September 16, 2013

Dianne Feinstein (Fascist – CA) uses DC massacre to demand gun-grabbing [Darleen Click]

Dianne’s demagoguery

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, one of the Senate’s leading voices on gun control, called for stricter gun laws in the aftermath of Monday’s killings at Washington’s Navy Yard.

The California Democrat said the deaths of the 12 people Monday were at the hands of a man armed with an AR-15, a shotgun, and a semiautomatic handgun, although details of his weapons have not been confirmed.

Her statement reads in part:

This is one more event to add to the litany of massacres that occur when a deranged person or grievance killer is able to obtain multiple weapons—including a military-style assault rifle—and kill many people in a short amount of time. When will enough be enough? Congress must stop shirking its responsibility and resume a thoughtful debate on gun violence in this country. We must do more to stop this endless loss of life.

The twatwaffle was so eager to engage in the predictable mendouchious flapdoodle, she doesn’t seem to know or care that:

When it was over, the suspected gunman lay dead amid an armload of weapons. Sources told News4 that surveillance footage showed that he began his attack with a shotgun, but was found with a 9mm pistol and an AR-15 assault rifle.

NBC News correspondent Pete Williams is reporting Alexis purchased a shotgun in Lorton, Va. during the past week or so. [...]

The suspected gunman appeared to have seized firearms from two of his victims as he moved through the building along the Anacostia River in southeast Washington, where 3,000 Navy employees go to work each day, many of them carrying authorized firearms. [...]

Survellance video shows the gunman entered the NAVSEA building, at 1336 Isaac Hull Ave., with a shotgun, law enforcement officials told News4’s Jackie Bensen.

The suspected gunman shot a security officer in the head, killing him, and took the officer’s 9 mm pistol and a magazine of ammunition.

And about those background checks.

Officials from the tech company Hewlett-Packard confirmed earlier today that Washington Navy Yard shooting suspect Aaron Alexis was working for an HP subcontractor called “The Experts,” refreshing equipment on the Navy Marine Corps network. And now The Washington Post is reporting that because of this work Alexis had security clearance for a number of military installations, including the Washington Navy Yard.
Alexis had a security clearance that was updated in July, approved by military security service personnel.

“There had to be a thorough investigation,” Hoshko said. “There is nothing that came up in all the searches. “

Alexis had finished a contract the company in Japan as part of the work and was about to be reassigned to do additional contract work at the Navy Yard.

It wasn’t a lack of gun laws that lead to these evil murders, but the “you people can’t be trusted” totalitarianism of gun-grabbers who made it possible for the murderer to just have to make it past the installation’s guarded perimeter into a GUN-FREE ZONE where he could kill at will, unopposed.

How dare Feinstein dip her hands into the victims’ blood and wave them for political gain when she holds some responsibility for setting up, and demanding more, shooting galleries.

Posted by Darleen @ 11:48pm
61 comments | Trackback

Tags: , , , , ,

Comments (61)

  1. Gun control is DiFi’s response to every stimulus, including broken nails, hot flashes, and the pulltab breaking off her can of soda when she tries to open it.

    She could be modeled with a rather simple deterministic finite automaton.

  2. I had the same response. If everyone had been armed, this guy would have only killed a few people. It would still be terrible, but not as bad as it turned out.

  3. She’s a ghoul. They feed on death.

  4. those trashy Giffords” whores are eager to pimp them some corpses too

  5. there shouldn’t be a quote thingy there

  6. Lib axiom #233:

    It’s absolutely wrong to stereotype black people or any minority. Agreed, but… it’s fine and indeed obligatory to stereotype gun owners, straight white men, republicans, libertarians, the military, and right wingers…because…because…um… OBAMAPHONE!

  7. She’s not the only one. The Brady people and DC’s non-voting Rep. Norton have gone out and used this event to push gun control too.

