Feinstein's Take on a "New" AWB

[xd ED]

I was speaking to my Fater In Law about this and he said "I dont care if they take those rifles"... it was hard for me to remember the list of replies I keep in the back of my mind for all of the antis, but I told him if he thought they were gonna take away mine and leave his alone he was sadly mistaken. I truly believe there are many hunters that fall more so in the "anti" category than the "pro".

If/ when the current efforts to ban -
pick your favorite term:
assault rifle
baby killer
weapon of war
high capacity killer clips, etc
occur,

and then, as happens, someone is shot with a scoped, .30 cal rifle..
explain to father fudd that in all likelihood his deer rifle is technically the same as a most 'military type sniper rifles': " capable of killing a human being from great distances, far beyond the range of deer hunting and self defense", and they'll be next
If he can't see that, then possibly he'll see that as long as there are EBRs to distract the antis his gun is less a target.
Or tell him he can hunt like the the pilgrims did.
It's sad that many, if not most, are clueless as to the true meaning and intent of the 2nd Amendment.
I'm sure there are better arguments to be used, but I am less and less able to suffer fools, the older I get.

[Greg]

[quote

It's probably a pretty small number, but I wouldn't be so sure. I've been asked on three separate occasions why I "need a gun like that" while shooting my AR at Oakdale, each time by (older) OGC members.[/quote]



It was quite a while ago, but it was a surprise to me too. One of them was a board member at the time.[/quote]

I've heard much the same when I bring out the 1919A4 Semi-auto.

"You can't shoot machine guns here"

It's not a machine gun, it's semi-auto!

"I was in the army, I know what a machine gun looks like"

It's a semi, one trigger pull-one shot; want to try it?

"Mutter mutter...stalks off"

Fudds!!

Less of that these days at Oakdale, thank God!

[2in2out]

Feinstein has been working on this for a year????? Sounds like the kind of manipulative, scheming backstabber that gives politicians a bad name. If any part of her proposal gets passed, I see a whole new industrial opportunity for organized crime to get involved in. What a travesty that would be.

It seems like there are enough Democrats who support 2A that I really doubt the good Senator's proposal will get anywhere unchanged. But, the people who have pointed out that this is a starting point for negotiations are correct, in my opinion. Her twisted little mind has built in points that can be negotiated out so that the main goals remain intact. What those goals are, I'm not entirely sure.

It has been said that the Second Ammendment has nothing to do with the right to hunt or firearms related to hunting, and I think that's a message that we all need to stick to.

[xd ED]

Feinstein has been working on this for a year????? Sounds like the kind of manipulative, scheming backstabber that gives politicians a bad name. If any part of her proposal gets passed, I see a whole new industrial opportunity for organized crime to get involved in. What a travesty that would be.

It seems like there are enough Democrats who support 2A that I really doubt the good Senator's proposal will get anywhere unchanged. But, the people who have pointed out that this is a starting point for negotiations are correct, in my opinion. Her twisted little mind has built in points that can be negotiated out so that the main goals remain intact. What those goals are, I'm not entirely sure.

It has been said that the Second Ammendment has nothing to do with the right to hunt or firearms related to hunting, and I think that's a message that we all need to stick to.

Yep.

As someone eluded to a financial negotiation earlier,
We don't go to the table with $5 and the assumption we've already spent $3.50.

[45Badger]

Feinstein has been working on this for a year?????

More like decades.....

[ex-LT]

Calling political opponents names and making fun of their names is a juvenile and emotional response. It demonstrates anger without thought. To be fair, it cuts both ways and the loons on the far left behave the same way. One does not justify or give relevance to the other.

Calling someone a traitor might sound powerful in front of a gang of fellow patriots or keyboard commandos. If there were any factual basis for such an accusation, I think people with a lot more money, education, and influence (than any of use here possess) would have already initiated legal proceedings against her. Like the above, this accusation sets a low benchmark for critical thought, and will not influence anybody "on the fence" to come to our side.

I'll rephrase-

That was "thoughtful"

If you want to see more fun and funny examples of rhetoric similar to yours, check out frugalsquirrels.

I agree. Calling our political opponents inflammatory names trivializes our argument, and makes us look petty. Better that we call her what she and her ilk are - HYPOCRITES.

Now, before anyone takes me to task for calling her an inflammatory name, let's remember that even though she is a concealed weapons permit holder in her home state of California, she believes that "ordinary citizens" cannot be entrusted with private ownership of firearms of any kind*. In addition, while she was mayor, she instituted a gun ban in the city of San Francisco.

* Let's not forget her quote after the 1993 AWB bill passed...

