Skip to comments.Dianne Feinstein Assault Weapons Ban Could Be the Start Of a Total Gun Ban
Posted on 01/26/2013 12:53:18 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
Gun rights advocates worry that an assault weapons ban like the one proposed by Senator Dianne Feinstein (r-Calif.) would be the start of a slippery slope that would end with a total gun ban in the U.S., as has happened in the UK and Australia.
There already have been some calls for outright confiscation, including from New York Governor Andrew Cuomo as well as from other lawmakers. Feinstein says this isn't her intention. But do gun owners have anything to worry about?
Feinstein said on PBS Newshour that she would not attempt to ban and confiscate all guns. But is this political posturing a falsehood meant to lull Americans into accepting her bill? Can Feinstein be trusted not to attempt gun confiscation, when she has stated that her true wish is for all American's to turn in their guns if only she could just get the votes?
PBS Newshour's Gwen Ifill asked Feinstein directly about gun owners fears of banning all guns.
Ifill: What do you say to people who support the right to own arms that this is the 'camel's nose under the tent' that the next thing, you'll be after concealed carry weapons, you'll be after other kinds of gun rights?"
Feinstein: Well that's just not true. It wasn't true with the prior bill that was the law for 10 years, and I just think, candidly, 'that dog doesn't hunt.
Ifill: Why shouldn't it be true? Why wouldn't you go after those other laws?
Feinstein: Because it's not what I've done in the past and it's not what I'm doing right now.
Taken at face value, Feinstein isn't going after all guns...
(Excerpt) Read more at policymic.com ...
The right of self defense is fundamental. We must do everything we can to drive people out of this country who oppose self defense.
An attempted, ‘Total Gun Ban’, would be the start of the shooting war.
Unfortunately a lot of people here advocate sending jobs out of the country.
A move which INCREASES the pressure against guns.
We need American jobs. And America freedom.
The Dem/libs have been engaging in a steady push to infringe on our right to keep and bear arms for decades. And this is how it has been working out for them in the last two decades...
And in the last two months...
If the lefties keep pushing gun control in another two decades one out of two Americans may be gun owners instead of one out of three.
MOLON LAVE! WE'LL BUY MORE. ;-)
FTA: “Feinstein says this [confiscation] isn’t her intention.”
“Pull the other one, luv.”
When will people realize it is much easier to replace one politician in an election cycle than to control the populous.
Ooohhhhhhhh Reeeeeeeeeeaaallllyyy?????? /s
Dianne Feinstein. Is a lier and its self evident.The words came right out of her mouth when she said thatif she could she would ban all “Assault Rifles”if she got the 51 votes.
With her you can be damn sure she’d be going after all guns after that.
THIS Woman is NOT to be trusted.
That's why oppresive regimes would do it a little bit at a time, the most effective defensive weapons first. By the time they propose a total ban, there are no means of resistance.
It appears that Dianne Feinstein should be banned from the human race.
Putting aside the fact that SCOTUS rulings would stop a band, no way that would get through the Senate and CERTAINLY not the House. This is a smokescreen to keep people from paying attention to what is really going on. Tis an old ploy ... allow a radical position to seep out so that something less radical, but radical nonetheless, seems tame.
Ya think ????
Thanksfor the post. I like the info.
Sure, and “don’t ask, don’t tell” wasn’t a prelude to total repeal of the ban on homosexuals in the military.
And “civil unions” weren’t a prelude to homosexual “marriage”.
And women in combat units wasn’t a prelude to women on the front lines.
Alinsky rules. You take what you can get at any given point in time and then immediately start demanding the next step. You cannot compromise with the left. Phased-in surrender is still surrender.
“THIS Woman is NOT to be trusted.”
No politician with “-D” after their name is to be trusted.
I’ll go further.
No American with “-D” as their political affiliation is to be trusted.
It’s pretty simple, really.
The article has an R behind her name! She is a big Rat! And being a big Rat she fears what is coming. She knows this country is going down the drain and that she and other politicians will be blaimed - so her demand for gun control! Get rid of the evil Black weapons before they are used on politicians!
Sadly for Di her bill is going straight to committee where it will die. Dingy Harry is not going to bring this bill to the floor for a vote. There are too many Dems up for re-election in 2014.
You’re welcome. We have much to be encouraged about. Right now the left is giving the ‘gun culture’ a lot of free publicity. They’re painting us as bad. It’s up to us to use the opportunity to paint a good picture and win as many new converts as we can. We can passively let the left slowly push more Americans into the ‘gun culture’ or we can open the doors up wide and invite more in. Join the party. Guns are fun!