  8. How come I’m not surprised at all.

  9. I am at the point where I’d be more outraged if Feinstein stepped out of her caricature.

  10. I read somewhere that the shooter came in only with a shotgun. Killed a gate guard, took his 9mm handgun, ambushed a 1st responder and secured his AR-15. That’s unverified, of course. But how could the guy get close to a gate with an AR-15? It’s not heavy jacket time of year.

  11. Here.

    Also, homeboy was bugfuck nuts. And he still passed a background check when buying the shotgun Joe Biden told him to go with.

  12. Hmmmm…

    FBI Washington field office just confirmed gunman was NOT armed with AR15. Spokesperson says 1 shotgun and 2 pistols recovered

    Also, dude was obsessed with shooter games.

  13. Pablo says September 17, 2013 at 7:51 am – And he still passed a background check when buying the shotgun Joe Biden told him to go with.

    Never mind that, he passed a background check for a “Secret” level clearance.

    Since it sounds like he took that “AR-15″ from a “first responder” (presumably an MP), I seriously doubt that it was an AR-15.

  14. Pingback: Daily Quickie: 2013-09-17 Constitution Day 2013: 1st and 2nd Under Siege | NeoSexist

  15. It was likely an M-16, but they don’t want you to know that the government carries machine guns to protect itself from its citizens while denying citizens the same level of protection from its government.

    Besides, the proles don’t know the difference, right?

  16. But how could the guy get close to a gate with an AR-15? It’s not heavy jacket time of year.

    Woundn’t he have driven in, in his car, like all the workers and then parked and gotten the shotgun out of his trunk? See here.

  17. I’m thinking like SBP, it’s like a form of Tourette’s or something.

    The only hope I have for America is maybe when all these boomers that have been in office for 30+ years die out, things will start looking up.

    Course, then when I talk to your average Millennial, who can’t tell you anything about the guy on a twenty dollar bill, and my hopes are dashed…

  18. Ug, more bad grammar.

    Edits can really mess a guy up…

  19. . . . things will start looking up.

    We can sure wish. But then we notice that it’s the boomers who have been educating the following generations, and despair. So we circle back around to our most pressing need, I guess.

  20. …it’s the boomers who have been educating indoctrinating the following generations, and despair.

    [for the sake of accuracy)

  21. I don’t mind thinking of all education in terms of indoctrination though. If only because in the main, that’s what it has always been, and won’t be much otherwise in any case. The question though, is whether it’s a good doctrine we’re after, or a shitty one. And there’s the problem. And the opening.

  22. I was told there would be no math.

  23. Gee, I don’t think of education that way at all.

    Course I’ve never been to a university, and I’ve never stopped trying to educate myself, so what do I know…

  24. I was told there would be no math.

    Wrong thread.

    heh.

    Counting, it’s what’s for news reporting.

    Flash!: Two shooters in Navy Yard!

    Update!: No, three shooters in Navy Yard!

    Update 2!: Oops, nope again, two shooters in Navy Yard!

    Update 3!: Um, one shooter in Navy Yard!

  25. Gee, I don’t think of education that way at all.

    Maybe another thing to learn then?

  26. “Because it might cause harm” is NOT sufficient reason to violate my civil rights. Automobiles cause many more deaths every year than all types of weapons do, and more people are beat to death with fists and hammers than are shot to death with the so-called “assault rifles”.

    “Well, we have to [i]compromise[/i]…”

    Great. I have the Constitution. What are you offering?

  27. Perhaps it’s my premiss that indoctrination means teaching someone to accept a set of beliefs without questioning them.

    Which, to me, is pretty much the opposite of education.

  28. premise…

  29. “But then we notice that it’s the boomers who have been educating the following generations, and despair.”

    Case in point:

    http://www.amazon.com/United-States-History-Preparing-Examination/dp/1567656609/

    (check the reviews)

  30. “Gee, I don’t think of education that way at all.”

    Think of it this way: making decisions on the basis of reason and evidence rather than immediate emotional response is not something that comes naturally to most people. They have to be taught to do that, and yeah, it’s a form of indoctrination.

