Diane Feinstein

[Frank Ettin]

...Did it ever occur to anyone that Feinstien supports gun control not out of some moral crusade but because it gets her re-elected?

That is, methinks, a very basic truth that we tend to ignore. With politicians, it's less about what is good social policy and more about keeping their jobs.

I frequently hear (or see in print) someone saying something like, "The politicians don't trust me with guns" or "The government won't trust us with gun."

Actually, I doubt that the politicians really care. They live lives so removed from the rest of us, our guns aren't really much of a factor for them personally. What they care about is getting and keeping their jobs.

So what it comes down to is that enough of our neighbors, enough of the people in our community, enough of the people in our town, enough of the people in our county, enough of the people in our state, and enough of the people in our country don't like guns, and don't trust the rest of us with them, that politicians who take anti-gun stands can get elected and re-elected (and bureaucrats who take anti-gun stands can keep their jobs).

So we need to remember that part of the battle to keep our guns needs to be waged with our fiends and neighbors in out communities.

 

[raftman]

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.

Exactly. Demonizing liberal-minded people, turns them into enemies, makes them all the less interested in gun rights. People tend to listen to your position more if you don't go around calling them commies.

 

[Brian Pfleuger]

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.

While that is fundamentally true, the problem comes in unifying a group of people around one issue of agreement when their core beliefs are radically different.

I have seen many situations wherein a group or even 2 peoples beliefs systems were 99% in accord with one another and yet they would separate from one another based on that 1% passionate difference.

It is EXCEEDINGLY difficult to create unity around that single passionate issue when the the other 99% is not in agreement at all. A problem made all the more complicated by the infinite variation within that other 99% within a large group.

The inability to cooperate on an agreed issue due to other disagreements is one of the basic reasons why groups of people on both sides of ANY issue tend not to coalesce into organized resistance until the threat against their beliefs is extremely severe. Severe enough to essentially overwhelm any other issues between them.

 

[RETG]

carguychris

I won't do a long hijack, just a statement that you do no understand the areas controlled in the west by the BLM and NF. (I understand your statement on those states west of the the continental divide)

I was talking concealed...which means ma and pa should not know you are carrying.

 

[orionengnr]

One thing I noticed in her response was the use of the code term "reasonable restrictions" (it's twin brother is "common-sense laws"). Who among us does not want to be reasonable (or use common sense)? Implying, of course, that if you disagree with her position, you are not being reasonable (or using common sense). A favorite weapon in the anti's arsenal, used by everyone from Sarah Brady to Charles Shumer to Barack Obama.

As long as we allow "them" to frame the discussion, we come up short in a lot of peoples' minds. We need to extoll the virtues of self-defense in terms of "common sense" and "reason". We are behind the power curve in this area.

 

[orionengnr]

Oh, and as an aside:

I think less of Feinstein than I do my dog.

I think that was a poorly thought-out statement. My dogs are well-behaved and have never done anything to harm me or my neighbors. They have no ill will toward anyone.

 

[a7mmnut]

I'll never forget this one:



Finger on trigger, 75 rd. drum in gun, bolt in battery in a crowded room full of people. A real gun safety classic for a [person] who hates guns. -7-

 

[Shane Tuttle]

Let's get one thing straight, here. You can attack the position Feinstein takes on our 2nd Amendment. However, the name calling ENDS HERE!

 

[RDak]

She will never change her attitude IMHO.

It is an interesting attitude since she once had a concealed carry permit. And it was issued by the City of San Francisco. VERY rare.

So, if she can see the need for owning a firearm (i.e., for self defense), her position is illogical and hypocritical IMHO.

I have written her off as a total lost cause because she apparently does not, or has not, practiced what she preaches.

I simply cannot respect a hypocrite in such a serious moral area.

She did respond to my letter many years ago stating she needed the CPL to protect her and her husband from serious threats she had received. She went on to state that she had turned in that CPL and no longer has one.

People can be attacked in National Parks by thugs and predators. That is a simple fact, and people should be able to defend themselves accordingly. Afterall, that's what she did when threatened.

 

[roy reali]

Just As Bad

California has Feinstein, we have Reid. You want to trade?

 

[RDak]

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?

