Diane Feinstein

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
Click to expand...
What don't I understand? :confused:

My point is simply that most American citizens- including a great many urbanites- don't have any desire to visit NF/BLM lands and therefore don't care about the policies regarding carrying firearms there, regardless of what those policies are. The issue is off their radar screen. Many Americans don't even realize that NF/BLM land exists.

OTOH far more Americans want to visit national parks, including vast numbers of people who would never even consider any other "outdoorsy" type of vacation. (If you ever visit NPs, you know these people- they're the ones crowding the drive-up scenic overlooks. ;) ) Since a great many Americans are attracted by the idea of a vacation to Yellowstone, the Grand Canyon, or whatever, it's not surprising that some of these people would be diehard CCW opponents upset by the very idea that someone near them could be carrying.

The fact that someone could be carrying at a nearby gas station upsets them too, but they feel that they can do something about people carrying at the NPs, hence the outcry.

Sorry to extend the hijack further. ;)
 
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.
Click to expand...

That hasn't been my experience TG. That's about all I can say on this question because the answer is subjective.

I stand by what I said. The vast majority of anti-gun people I have met would turn tail and run in a dire situation IMHO. They simply do not had the mental mindset to defend themselves with lethal force from my experience.

However, this is a subjective opinion just like your's is.

ETA:
..........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.
Click to expand...

TG - I grew up in Detroit, lived there for 28 years and worked there for another 32 years. I never knew an African American family who did not own a firearm for self-defense purposes and I've probably known over 1,000 African Americans in my lifetime. I'm still very close to many of them and visit them often.

They, as individuals, have taken it for granted, in my experience, that a person has a right to own a firearm for self-defense purposes. Maybe the leaders are anti-gun but not the ordinary Joe based on my life long experience.

(You don't hear the ordinary Joe talking much about this due to the distrust many African Americans have towards LEO's and politicians IMHO. They worry they will be "targeted" IMHO. But believe me, they have guns at home.)

As a side note, I purchased my beloved nickel plated Model 10-5 years ago from a WWII veteran who was African American.

So, please stop the stereotyping. ;)
 
Last edited:
RDak said:
That hasn't been my experience TG. That's about all I can say on this question because the answer is subjective.
Click to expand...

Experience can be long and it can be broad if you get my meaning. Perhaps this is another data point to add to your experience. Labeling those who are anti gun as cowards, sheep, selfish or unamerican adds nothing to the argument and I think is not very thoughtful.

RDak said:
I stand by what I said. The vast majority of anti-gun people I have met would turn tail and run in a dire situation IMHO. They simply do not had the mental mindset to defend themselves with lethal force from my experience.
Click to expand...

And I stand by what I say. You might want to broaden your acquaintances and experiences and you might be surprised. That is the beauty of these forums.

RDak said:
So, please stop the stereotyping.
Click to expand...

Might want to read my quote again but I will expand on it.

I did not say that those folk did not own guns but rather that they were not active in the cause of gun rights.

Take the example of African Americans. Look at the majority of those who are touted as their traditional leaders; Jesse Jackson, Andrew Young, Al Sharpton etc. All historically anti-gun.

Colin Powell would be a notable exception but not sure even he would fair well on TFL;)

However, that has changed today and I enjoy for instance the podcast of Ken Blanchard or the films of Lee Elder today where 20 years ago those voices weren't around.

The gun rights world has IMO changed for the good in that we are a much bigger tent than before.

Yes other races, creeds, politicial persuasions and genders owned guns but now they are active in gun rights and that is a very powerful tool agains the Feinsteins and Boxers.

Guns Rights, it's not just for redneck bubbas and right-wing kooks anymore.:cool:
 
Last edited:
Well we subjectively disagree on the typical anti-gunner but you are definitely correct when it comes to African American leaders. And, like you state, that is slowly changing as far as the ordinary Joe's are concerned IMHO.
 
When Diane can figure out how to get the criminals to follow along with her laws, then she might be upgraded to "foolish" from "worthless" in my book.
Click to expand...

For elitists like Diane Feinstein it isn't about crime. Should could care less about crime other than it just happens to be the perfect subterfuge that best suits her purpose of pushing more gun control. She is all about control of the masses.