  31. It isn’t hard to narrow the meaning of indoctrination sufficiently to remove the negative implication of militant brainwashing, while retaining the simple sense of merely teaching a specific doctrine — which doctrine, in the wider sense of all possible knowledge, won’t be, can’t be, perfect, and is therefore necessarily an object of some skeptical reserve to thinking beings, while yet remaining itself — i.e., one among a multitude of alternatives. But is that human capacity closer to education, which is generally a transmission of stuff we humans have already encountered and passed along as worthy of recognition?

    There sneaks in that choice worthiness though. And what when we have two mutually contradictory choice worthy things, doctrinally antipodal? By gum, it seems we can teach them both, taking them tacitly in turn on their own terms.

  32. We are born wild, our parents, family, friends, teachers, mentors indoctrinate us into civilized humans of some stripe, or not.

    It is the what “stripe” that is fought over in politics and the “or not” that that is harmful to civilization but useful to those who lean towards tyranny.

  33. Well shut me up, I guess you’ve separated out the indoctrinated from the un-indoctrinated, huh?

  34. Greetings:

    Wasn’t it Senatress Feinstein who first said, “You can take my Senate seat when you pry it from my cold dead ass.” ???

  35. Well shut me up, I guess you’ve separated out the indoctrinated from the un-indoctrinated, huh?

    What are the un-indoctrinated? Rocks? Cumquats? Cutlery? Salmon swimming upstream?

    So, no, it isn’t apparent anyone has gone quite that far, to the extent such uncertainty remains.

  36. Someone said in the other thread “You cannot argue someone out of a position they were never argued into in the first place”.

    It’s all the implicit assumptions behind the culture that, if they were spelled out bluntly, would mean the end of the entertainment industry, and (perhaps not coincidentally) not a few actors/actresses. All the way back, from “All The President’s Men” up through the latest comic-book superhero movies. Bill Whittle points out some of the obvious cases in his recent speeches, but it is too pervasive and quite subtle.

    “Train up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old, he will not depart from it.”

    Even assuming an average of 2 hours/day (most studies start at 2 1/2 and go up from there) of TV, that’s almost 10,000 hours of TV, just during the impressionable years of schooling (5-17), when we WANT them to pay attention and learn stuff).

    Kids soak up the language, and all of its implicit rules so naturally, they don’t have to be told about grammar and syntax and the need for past participle phrases, they just soak it up. They similarly soak up just enough math to be able to count money (once they learn about it), almost through their skin. It’s how kids learn, and if you can make it fun, you can teach them anything. And they will internalize the lessons so thoroughly, you’ll never have to go into the details, because they have already been soaked up.

    Two years of 40-hour work weeks spent soaking up the inherent messages pushed by people we are repeatedly informed are important, therefore smart. (They must be smart, else why would so many people be asking them their opinions on everything from romance to politics?) People who pretend to be other people for whole minutes at a time must know a lot more about the people they are pretending to be than the actual people do, right? I mean, Meryl Streep is a fine example of someone who is able to pretend to be other people (she’s even won awards for pretending better than any of the other pretenders that year), and she once pretended to be a farmer’s wife, so that makes her sufficiently expert on the intricacies of farming that she testified before Congress, and affected policies for people she’ll never ever see again.

    And that’s why we’ve already lost.

    Which is why we’ll need the guns. Sooner, rather than later.

  37. Time to consider dredging that lake I guess.

  38. “What are the un-indoctrinated?”

    We aren’t communicating. You are less interested in my intent, than your indoctrination, seems to me.

  39. We aren’t communicating.

    Granted, that’s why I asked. But how about an answer to cure the lack?

  40. I read somewhere that the shooter came in only with a shotgun. Killed a gate guard, took his 9mm handgun, ambushed a 1st responder and secured his AR-15

    And this will be the excuse they’ll use to say “See, this is why no one should have any guns whatsoever. Even legal-carry people can have their guns stolen, so what difference, at this point, would it make”.

  41. I used indoctrinated in a way that is not only widely understood to be the definition, in the same context as your statement, in a way that bolsters your point (IE the “education” boomers are providing).