Amen! Look what the ‘94 AWB did for gun ownership. Record setting sales. It remained high when Bush was in office too because he said he would sign its renewal if Congress put it on his desk. And since ‘08 the fear that 0bamugabe would do what he is finally trying to do has made the record sales of the ‘90s look like slow business.
A “war in the courts” does nothing to stop anyone from being disarmed by agents of the state. What would have been the fate of those in the militia on April 19, 1775 had they obeyed the orders of the British army and laid down their arms trusting in a later favorable determination to be made by the court of King George III? They, as well as we will be disarmed in the interim and subject to the will of others. No my friends. We live in an age in which we have no true representation; but instead we live under the rule of those who occupy political office for the sole purposes of enriching themselves, their friends and associates, while imposing their personal agendas upon us. Far and away from the repesentation we are due and entitled to as set forth by the founders.
War? More like a resistance to a usurpation of power. Self defense and the possession of effective means of providing for it to resist the power of the state or criminal actors is a natural right. Parity with the force government may offer against our well being should be the goal and any attempt to remove the weapons we possess for that defense should be met not with compliance, based on the hope of a finding that the act of confiscation was illegal, but rather with resistance in the first instance of it when and wherever that may occur. Would you surrender to an armed individual if you yourself were armed and place yourself at the mercy of your captor? Would you surrender control of your life to your enemy on the battlefield while you still possessed the means to resist and allow that enemy to decide your fate? A government demand to disarm is no less of a threat. Government, meaning those disloyal to their oath of allegiance to support and defend the Constitution of the United States by promulgating restrictions on the possession of arms by the citizenry, is no less a menace than a common armed criminal. “...shall not be infringed.” “Well here we are. Imagine where we’ll be”
Ladies and gentlemen, you and I alone will determine at what point to offer resistance to the demands of armed agents of the state when they call for your disarmament. Will you know their intent if you comply? Toward a better understanding an in order to educate yourself as to the possibilites that may await you I suggest you read The Gulag Archipelago and this brief essay by David Mamet, a playright and former member of the “brain dead left”, in his own words. Having completed these assignments you will be better prepared to deal with the reality of the moment when you are asked to surrender your arms and by doing so surrender the last of your abilities to control your freedom. Mamet’s essay here: http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2013/01/28/gun-laws-and-the-fools-of-chelm-by-david-mamet.html
As a ‘law abiding citizen’ when does it become necessary to be otherwise? Time to choose.
The NRA should request everyone who owns a gun to sign up. Then pass out fliers of everyone who doesn’t. I’m almost serious.
I will go farther than you:
No politician can be trusted.
Watch as Rubio, Graham, and McCain sell us out to the illegals.
If her ugly plastic lips on her ugly plastic face were moving, the ugly hag was LYING.
I don’t think they believe they can get a significant gun ban.
I am beginning to suspect this is where they start negotiating expecting to settle for registration and taxes similar to cigarettes.
It could also lead to a live fire reenactment of the April 19, 1775 event on Lexington Green and most likely will.
Which is PRECISELY what Obozo, Fineswine and Schmuckie Schumer want!
What they fail to understand is that such events can go EITHER WAY!
I’d suggest they review the last known photo of Mussolini and his mistress Clara Petacci to get some idea as to their fate should, God willing, it go OUR way.
No negotiations with terrorists!
sorry...but that is one ugly woman. That make-up, geez..
“Gun rights advocates worry that an assault weapons ban like the one proposed by Senator Dianne Feinstein (r-Calif.) would be the start of a slippery slope that would end with a total gun ban in the U.S., as has happened in the UK and Australia. “
There is one big difference between those countries and the U.S.
They don’t have a ‘2nd Amendment’ but we do and we’ll exercise that right.
I suspect that Feinstein et al are not going for a gun ban as such. What they would rather do is to smother gun ownership in regulations, fees, taxes, etc. so that the average citizen couldn’t possibly afford to legally own a gun but people in the “elite” (say, leftwing Hollywood types) can still get whatever guns they want for their bodyguards; people like that will have the money and connections to navigate the regulations. All perfectly legal, of course.
After all, they really think that they’re better than us mere commoners. Why wouldn’t they like it this way?
A total gun ban would incite a war in the streets.
What would that mean?
a. government bureaucrat and elected official;
b. every law enforcement officer, since they all have become federalized;
c. one of your neighbors who are in the National Guard and Reserve, active or inactive;
d. every one of your friends, relatives, sons and daughters who are presently in the military;
have just become suspect as “working for the Crown”, and shall be targeted for extinction, simply because of their status and attached stigma, whether they say so or not. (Who can say in that time, how many will be DHS ‘plants’?)