IMHO, some people are willing to perform their own self-defense acts while others are not willing to do so. So those who are unwilling to defend themselves with a weapon, just want what they see as a murderous implement outlawed. That way they do not have to defend themselves and can remain sheep.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Glenn,
Sorry, I have been out of the thread. I was down south watching my alma mater get beat in a disgusting performance of college football but I digress.

I have another question for you. One of the most interesting developments in gun rights has been the de-right winging of the gun issue. I remember the issue seemed to be always portrayed as a redneck, knuckle dragging, racist exercise and now that has changed somewhat. So, how has that happened where social liberals, gays, African Americans et al have becaome more active in the idea of gun rights? Perhaps that is a start to understanding how violent experiences shape which way one leans on the gun question.

IMHO, some people are willing to perform their own self-defense acts while others are not willing to do so. So those who are unwilling to defend themselves with a weapon, just want what they see as a murderous implement outlawed. That way they do not have to defend themselves and can remain sheep.

Sorry, but I must disagree with this and furthermore label it a stereotype. I have talked to a lot of antigun people and they are neither sheep nor pacifists. They think the world they live in is generally safe if you stay out of bad areas and therefore nobody needs a gun. I believe fully that if they were armed and they or their love ones were threatened they would use the gun. They just don't believe it will happen to them and statistically they are correct.

 

[csmsss]

Sorry, but I must disagree with this and furthermore label it a stereotype. I have talked to a lot of antigun people and they are neither sheep nor pacifists. They think the world they live in is generally safe if you stay out of bad areas and therefore nobody needs a gun. I believe fully that if they were armed and they or their love ones were threatened they would use the gun. They just don't believe it will happen to them and statistically they are correct.

That may well be, but there are tons of people in this world who believe and act as RDak stated above. I assure you that not all anti-gunners are as sophisticated and enlightened and courageous as you seem to believe. Are you really suggesting that there aren't a ton of folks in this world and this country who are irrationally afraid of firearms?

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Are you really suggesting that there aren't a ton of folks in this world and this country who are irrationally afraid of firearms?

Sure there are, but that doesn't mean they wouldn't defend themselves if they felt threatened. Furthermore they might be tough hard nosed physical hombres as well. Just because someone does not like guns does not make them "sheep" anymore than one who likes guns a "killer". We need, as Glenn has said too many times, to get beyond childish rhetoric and stereotypes and engage in dialogue thoughfully.

Edit: I am not sure BTW that all people who defend themselves are necessarily "courageous" or "enlightened" or "sophisticated" rather perhaps just scared and up against the wall. Same, same for those who seek to avoid conflict are not "cowards".

 

[Frank Ettin]

...Just because someone does not like guns does not make them "sheep" ...

But there are also influential people and groups who specifically oppose, on principle, the right of self defense.

See, for example, Armed by Gary Kleck and Don Kates (Prometheus Books, 2001). On pages 116 - 121, they discuss various liberal, moral objections to the notion that one may be justified to defend himself.

Feminist Betty Frienden is cited as denouncing the trend of women to arm themselves for self defense as, "...a horrifying, obscene perversion of feminism...." Her ridiculous notion that , "...lethal violence even in self defense only engenders more violence and that gun control should override any personal need for safety...." is probably widely held in liberal circles. Indeed, according to Kleck and Kates, Mario Cuomo avowed that Bernie Goetz was morally wrong in shooting even if it was clearly necessary to resist felonious attack.

Kleck and Kates also report that an article was published by the Board of Church and Society of the United Methodist Church condemning defensive gun ownership. In the article, Rev. Allen Brockway, editor of the board's magazine, advised women that it was thier Christian duty to submit to rape rather than do anything that might imperil the attacker's life.

Kleck and Kates also note that the Presbyterian Church (U. S. A.) has taken a strict anti-self defense view. Rev. Kathy Young testified as a representative of that group before a Congressional Panel in 1972 in support of handgun control that the Presbyterian Church (U. S. A.) opposes the killing of anyone, anywhere for any reason (including, in the context of the testimony, self defense)

While these positions appear to us to be nonsense, they have some following. Note, for example that self defense is not considered in many countries to be a good reason to own a gun. Indeed in Great Britain, the natural right of self defense has been significantly curtailed by law. For an excellent (and very pro "our side") study of the erosion of gun and self defense rights in Great Britain see Guns and Violence, the English Experience by Joyce Lee Malcolm (Harvard University Press, 2002).