    Why you chose to disregard my intent in some counter contextualization I’ll leave for you to explain.

  42. Oh, ok.

    I wasn’t choosing to disregard the implication you left Lee, since I specifically sought to clarify why I’m content to regard all education as indoctrination of one sort or another — thinking, as I do, that it’s better to acknowledge from the start of a formulation of an educational doctrine the limits we encounter whichever way we turn, and so at least attempt to take those limits into account from the get-go. Perhaps I don’t know what the current educational doctrines are? Still, they don’t seem to be consonant with this, and most of all not in the nominally higher educational contexts, and therefore, I thought, could use some fleshing out.

    But I took your statement “I don’t think of education that way at all” as an indication we differed on this question — but I seem to have been mistaken.

  43. sdferr’s not disregarding your intent, Lee. He’s trying to get you to explain yourself. He’s not being a weisenheimer, either. It’s a legitimate question and one that deserves to be unpacked, as my philosopher friend says.

    I take issue with the slander on Baby Boomers. For one thing, it encompasses an absolutely huge number of people. Some of those people fought gallantly and bravely in our many wars. They are doctors, businessmen, engineers and inventors. Some burned their draft cards, grew their hair long, spend 40 years getting stoned and doing a lot of nothing.

    The Red Diaper babies aren’t boomers. They were mostly born before WWII, the children of the Communist Party members from the early part of the last century.

  44. FBI Washington field office just confirmed gunman was NOT armed with AR15. Spokesperson says 1 shotgun and 2 pistols recovered

    And we believe anything the media or the government tells us, or the media tells us the government tells us, for that matter, beccause?

  45. I think of education as the pursuit of knowledge. I think of indoctrination as something different.

    Is perhaps why can I see someone gain a lot more knowledge in the first day of work at a real job, than person with a bachelors gained being indoctrinated at a liberal arts college.

    I concede you can narrow the definition of the word down to encompass a method of teaching, but I think it a stretch from it’s common usage.

  46. No the Red Diaper babies aren’t for the most part boomers.

    They’re the older brothers, sisters, friends, neighbors and peers that told taught the dirty hippies that it was cool to be dirty and hip.

    i.e. beatniks.

  47. I blame Dobie Gillis.

  48. I think Maynard G. Krebs is to blame as well.

    And Gilligan.

  49. “He’s trying to get you to explain yourself”

    Yeah, like what I said was tough to figure out.

    “I take issue with the slander on Baby Boomers”

    Baby boomers as a whole were not slandered, specifically those that have been in congress for 30= years were. And those that are responsible for indoctrinating* the next generation.

    *(happy?)

  50. nah, Dobie could have resisted…

  51. Speaking of

    “people we are repeatedly informed are important, therefore smart [because why] else … would so many people be asking them their opinions on everything from romance to politics,” Michael Barone’s column today was a doozy.

    The three sentences of it I read anyways.

  52. OK, I’ll admit to being imprecise. I’ll quit while I’m behind after this mea culpa.

    Feinstein was born in ’33, and has only been a senator since ’92.

    My larger point that these old people in Congress for a really long time gotta go I still maintain though…

  53. You’re right that education is the pursuit of knowledge/truth.

    However, one can be indoctrinated in the workplace as easily (perhaps more easily given our nature to fit in with the crowd than to question the orthodoxy of the workplace) as one can refrain from being indoctrinated in the classroom if the teachings fly in the face of one’s conscience. The path of least resistance in both settings is to go along with the crowd. It takes courage to challenge the orthodoxy of the classroom or the workplace. In both instances, you face the prospect of being ridiculed by authority figures and being shunned by peers. At work, you can get both reprimanded and possibly fired. At school, you can get reprimanded and possibly expelled, although less often than getting fired.

    You can also transfer to a different school if your goals change, whereas you are stuck with your job unless you have a flexible set of skills. Both have their good and bad points.

  54. Why don’t you take that chip off your shoulder before you tip over? I’m trying to make nice and have a conversation with you.

