“Feinstein Says She Wants To Go After More Than Just ‘Assault Weapons'”
Wait, you mean this isn’t only about scary-looking weapons found in the trunk of the car of an elementary school shooter who exploited a government-sanctioned gun-free zone / vulnerable children turkey shoot?
Well, then. I feel misled. And violated. Freedom Outpost:
Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) appeared on CNN’s State of the Union on Sunday told host Candy Crowley that the push for gun bans won’t just be about her alleged “assault weapons.” Today, she basically updated her 1995 60 Minutes interview where she said, “Mr. & Mrs. America, Turn ‘Em All In.”[...]
“Will it only be ‘assault weapons’?” she asked. “No,” she declared, answering her own question. “Most likely there will be a package put together.”
“If assault weapons is left out the package and I’m a member of the Judiciary, number two in seniority, I’ve been assured by the majority leader I’ll be able to do it as an amendment on the floor, which is the way I did it in 1993,” she said. “So that doesn’t particularly bother me. What does bother me is I’ve seen weapons spawned and grown and now in the hands of younger and younger people over these years.”
Sen. Feinstein said, “I think enough is enough. Do military style ‘assault weapons’ belong on the streets of our cities? And the answer, according the United States Conference of Mayors, according to major chiefs of police, according to the largest police organization in the world, is absolutely ‘No.’”
So you mean those who would reserve for themselves either armed protection by security forces using such weapons, or the right to have and use those weapons to police the populace, are against the idea of the populace acting as a counterbalance against potential government or police abuse?
Why, that’s just crazy talk!
— Not to mention, wholly irrelevant. The fact of the matter is, I don’t much care what some collection of government officials thinks. They work for us. We, the people. And the Second Amendment to the Bill of Rights, essential to the ratification of the Constitution, protects for us our natural rights as sovereign individuals to defend ourselves, our loved ones, and our property, not to mention serves specifically as a check on the kinds of government officials who would take away our access to certain one-pull, one-bullet firearms and high capacity magazines while declaring themselves exempt from such denial of access.
This may seem antiquated to the self-appointed bien pensant crowd (in both parties), but that antiquated feeling cuts both ways: for instance, I find antiquated their posturing as a kind of aristocracy meant to rule subjects rather than represent citizens.
In fact, I believe we have Second Amendment to begin with for just such a reason.
Dianne Feinstein has called the NRA “venal.” She suggests it is just a front group for Big Arms Manufacturing, the latest private enterprise the government wishes to scapegoat and subject to their media-aided two-minutes of hate.
And yet the NRA has multiple millions of individual members — whom the left and the media are increasingly attempting to characterize as “fringe extremists.” Along with just about anyone who stands up to constitutional abuses of any kind.
To which I’d say, people like Feinstein should be more careful about who they describe as venal extremists. Because at some point, those newly-minted venal extremists might just figure that, if they’re going to be cast in that role anyway, they may as well throw themselves into the performance.