The point of the foregoing is that the universal acceptance of the ethics of self defense can not be taken for granted.

(However, the Roman Catholic Church takes a much more sensible view of things. Under its doctrine, one's life is a gift from God and one has a moral obligation to preserve it even if doing so means taking the life of an attacker. Unfortunately, as outlined by Kleck and Kates, this rational perspective is not universally accepted either.)

 

[MLeake]

Anti-gunners may surprise you...

... as they don't always conform to stereotypes.

I have one friend who doesn't think there's a good reason for private citizens to carry firearms. Granted, he is originally from Long Island, and was raised in a historically anti part of the country.

But on the other hand, he earned a Silver Star for rescuing a downed airman not too many years ago, and still serves on active duty. He's a sharp guy. I don't think there are too many folks on this forum who would be on solid ground challenging him on bravery or intellectual capacity, and challenging him on patriotism would be just plain ridiculous.

Note: Nobody in the office realized this gentleman had a Silver Star until the unit DCO mentioned it at the DCO's farewell; after that, several of us looked it up. The gentleman doesn't talk about it; he earns respect based on present performance, not past history.

Stereotypes and name-calling are not going to help us win over people who are on the fence on gun issues. In fact, behavior that comes across as childish or bullying is only likely to do our cause a fair amount of harm. What does work is a mix of intellectual and emotional argument, so long as the emotional arguments are honest.

 

[armsmaster270]

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dianne_Feinstein

[edit] Gun politics
In 1993, Feinstein, along with then-Representative Charles Schumer (D-NY), led the fight to ban many semi-automatic firearms deemed to be assault weapons and restrict the sale of high-capacity firearm magazines. The ban was passed as part of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. In 2004, when the ban was set to expire, Feinstein sponsored a 10-year extension of the ban as an amendment to the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act; while the amendment was successfully added, the act itself failed.[37] The act was revived in 2005, but was ultimately passed without an extension of the assault weapons ban.

Feinstein said on CBS-TV's 60 Minutes, February 5, 1995, "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them . . . Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in, I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here."[37] In July 2006, Feinstein voted against the Vitter Amendment to prohibit Federal funds being used for the confiscation of lawfully owned firearms during a disaster.[38]

Feinstein was accused of hypocrisy when it became public information that despite her stringent anti-gun record, the Senator maintained a Concealed Weapons permit and actively carried a .38 caliber Smith & Wesson revolver] for her personal safety. It is unknown if she still carries the concealed firearm or maintains the permit, but according to The Stentorian, San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown stated in 2000 that she had voluntarily relinquished both the concealed weapons permit and the firearm.[39][40] [41] When challenged, she stated "I know the sense of helplessness that people feel. I know the urge to arm yourself because that's what I did. I was trained in firearms. I'd walk to the hospital when my husband was sick. I carried a concealed weapon. I made the determination that if somebody was going to try to take me out, I was going to take them with me."[42]

In 1999, Jill Labbe, of the Wilkes-Barre Times Leader, recounted Mrs. Feinstein's actions at an anti-gun press conference, where Mrs. Feinstien displayed an AK-47 assault rifle. Despite her assertions of being trained in handling firearms, after picking it up, she broke multiple basic and commonly known firearms handling safety rules; placing her finger on the trigger, and then sweeping the muzzle across the room, pointing at people who were present.[43]

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

The point of the foregoing is that the universal acceptance of the ethics of self defense can not be taken for granted.

Agreed, but antipathy toward gun ownership does not make one necessarily a pacifist either.

As to Sen Feinstein, I certainly see a great deal of hypocrisy in her position on gun ownership but the emotional mark she experienced long ago as Glenn pointed out earlier, probably blinds her to it.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...As to Sen Feinstein, I certainly see a great deal of hypocrisy in her position on gun ownership but the emotional mark she experienced long ago as Glenn pointed out earlier, probably blinds her to it...

And we need to continually remind ourselves that her views on gun control, as do her views on other issues, reflect the attitudes of the constituency who elected, and continues to elect, her -- just as is the case with every other successful politician out there. If a majority of the voters found her gun control, and/or other, views sufficiently repugnant, she would not be in office.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

If a majority of the voters found her gun control, and/or other, views sufficiently repugnant, she would not be in office.

That is the truth and our work to fix as well.