"If I could have banned them all - 'Mr. and Mrs. America turn in your guns' - I would have!" -- Dianne Feinstein

[usnret]

[Lunchbox]

So, I've been working on my arguments against the AWB, and have had limited success with it so far. But here's the logic I'm using. Helps to do it when drinking with the people you are discussing this with, because a) props are readily available, and b) you're drinking.

First, let's assume all guns are for entertainment. All shooting. Hunting, self defense guns, zombie shoots, 3 gun competitions, trap & skeet, safe queens, and Rambo wannabes. Pure entertainment, with no functional purpose since in reality, we choose to spend our free time doing those things anyway. No second amendment arguments, no Heller decision, nothing. They are just for fun.

Well, at that level they can be equated pretty much along the lines of alcohol (this is where holding up the half empty bottle of whiskey comes in handy). Especially if we equate the damage that they do to society. In fact, alcohol on a per capita AND absolute numbers causes FAR more damage to innocent people. It's killed innocent 5 year olds by the literal bus-loads. The damage alcohol does is orders of magnitude worse than guns. And we've tried to ban it in the past, but the law of unintended consequences did its thing and we realized that it was bad. Yes, you could say it was "successful" in the way that public drunkenness, drunk driving fatalities and social costs decreased, but let's not pretend that it was good for society by any stretch. Prohibition just doesn't work, and that's why we got rid of it.

We as society have decided with alcohol that we're willing to tolerate the unfortunate cost of alcohol when consumed by irresponsible people without affecting the use of it by the vast majority of people who can consume it responsibly. And this is for something that is far more damaging than guns. Yet guns, which have all kinds of additional legitimate uses, are treated differently. It's the height of hypocrisy to be arguing for a gun ban with a beer in your hand. If you want to deal with guns, treat it like alcohol. We managed to change how society treats drunken driving with social pressure, so start up a MADD for guns if you're concerned about gun violence. But Prohibition doesn't work.

You want to reduce gun violence? You can cut it in half tomorrow very simply: legalize drugs. All drugs. Treat them like alcohol too. It'll have all kinds of ancillary benefits (also known as eliminating the unintended consequences) such as balancing budgets, increasing revenue, and if the lessons of Portugal are to be believed, reducing overall drug use as well. So there. Real solutions to unreal problems.

Drink up!

There's one major flaw in your logic being an effective argument.

Logic.

Is there though? Equating prohibition of alcohol and prohibition of guns is a pretty good analogy.

[xd ED]

So, I've been working on my arguments against the AWB, and have had limited success with it so far. But here's the logic I'm using. Helps to do it when drinking with the people you are discussing this with, because a) props are readily available, and b) you're drinking.

First, let's assume all guns are for entertainment. All shooting. Hunting, self defense guns, zombie shoots, 3 gun competitions, trap & skeet, safe queens, and Rambo wannabes. Pure entertainment, with no functional purpose since in reality, we choose to spend our free time doing those things anyway. No second amendment arguments, no Heller decision, nothing. They are just for fun.

Well, at that level they can be equated pretty much along the lines of alcohol (this is where holding up the half empty bottle of whiskey comes in handy). Especially if we equate the damage that they do to society. In fact, alcohol on a per capita AND absolute numbers causes FAR more damage to innocent people. It's killed innocent 5 year olds by the literal bus-loads. The damage alcohol does is orders of magnitude worse than guns. And we've tried to ban it in the past, but the law of unintended consequences did its thing and we realized that it was bad. Yes, you could say it was "successful" in the way that public drunkenness, drunk driving fatalities and social costs decreased, but let's not pretend that it was good for society by any stretch. Prohibition just doesn't work, and that's why we got rid of it.

We as society have decided with alcohol that we're willing to tolerate the unfortunate cost of alcohol when consumed by irresponsible people without affecting the use of it by the vast majority of people who can consume it responsibly. And this is for something that is far more damaging than guns. Yet guns, which have all kinds of additional legitimate uses, are treated differently. It's the height of hypocrisy to be arguing for a gun ban with a beer in your hand. If you want to deal with guns, treat it like alcohol. We managed to change how society treats drunken driving with social pressure, so start up a MADD for guns if you're concerned about gun violence. But Prohibition doesn't work.

You want to reduce gun violence? You can cut it in half tomorrow very simply: legalize drugs. All drugs. Treat them like alcohol too. It'll have all kinds of ancillary benefits (also known as eliminating the unintended consequences) such as balancing budgets, increasing revenue, and if the lessons of Portugal are to be believed, reducing overall drug use as well. So there. Real solutions to unreal problems.