  55. I think of education as the pursuit of knowledge. I think of indoctrination as something different.

    Is perhaps why can I see someone gain a lot more knowledge in the first day of work at a real job, than person with a bachelors gained being indoctrinated at a liberal arts college.

    I concede you can narrow the definition of the word down to encompass a method of teaching, but I think it a stretch from it’s common usage.

    In general, I don’t think of education that way, I guess, so we may differ there. Not to say that some education won’t result in a pursuit of knowledge, because it occasionally does, but that in most of the ordinary course of things doesn’t on the whole, but rather, in an acquisition of this or that skill or principle of art, opinion, or subject matter or what have you. And most often gets left at that.

    But, matters like the Constitution, which we celebrate today, seem to arise from something other than our apprenticeship in an art — even to boil up somehow in men who were, more often than not, educated in a liberal arts college back in the day when there was a vibrant and coherent doctrine of the liberal arts, and to which we pay mere lip-service today — and to only come about very slowly (indeed, rarely) in the human affairs of what we call today history, to say nothing of particular human beings who have never encountered the teachings underlying such prodigious political events.

    But if I weren’t to recognize the difference between the way I intended to use the term and the more common negative usage, I probably wouldn’t have bothered to specify the narrowing for the purpose of reclaiming what I think of as the word’s original use, in contradistinction to its modern commonplace negativity. But then, that could be because I don’t regard our natural limits per se as necessarily negative circumstances, but just the way things are.

  56. Your skin is tissue thin when it comes to me leigh, and I suspect I will never meet your expectations.

    I’ll just go back to not responding to any of your comments.

  57. Baby boomers are defined as being born from 1946 to 1964 and though I take issue that this definition is too wide let’s see some of the famous lefty leaders from the turbulent past.

    Take the most famous of the 60s radicals. Bill Ayers born 12/26/1944. Bernardine Dohrn 1/12/1942. David Horowitz 1/10/1939. Kathy Boudin 5/19/1943.

    The leaders of the New Left were all in their late 20s early 30s in the 67-73 time frame. They in turn were at that time mentored by those who were members of the CPUSA in the 1930s and some even traveled to the USSR for training at the feet of the masters in Moscow.

    The New Left imploded in the 70s and was brought back together in the 80s by those same 1930s CPUSA people who were the only ones that all the factions could look up to and take orders from.

    It, the New Left, was reorganized as the Community Organizer based entity we see now and its main thrust early on was education. Educationing new radicals since that is how they grow in power.

  58. Sdferr, it just seems to me that indoctrination is a subset of education, which surpasses indoctrination in that indoctrination is the teaching of what is perceived settled truth (in the positive definition of your preference), while education is the continuing and never finished quest for any and all truth and knowledge.

    In other words, a proper education involves not only established knowledge, but the methods and incentive to acquire ever more knowledge/truth

  59. . . . education is the continuing and never finished quest for any and all truth and knowledge.

    This looks very close to the definition of philosophy Plato himself would have preferred, supposing the uncertainty of the entire enterprise, though he might have injected some talk of a way of human life in there, I suspect, a mode of living, sort of dealio.

    But philosophy in Plato’s time was notoriously ejected from good and respectable company, for being too dangerous to the city. Plato then took up his mission, to make philosophy acceptable to the city from the point of view of philosophy, but not so much from the point of view of the city.

    Machiavelli seems to have had a different tactic in mind toward the same end, taking up more or less the same mission, but working overtly from the point of view of the city, rather than that of philosophy. And wow, what a success, since by the time of the founding, following the work of Hobbes and his contemporaries and successors who discovered Method, men like Jefferson could openly attribute the going political concern of the times to the likes of Locke, Sydney, Cicero and Aristotle. And Ben Franklin could be the founder of the American Philosophical Society.

    But then along come others, progressive political scientists, who rediscover the utter inadequacy of philosophy, a thing fit only to be tossed upon the dung heap, along with anything smacking of superstition, metaphysics or theology. Little wonder then, that in our time, few bother to read Plato’s Ion for the political teaching within.

Leave a Reply