

[fd15k]

Which one was the main anti-gun guy, the one who said he would support a bill on it or the one who had previously already signed a bill?

I brought it up before in various threads, but I don't think anybody gave me an answer. When did "that guy" say last time he would support a bill ? I know he said in the debate that he would be open to a conversation, but that's not the same thing...

 

[gehrheart]

I brought it up before in various threads, but I don't think anybody gave me an answer. When did "that guy" say last time he would support a bill ? I know he said in the debate that he would be open to a conversation, but that's not the same thing...

Even at that.... You are ok with that! That its even something to talk about?
I am not sure why I am responding to this as I already know that you and me are from VARY different view points....

 

[deen_ad]

I brought it up before in various threads, but I don't think anybody gave me an answer. When did "that guy" say last time he would support a bill ? I know he said in the debate that he would be open to a conversation, but that's not the same thing...

With the present president "open to conversation" means "it's my way or the highway, take it or leave it". There is no negotiation with him. That's already been proved with the budget bill that included a provision defunding any gun registration scheme like the present demand letter from BATF to FFL's in the four southern states, as well as not enforcing immigration laws and putting two gun hating justices on SCOTUS and many more in lesser positions.

 

[Misterbill]

I brought it up before in various threads, but I don't think anybody gave me an answer. When did "that guy" say last time he would support a bill ? I know he said in the debate that he would be open to a conversation, but that's not the same thing...

I don't think any reasonable person could argue that Obama wouldn't clamp down on guns given a chance and no serious political price to pay. He may not have to run for re-election, but Congress DOES. Yes, he cares about losing 50 seats over a bill that he's not all that excited about in the fist place.

Obama has shown above all, that he is pragmatic and not an ideologue. I also think his "principles" are pretty damned flexible: Witness Gitmo still being open and renditions still happening.

All things being equal, he's sign an AWB in a heartbeat. Just because Romney was no friend to us, doesn't mean Obama doesn't remain a threat to be constantly watched.

 

[Kelzebubba]

I brought it up before in various threads, but I don't think anybody gave me an answer. When did "that guy" say last time he would support a bill ? I know he said in the debate that he would be open to a conversation, but that's not the same thing...

President Obama stated in the second debate "And so what I'm trying to do is to get a broader conversation about how do we reduce the violence generally. Part of it is seeing if we can get an assault weapons ban reintroduced." You don't say you want to get something introduced if you don't support it. Would you introduce a friend to your HR manager if you didn't support him for a job? Obama wants his name on it. Don't get me wrong, Romney would have done the same thing though it would have been a show of "reluctance" and "bipartisanship". Neither of them work for the American people, just wealthy international banking goons.

 

[Kelzebubba]

Actually, Diane Feinstein wastes everyone's time (and tax dollars), and is, in fact, herself a waste of time. She is nothing more than a hypocritical elitist who thinks her constituents exist to provide her safety and security, and not the other way around.

Then again, she is a politician, so what else can you reasonably expect?

People should not fear their governments. The government should fear its people...

 

[fd15k]

President Obama stated in the second debate "And so what I'm trying to do is to get a broader conversation about how do we reduce the violence generally. Part of it is seeing if we can get an assault weapons ban reintroduced." You don't say you want to get something introduced if you don't support it. Would you introduce a friend to your HR manager if you didn't support him for a job? Obama wants his name on it. Don't get me wrong, Romney would have done the same thing though it would have been a show of "reluctance" and "bipartisanship". Neither of them work for the American people, just wealthy international banking goons.

Actually this citation goes even more to the contrary and doesn't answer the question. Everything else is just a speculation.

 

[Trlsmn]

You forgot Limbaugh who said on Monday Romeny would get 300 plus electoral votes. He was completely wrong and today he said he never said Romney would win. Bloviating fool. I can't believe anyone with a functioning medulla oblangata actually thinks the guy is credible.

Topic? Forgot Limbaugh? What does Limbaugh have to do with Fienstein and an AWB or the topic for that matter? Speaking of bloviating fools this is relevant to what?

 

[AlphaCoyote]

There will be no restrictions on firearms, components, or ammunition passed by Congress in the next 4 years.

I can't believe how worked up some people get over legislation that is merely introduced when it has zero chance of passing. Wailing about such things draws viewers to blogs (bringing in ad revenue for the blogger) and donations/memberships to the NRA. But the reality is these are total non-starters as legislation.

The real action is (a) local -- city councils and state legislatures; and (b) in the Supreme Court, where you won't see anti-gun decisions unless/until a conservative member of the current Court retires.

 

[Swedish K]

One can only hope that all of the pro 2A justices hang in there until we are free from obama and his ilk