Diane Feinstein

[Glenn E. Meyer]

One problem in changing minds is that there are two channels to opinion change. One is emotional and one is rational.

However, for most people - the emotional channel is quick and more powerful.

Sen. Feinstein lived through the assassination of the Mayor of SF Moscone and Harvey Milk. The latter was killed in part because of his stand on gay issues.

Thus, convincing her that privately owned firearms are worthy would be a hard sell by controversial appeals to risk/benefit ratios. Some folks might argue if all had guns, then you could defend yourself. But others might argue that their elimination would lead to less bloodshed. It is an empirical question which would be the case. The emotional appeal of the antigun position is stronger for her.

I would also (and don't want to start a gay rights controversy) opine that correlated opinions also influence the debate. Given that White was dead set against gay rights as are many of the political right and that the right is progun for the most part - she would have a hard time identifying or accepting the logic of one of the political totems of the right (the RKBA) given it would seem related to a hateful person who used a gun to cause death close to her. It would be part of a package of unacceptable beliefs.

Once you have an emotional set - then you selectively process new information to match your beliefs - confirmation bias.

It takes a lot to break such a set. So don't expect her to do so.

Just because we see the RKBA as intrinsically obvious doesn't mean that others will. Most social issue debates have each side thinking that its position is so blazingly obvious that the others must be nuts, stupid or part of some evil conspiracy to do something really evil.

It takes deliberate training and thought to evaluate policy issues on merits. Even very intelligent people cannot do that at times.

 

[Kreyzhorse]

Urggggggghh.

So, allowing law abiding people with firearms in national parks would increase violence?

And of course, potentionally violent people will obey the laws banning guns and commit their crimes at areas that allow firearms?

I don't understand how any one who uses that argument could actually look at themselves in the mirror.

I'd have a lot more respect for her if she just stood up and said "I hate guns in all shape and forms and would ban them if I could." This silly ass arguement that guns cause law abiding people to break laws and commit crimes while they prevent criminals from committing the crimes because they would break the law is asinine.

 

[DT Guy]

I think less of Feinstein than I do my dog. Even my cat.

But I'd rather have to combat her forthright opposition to gun rights than BO's insidious, sneaky double-speak about supporting the second amendment and wanting to ban anything that goes 'bang. It's easier to oppose, less effective and demonstrates the inflexible, irrational nature of her position.

Far better to oppose a Feinstein in an open battle than BO in a covert one.


Larry

 

[armsmaster270]

Kreyzhorse: The thing is she does not hate guns she has a CCW she hates other people with guns.
Htjyang: Thanks I think I will send that back as rebuttal.

 

[KLRANGL]

The thing is she does not hate guns she has a CCW she hates other people with guns.

ive never head that one before... quick search on google, and sure enough...

quote from here:

Thank you for writing to me about my permit to carry a concealed weapon. I would like to take this opportunity to set the record straight.

I possessed a concealed weapon permit for a short time beginning in 1976. In the mid‑1970s, a terrorist organization ‑‑ the New World Liberation Front ‑‑ carried out two attacks against me and my family. In the first, a bomb was placed outside the window of my daughter's bedroom. It detonated but did not explode. We were lucky: the weather was particularly (and unusually) cold, and the explosive they used didn't explode in below‑freezing temperatures. In the second, they shot out the windows of our beach home. My husband was terminally ill with cancer at the time.

Later, some of the members of the New World Liberation Front were arrested, and the threat abated. At that point, I had the gun -- and several other weapons that were turned into the police -- melted into a cross, which I presented to Pope John Paul II when I visited Rome in 1982. Currently, I do not possess a gun, nor do I have a permit to carry a concealed weapon.

I hope this addresses what you may have heard on the subject. If I can be of additional assistance, please do not hesitate to call my Washington, D.C. staff at (202) 224‑3841.