Since Obama is stacking the deck with military staff, that have answered ‘yes’, to shooting their own countrymen, he has already initiated the war, IMHO.
We have never been in this kind of mind-numbing scenario, since 1865. We have become anesthetized to the madness, brutality, and bloodshed, that this will mean, and on a scale that would make that business with Janet Reno and Texas, commonplace.
But, the cancer is very deep, and coming to stage 4.
Are you, the reader, ready for this?
Heck, am - I - ready for this?
I swore an Oath, once. I put my life on the line for 3 years, once. If it means I don’t get to see 80, I’ve seen, been, and done more than some in 60 years of life, but always with a love for THIS country, and what it has always stood for.
We shall see.
The same administration that won’t defend the borders wants to disarm the citizenry? It’s amazing these clowns haven’t been removed from office yet.
That has been the plan since 1962.
As I have posted many times, military style rifles are just a smokescreen. Their ultimate goal is the total abolition of the RIGHT to own firearms of any type.
It has always been about handguns. Assault rifles are just a decoy to try and get their anti-gun foot in the door.
Once they get a ban on AWs then they will use the same reasons to go after handguns.
John Kennedy killed with a 5 shot bolt action rifle.
Medgar Evers, shot with a 5 shot 1917 bolt action Enfield rifle.
Martin Luther King, shot with a 4 shot Remington 760 pump action Gamemaster rifle.
Bobby Kennedy with a .22 Iver Johnson Cadet revolver.
George Wallace wounded with a 5 shot Charter Arms .38spl revolver.
Howard Johnsons shooter killed nine, wounded thirteen with a 4 shot RUGER .44 mag Deerslayer rifle.
Gerald Ford attacked with a 7 shot 1911 semi auto.
Edmond OK post office with two National Guard 7 shot 1911 pistols.
Ronald Reagan and Jim Brady with an RG-14 .22 revolver.
What do they all have in common? NONE over 7 rounds, yet after each one came a cry of panic to ban all of them.
And if you still have doubts consider this by Nelson P Shields, founder of Handgun control Inc.
Nelson T. Pete Shields
Founder of Handgun Control, Inc.
Im convinced that we have to have federal legislation to build on. Were going to have to take one step at a time, and the first step is necessarily given the political realities going to be very modest.
Of course, its true that politicians will then go home and say, This is a great law. The problem is solved. And its also true that such statements will tend to defuse the gun-control issue for a time.
So then well have to strengthen that law, and then again to strengthen that law, and maybe again and again.
Right now, though, wed be satisfied not with half a loaf but with a slice. Our ultimate goal total control of handguns in the United States is going to take time.
My estimate is from seven to ten years. The problem is to slow down the increasing number of handguns sold in this country. The second problem is to get them all registered.
And the final problem is to make the possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition except for the military, policemen, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors totally illegal.
-Pete Shields, Chairman and founder, Handgun Control Inc., A Reporter At Large: Handguns, The New Yorker, July 26, 1976, 57-58
For those who may still doubt, Up until the 1980s HCI said they “Only wanted to control handguns. Long guns would not be affected.” Then they decided to go after semi-auto military style rifles along with handguns.
Its pretty simple, really.
That's why I always laugh at the term "Conservative Democrat." There is no such thing. When push comes to shove, they vote with the party first.
If they are really conservatives, why the h*** do they belong to a political party that is communist in everything but name? To me, that shows a lack of discernment, at the very least. And don't get me started on so-called "Christians" who vote Democrat. Are you kidding me?
No law like that is going anywhere in the Senate, much less the House.
The real problem is in states, despite the fact that the SCOTUS has incorporated the 2nd Amendment against the states, by using the 14th Amendment.
NY’s law doesn’t even exempt police.
Not today, perhaps, but two, four or six years from now when demographics give both houses to the Democratic Socialists? Would you bet $1,000 that it can't happen?
Never trust any politician with a D and very few with an R. There are very true in D.C. who have proven that they will go to the wall for the sake of conservative principals.
Any government Fed, state, local which passes ANY gun laws/regulations is in direct violation of SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. There is no wiggle room in SNBI.
The RTKBA SNBI is unambiguous to any HONEST person and hence the problem we find ourselves in today. There are no honest people in Washington DC and in many state governments and certainly very few in the media.
Lawyers? It goes without saying as those bottom feeders would sell us out in a heart beat and they have.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.