Drink up!

There's one major flaw in your logic being an effective argument.

Logic.

Is there though? Equating prohibition of alcohol and prohibition of guns is a pretty good analogy.

I agree.
He's trying to be logical with emotional people.
Guns are bad.

[Snakeman721]

So, I've been working on my arguments against the AWB, and have had limited success with it so far. But here's the logic I'm using. Helps to do it when drinking with the people you are discussing this with, because a) props are readily available, and b) you're drinking.

First, let's assume all guns are for entertainment. All shooting. Hunting, self defense guns, zombie shoots, 3 gun competitions, trap & skeet, safe queens, and Rambo wannabes. Pure entertainment, with no functional purpose since in reality, we choose to spend our free time doing those things anyway. No second amendment arguments, no Heller decision, nothing. They are just for fun.

Well, at that level they can be equated pretty much along the lines of alcohol (this is where holding up the half empty bottle of whiskey comes in handy). Especially if we equate the damage that they do to society. In fact, alcohol on a per capita AND absolute numbers causes FAR more damage to innocent people. It's killed innocent 5 year olds by the literal bus-loads. The damage alcohol does is orders of magnitude worse than guns. And we've tried to ban it in the past, but the law of unintended consequences did its thing and we realized that it was bad. Yes, you could say it was "successful" in the way that public drunkenness, drunk driving fatalities and social costs decreased, but let's not pretend that it was good for society by any stretch. Prohibition just doesn't work, and that's why we got rid of it.

We as society have decided with alcohol that we're willing to tolerate the unfortunate cost of alcohol when consumed by irresponsible people without affecting the use of it by the vast majority of people who can consume it responsibly. And this is for something that is far more damaging than guns. Yet guns, which have all kinds of additional legitimate uses, are treated differently. It's the height of hypocrisy to be arguing for a gun ban with a beer in your hand. If you want to deal with guns, treat it like alcohol. We managed to change how society treats drunken driving with social pressure, so start up a MADD for guns if you're concerned about gun violence. But Prohibition doesn't work.

You want to reduce gun violence? You can cut it in half tomorrow very simply: legalize drugs. All drugs. Treat them like alcohol too. It'll have all kinds of ancillary benefits (also known as eliminating the unintended consequences) such as balancing budgets, increasing revenue, and if the lessons of Portugal are to be believed, reducing overall drug use as well. So there. Real solutions to unreal problems.

Drink up!

There's one major flaw in your logic being an effective argument.

Logic.

Is there though? Equating prohibition of alcohol and prohibition of guns is a pretty good analogy.

Yep, one created an organized crime problem that's still here today, and the other will do just the same. If our government can't stop the influx of illegal drugs into this county, how would they stop the influx of guns when (if) they become illegal. Outright bans of anything simply don't work. People will find a way of acquiring the banned item.

[Heffay]

The logic worked great with my parents. They shifted to my side after a couple of minutes. My in-laws, not so much (well, except my Manhatten living gay uncle in-law and his partner, who I converted). They were still "yeah, but you don't *need* it". That's the WHOLE POINT!

I can only do so much, but I do what I can.

[jshuberg]

I've built my life around needing all kinds of things that I don't actually need. The alternative just seems so bland.

[2in2out]

I've built my life around needing all kinds of things that I don't actually need. The alternative just seems so bland.

iPhone is crazy popular and essentially re-defined what a cell phone is. Yet, none of us needs one. Same thing with the iPad.

[Chunkychuck]

I've built my life around needing all kinds of things that I don't actually need. The alternative just seems so bland.

iPhone is crazy popular and essentially defined what a cell phone is. Yet, none of us needs one. Same thing with the iPad.

this got me thinking. did a little google-fu on bombings triggered by cell phones. this was the first hit. multiple stories on the use of cell phones. seems maybe we should ban cell phones as well.

http://www.textually.org/textually/arch ... orists.htm

Archives for the category: Cell Phones used by Terrorists

The first article is this one from Nov 23 this year.

Bombs activated by cell phones prompts Pakistan to shut down cell phone network
Reuters reports that Pakistan is suspending phone coverage in many cities this weekend, an important one in the Shi'ite Muslim calendar, after a series of bomb attacks on Shi'ites triggered by mobile phones.
"All the blasts that occurred in the last 15 days were mobile phone-based," Interior Minister Rehman Malik told reporters on Friday.

[Hmac]

If Feinstein does indeed get the Chairmanship of the Judiciary Committee, one less obstacle for gun control, especially with the weight that that position carries...pretty substantial stick to beat her fellow senators over the head with to get them in line.