That brings up some interesting questions... like... one is only allowed to have a gun if they are directly threatened previous to owning a firearm?
Or the more likely: "I'm rich and famous and don't have to abide by the rules."
Another instance of do as I say, not as a do...

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

I think Glenn is on to something.

I have often noticed within the arguments of both antigunners and progunners a good bit of emotion.

I see folks like Sarah Brady, Tom Mauser, Carolyn McCarthy and others whose lives were savaged by gun crime turn rabidly against gun ownership.

However, I also have listened to the testimony of Susanna Gratia Hupp whose parents were murdered in the Luby's Massacre in 1991. She went the other way, became a Texas state rep and later passed CCW over the veto of Gov Ann Richards. There are others but she is the most famous one I can remember.

My question to you Glenn and the forum is what is it that makes these folk savaged by violent crime tilt one way or the other concerning gun rights?

What is in their makeup, that emotional set, that makes them want to either ban guns or make them more available for self defense?

 

[Skans]

Feinstein is an elitist. She thinks that she is important and thus is deserving of owning a firearm. To her most average people don't need a gun and shouldn't be permitted to have them.

She also believes that she has been annointed to determine who should and who should not own firearms. She is more dangerous than the average idiot who knows nothing about firearms and just doesn't like them because they look scary. She is an elitist. And, elitists think that they get privilages that most others don't get simply because they are better and more important than the rest of us.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

From my reading of the literature, TG - we really don't have a handle on what causes someone to decide that the way to reduce violence is to get rid of guns or get more guns.

There will be a lot of progun self-serving chestpounding that the anti is an elitist, commies, etc. There will be a lot of wailing from antis that gun owners are all blood thirst nuts, etc.

The real answer is that such pop psych blather is useless fun just for the respective choirs. We don't know.

Group polarization leads to extreme rhetoric and they drive the debate. The majority of Americans feel this way:

1. Law abiding Americans should be able to buy guns for self-defense or sport.
2. Laws should exist to prevent criminals from buying guns easily - so they would support NICS, and AWBs.

However, both extreme choirs find the other's proposition totally unacceptable and curse, spew and rant.

Gets us nowhere. Reasonable rhetoric has gotten most of the country to adopt shall issue laws, an increase in castle laws and the AWB not renewed (which that elitist George W. Bush favored ).

Rational presentation and incrementalism works. Some areas probably will take longer. However, clever court challenges like Heller and if it works in Chicago can start to change the climate even there.

 

[RETG]

Not sure why people think allowing concealed weapons in National Parks would be any different than allowing concealed (or open carry) in BLM or National Forest lands; where you are legal to carry if you are legal in the state the BLM land or National Forest is located, and the State law allows you to carry on BLM or NF lands.

As for Feinstein...NO comment.:barf:

 

[carguychris]

Not sure why people think allowing concealed weapons in National Parks would be any different than allowing concealed (or open carry) in BLM or National Forest lands...

At the risk of starting a thread hijack, IMHO the reason is that national parks are much more popular tourist destinations. Many states have little or no BLM land (TX has none), and national forests are often remotely located and/or have very limited facilities.

BLM land and NF's may be attractive to hardcore outdoorsmen, who are likely over-represented on this forum, but these places have little to offer Ma & Pa Tourist from Anytown, USA who are looking for spectacular vistas without having to actually hike anywhere.

As a footnote, my pet cause is allowing legal CCW at USACE parks, since they're quite numerous at many lakes in North Central TX that I like to visit.

 

[Fremmer]

So a liberal democrat is against allowing citizens to exercise thier Constitutional right to keep and bear arms in the wilderness. So what's the surprise? Liberals hate guns, and will always attempt to ban them. I guess it's good to remind us about this, but it's not worth getting upset because a hard-core liberal wants more gun control....

 

[csmsss]

Glenn, the "reasonable" approach is also what's gotten such execrable pieces of legislation as the 1934 NFA, 1968 GCA and 1994 AWB enacted. Moreover, I'm sure Neville Chamberlain thought he was being "reasonable" in 1938 when he gave away eastern Europe.

One person's reasonable is another person's capitulation.

 

[carguychris]

Liberals hate guns, and will always attempt to ban them.

Many of my political views are quite liberal, but I strongly oppose gun control. There are quite a few other TFL forum members with similar viewpoints.

Assuming that "liberals" are a unified voting bloc who march in lockstep with politicials such as Mrs. Pelosi is an oversimplification that hurts the gun rights cause.

 

[Fremmer]

I know, it just doesn't make sense! All of those liberals who hate guns keep electing liberal politicians who also hate guns, and who keep proposing anti-gun legislation, and who are consistently re-elected by....liberals. Who would have thunk it?!? I just can't figure it out.....

 

[chemgirlie]

My question to you Glenn and the forum is what is it that makes these folk savaged by violent crime tilt one way or the other concerning gun rights?

In my completely uninformed opinion it seems that people might already have a bit of an idea where they stand, but not have that idea very high up on their priority list.

Barring undeniable evidence I probably won't change my mind on issues I'm really passionate about (gun control being one of them). However, there are other issues that, while I still care about them, I don't think are as high of a priority. If something happens to make those issues a priority (for example the murder of a loved one as it relates to the death penalty) I would certainly become more active in the legislative process regarding those issues.

However, it does seem to me (again, this is just speculation) that the apple usually doesn't fall far from the tree politically speaking. It seems that to really make a dent in how the public perceives gun control some moderates would need to "come to our side" and pass this along to their children.

This happened with one of my old roommates from a few years ago. She started off moderately not liking guns, grew to like them with help from her boyfriend and myself, and now has a baby who will probably grow up with similar political leanings. Has this "swayed the balance" by one future voter?

 

[Kreyzhorse]

Kreyzhorse: The thing is she does not hate guns she has a CCW she hates other people with guns.

Armsmaster - She had a CCW in the 70's or 80's. Her gun has long since been melted into a cross and presented to a religious someone or other, but in general, I agree with you, she hates the masses owning guns more so than guns themselves.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Reasonable approaches have gotten us the 40 shall issue states. I would note that absolutists opposed the idea of permits and licenses because we don't need them - the 2nd is all we need.

So in several states, absolutists opposed the bills and sometimes derailed them for a period.

Empirically, absolutistism has not worked but it is more fun on the Internet.

As far as liberal not liking guns - read my sig articles for a more nuanced view. Of course, it's more fun to be in an exclusive club who MUST hold all your beliefs. I'm a more effective advocate of the RKBA with many because I don't hold social conservative beliefs.

But we've had this absolutist, you must be conservative argument before. It's boring.

 

[44 AMP]

I don't have a reference...

So, maybe someone more computer search savy than I can find one...but I recall hearing that

Feinstein did indeed make a big political point of turning in her gun, and having it melted down. However, according to what I have heard over the years (someone help find a reference if you can) she also kept a gun, for her own use.

According to the story, she had two .38 cal revolvers, ONE she turned in, and one she kept!

Anybody able to confirm this?
If true, it does seem typical of the elitist attitude.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...Reasonable rhetoric has gotten most of the country to adopt shall issue laws, an increase in castle laws and the AWB not renewed...

...the "reasonable" approach is also what's gotten such execrable pieces of legislation as the 1934 NFA, 1968 GCA and 1994 AWB enacted....

...Reasonable approaches have gotten us the 40 shall issue states....

On balance, I'd say the reasonable approach wins. "Shall issue" and Castle Doctrine laws are very big wins for the ordinary, honest citizen. They can have a real meaning in day-to-day real life.

 

[Webleymkv]

With regards to the apparent cognitive dissonance over Feinstein's political views vs. her CCW, has it ever occurred to anyone that she doesn't believe that gun control works either. Did it ever occur to anyone that Feinstien supports gun control not out of some moral crusade but because it gets her re-elected?