Colin Powell would be a notable exception but not sure even he would fair well on TFL
Click to expand...

Powell has let it be known that he is just another anti-gun .
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Last warning, any more violations of L&CR rules and this one is done.
Think twice, post once, and remember where you are, and what the rules are.
 
What does anyone think they are going to accomplish by branding Feinstein as worthless, as an agent of subterfuge, as a fiend who is engineering for control of the masses, as a hypocrite, etc?

OK, I get it. You don't agree with her views. But is this really the best response you can manage? Is this really all the imagination you've got -- to turn her into a rabid evil-doer?

Give me a break.

The fact that she once CCW'd and now opposes it might make her a hypocrite. Or it might mean that she's looked at it from both sides and reached a considered opinion. Yes, it might not be your opinion. Big deal. Argue your case, if you've got the brains to do it; but lay off with the demonizing. It's childish and stupid and makes us all look bad.

As far as NP goes, the key word in her reply, I think, was "sacred" - "our sacred national parks." For a lot of people, these places are meant to be treated with a special kind of respect that preserves them from the taint of all human ugliness. Yes, that's a little naive. And yes, laws against guns in parks don't stop some people from taking them in anyway. But it isn't evil or hateful to be motivated by a desire to protect something that is sacred to you.

Of course, if you want to play at Us vs. Them conspiracy theories, you can tell yourself that these aren't really her motives and carry on labeling her as the spawn of Satan. But go do it somewhere else, will you? There are people trying to have a conversation here.
 
Last edited:
Sorry... I'm a little peeved right now. I've just had one thread deleted and another one locked because of this kind of behavior. There's a lot of interesting, important stuff that pretty much can't be discussed on TFL because of this.

You extremists are taking my freedom away.
 
Hang in there Kleinzeit. The mods generally take care of the bad actors and we can still converse. I remember a psych class (a loooong time ago) that talked about adversaries building negative mirror images of the other. Accusing each other of the same thing. However, it is clear to me that reasonable minds can disagree as to gun rights. I am more interested in why they think that way.
 
Argue your case, if you've got the brains to do it; but lay off with the demonizing. It's childish and stupid and makes us all look bad.
Click to expand...

Feinstein deserves the demonization. She wants to have the police come to your house and confiscate your handguns. She wants to have firearm and ammunition manufacturers sued out existance in the civil courts. She wants to prohibit citizens from owning an enormous number of firearms because she has decided that the common folk don't "need" to own them for hunting. Simply put, she openly advocates the violation of your Second Amendment Constitutional Right to keep and bear arms.

With Feinstein, there has to be an "us against them" mentality, because Feinstein will take every opportunity to encourage and vote for legislation that is unconstitutional. And legislation that will make it very difficult for anyone other than a police officer to privately own any kind of firearm. There is no middle ground with Feinstein - or with the idiots who keep voting her into office. They just want your guns. All of 'em. You give a little here and a little there, you get nothing in return, they take everything they can and give you nothing, and aren't you happy to support "sensible" and "common-sense" "gun safety" legislation? Well, at least you're being "reasonable." :barf:

But it isn't evil or hateful to be motivated by a desire to protect something that is sacred to you.
Click to expand...

Goodness, you sure are comfortable with complimenting her motive to deny law-abiding citizens the right to keep and bear arms in the forest. :barf: First, her motive is easily revealed with her voting record. It is replete with examples of doing everything possible to prevent citizens from exercising their Second Amendment Rights. Seriously, she's already stated that if she could, she would send folks to your house to confiscate your handguns. But we'll ignore that, and just pretend that the forest is somehow a "sacred" place that must be (for some reason) devoid of guns. Secondly, her motive is irrelevant: she actively works to pass legislation that is unconstitutional. I don't care whether she's doing it for the children, for the trees, or to satisfy George Soros and MoveOn.org, she's an idiot that deserves all of the criticisim she's getting.
 
This is one CA boy who will not be voting for either senator from CA. Feinstein shoudl be ran out of town, tarred and feathered as far as I am concerned.
 
I'm calling this one as done. The few that had the inablilty to refrain from the name calling after MULTIPLE WARNINGS from staff has ruined this thread from further discussion.

PMs inbound....

CLOSED.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top