Feinstein trying to get registration written into law...

pokerace · Jan 1, 2013

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

timac · Jan 1, 2013

jefe said:
although i completely disagree with both feinstein's position AND existing federal laws regarding firearms, i think we all need to take a step back and objectively perceive the situation. none of feinstein's dystopian vision will pass both the house and senate. fundamentally, we'll see the same problems we're seeing with the current "fiscal cliff" crisis: (a) democrats will make demands and compose their version of a solution, (b) republicans will reject the democrat's position as going too far, (c) republicans will compose and submit corrections that they see fit, (d) democrats will reject the republican position because it doesn't go far enough, (e) the back & forth squabble will continue until the bill gets lost in the legislative process. because any firearms ban bill isn't a concern of national security (such as the "fiscal cliff"), it will get lost in the legislative process--unless the republicans cave to the democrats, which i see as being highly unlikely. personally, i believe the nail in the coffin for feinstein's proposition (likely composed under the duress of midol withdrawal) is her demand for the ban to be infinite--as opposed to being imposed for a specified duration, meaning no further votes on the matter in the future. at least in 1994 there was a light at the end of the tunnel. also, since obama was elected the republican party has done everything in its power to thwart any (either positive or negative) "qualitative" measures sought by democrats and the obama administration. i hardly think the republicans will cave.

Things will be done at any cost with this type of comment from Valerie Jarret, Obama's top adviser. It's also odd she knew they would win the election.

After we win this election, its our turn. Payback time. Everyone not with us is against us and they better be ready because we dont forget. The ones who helped us will be rewarded, the ones who opposed us will get what they deserve. There is going to be hell to pay. Congress wont be a problem for us this time. No election to worry about after this is over and we have two judges ready to go.

8ball · Jan 1, 2013

timac said:
Things will be done at any cost with this type of comment from Valerie Jarret, Obama's top adviser. It's also odd she knew they would win the election.

After we win this election, its our turn. Payback time. Everyone not with us is against us and they better be ready because we dont forget. The ones who helped us will be rewarded, the ones who opposed us will get what they deserve. There is going to be hell to pay. Congress wont be a problem for us this time. No election to worry about after this is over and we have two judges ready to go.

View attachment 51667

For the record, that's a bogus quote made up by some anonymous source in a website.

http://theulstermanreport.com/2012/...-this-election-its-our-turn-payback-time-wsi/

Stomper · Jan 1, 2013

8ball said:
For the record, that's a bogus quote made up by some anonymous source in a website.

http://theulstermanreport.com/2012/...-this-election-its-our-turn-payback-time-wsi/

Please post six different credible sources to back this up, or otherwise you're just an apologist in denial and will be shipped off to the ovens w/o even getting the complimentary "de-lousing shower" first.

ZigZagZeke · Jan 1, 2013

From another site, concerning Feinstein:

This latest thing was to reauthorize the truly spooky FISA Amendments that were passed in 2008 when the president, in one of the actions he's taken that really was a naked sellout of his previously enunciated principles, joined with a Senate majority to immunize the telecommunications companies that had participated in the Bush Administration's lawlessness regarding wiretapping, as well as to authorize sweeping new wiretapping powers far beyond those against which the companies were being immunized. What the president did is not excused by the fact that he was running for president at the time. This wasn't a flip-flop he took because he wanted to be elected. This was a flip-flop he took because he wanted to do some things once he was elected.

This year, as those amendments came up for reauthorization, what we had was a genuine horror show, and it was made worse by the awful debate that preceded the vote. There was enough boogedy-boogedy coming from the Democratic side to embarrass John Bolton. Glenn Greenwald already has written at length on this, but one comment from the now-inexcusable Dianne Feinstein is worthy of further comment.

"This is an effort to make that material public, and I think it's a mistake at this particular time because it will chill the program, it will make us less secure, not more secure...I know where this goes, it goes to destroy the program. I don't want to see it destroyed."

In other words...no, wait, there are no other words. This is the argument of a totalitarian. You can't know what we're doing to protect you, even if we're doing it to you, because then we can't protect you and you will be killed by bad people and it will be your own fault. Somewhere in East Germany, an elderly ex-bureaucrat is getting a thrill up his leg and doesn't know why.

knuckle Head · Jan 1, 2013

Maybe we ban people eh??????????

Read this Ivory Coast mourns 60 killed in New Year's stampede - CNN.com 60 people dead in a stampede, double the Sandy Hook thing,

hmmmmmmmmmmmmm just think as part of the ban we could start by banning liberals like feinstein, pelosi, hillary etc.................

Stomper · Jan 1, 2013

knuckle Head said:
Maybe we ban people eh??????????

KH,

Funny, I was just thinking along these lines... If we banned people, think of how many lives we could save... Think of how many shopping mall or school shootings will be prevented... If we would just ban, people.

LET'S BAN PEOPLE!!

I'm willing, are you? IT'S FOR THE CHILDREN!

PS- if you disagree with me then you are a knuckle dragging, evil, big business loving drone.

m0rri5 · Jan 1, 2013

dont know if anyone has posted this video but watch it and you can follow the description below the video.

Assault Weapons Ban 2013 - YouTube

XManSV · Jan 2, 2013

Feinstein is a pig and a traitor to the oath she swore to uphold:

Some of pig Feinstein lies:

"Jeffrey Roth and Christopher Koper find that the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban was responsible for a 6.7 percent decrease in total gun murders, holding all other factors equal."

However, going to the original source:

"At best, the assault weapons ban can have only a limited effect on total gun murders, because the banned weapons and magazines were never involved in more than a modest fraction of all gun murders. Our best estimate is that the ban contributed to a 6.7 percent decrease in total gun murders between 1994 and 1995, beyond what would have been expected in view of ongoing crime, demographic, and economic trends. However, with only one year of post-ban data, we cannot rule out the possibility that this decrease reflects chance year-to-year variation rather than a true effect of the ban. Nor can we rule out effects of other features of the 1994 Crime Act or a host of state and local initiatives that took place simultaneously."

Let's take a look at another source. Feinstein claims:

"A recent study by the Violence Policy Center finds that between 2005 and 2007, one in four law enforcement officers slain in the line of duty was killed with an assault weapon."

However that's not what the study states. The data which she is referencing studies 64 incidents that already involve "assault weapons" of which also involved law enforcement. The study actually says that out of the 64 incidents that involve assault weapons, four ended in at least one law enforcement fatality, not that one in four officers are killed by assault weapons.

Perhaps liberty will be served and she'll be beaten to death with an AR upper.