Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Dianne Feinstein Assault Weapons Ban Could Be the Start Of a Total Gun Ban
PolicyMic ^ | January 26, 2013 | Matt MacBradaigh

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 ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Conspiracy; Government; Politics
KEYWORDS: 113th; awb; banglist; bloodoftyrants; bs; california; democrats; feinstein; gunconfiscation; guncontrol; secondamendment; tyranny; youwillnotdisarmus
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-57 next last
Mr. Obama is on record saying much the same thing, as are many other Democrats.
1 posted on 01/26/2013 12:53:24 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
A total gun ban would be the start of a war in the courts, politics and possibly civil war.
2 posted on 01/26/2013 12:59:39 PM PST by mountainlion (Live well for those that did not make it back.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

The right of self defense is fundamental. We must do everything we can to drive people out of this country who oppose self defense.


3 posted on 01/26/2013 1:01:02 PM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mountainlion

An attempted, ‘Total Gun Ban’, would be the start of the shooting war.


4 posted on 01/26/2013 1:04:57 PM PST by Delta Dawn (at)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Delta Dawn

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.


5 posted on 01/26/2013 1:08:06 PM PST by Cringing Negativism Network
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
It could also be the start of a backlash that increases gun ownership in a major way.

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. ;-)

6 posted on 01/26/2013 1:08:16 PM PST by TigersEye (The irresponsible should not be leading the responsible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

FTA: “Feinstein says this [confiscation] isn’t her intention.”

“Pull the other one, luv.”


7 posted on 01/26/2013 1:09:03 PM PST by Peet (TurboTax: "So simple even a Secretary of the Treasury can run it!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

When will people realize it is much easier to replace one politician in an election cycle than to control the populous.


8 posted on 01/26/2013 1:09:22 PM PST by Walkingfeather
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Ooohhhhhhhh Reeeeeeeeeeaaallllyyy?????? /s


9 posted on 01/26/2013 1:16:11 PM PST by Obama_Is_Sabotaging_America (IMPEACH OBAMA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mountainlion

10 posted on 01/26/2013 1:18:01 PM PST by Travis McGee (www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

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.


11 posted on 01/26/2013 1:19:11 PM PST by puppypusher (The World is going to the dogs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Delta Dawn
An attempted,‘Total Gun Ban’,would be the start of the shooting war.

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.

12 posted on 01/26/2013 1:20:58 PM PST by Washi (PUSH BACK! Encourage your legislators to introduce pro-second amendment legislation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Delta Dawn
"An attempted, ‘Total Gun Ban’, would be the start of the shooting war."

And all this time I've been thinking it would be started by economic collapse & 'social unrest'.
Maybe I'm going to have to start re-thinking this, because more folks are really & truely p_ssed off,
the anger is obvious, as opposed to a sense of apathetic inevitability over our economy collapsing.
13 posted on 01/26/2013 1:21:32 PM PST by 45semi (A police state is always preceded by a nanny state...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
It tee's me off knowing that these liberal POS’s are going out of their way to give illegal aliens the Rights of American citizens while at the same time denying our 2nd Amendment Rights that are guaranteed under the Bill of Rights
14 posted on 01/26/2013 1:25:07 PM PST by puppypusher (The World is going to the dogs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

15 posted on 01/26/2013 1:28:47 PM PST by BattleFlag (The right to self defense, one without which none others matter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

It appears that Dianne Feinstein should be banned from the human race.


16 posted on 01/26/2013 1:29:15 PM PST by bunkerhill7 (The Second Amendment has no limits on firepower.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

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.


17 posted on 01/26/2013 1:30:02 PM PST by RIghtwardHo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Ya think ????


18 posted on 01/26/2013 1:30:40 PM PST by clamper1797 (De-throne King Obozo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye

Thanksfor the post. I like the info.


19 posted on 01/26/2013 1:31:35 PM PST by Inyo-Mono (My greatest fear is that when I'm gone my wife will sell my guns for what I told her I paid for them)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: puppypusher

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.


20 posted on 01/26/2013 1:33:01 PM PST by littleharbour ("All men having power ought to be distrusted to a certain degree. ~ James Madison)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-57 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson