Posted on 01/25/2013 8:55:11 AM PST by kiryandil
Edited on 01/25/2013 11:24:37 AM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
There is no such thing as the rights of the group (or many).
Only an individual can have rights.
There is no such thing as the rights of the group (or many).
Only an individual can have rights.
The rights of a few?
if 150 million Americans are a few.....
and Her gun grab wont make anyone safer...
This senile Marxist Hag has got to go...
The rights of a few?
if 150 million Americans are a few.....
and Her gun grab wont make anyone safer...
This senile Marxist Hag has got to go...
“for the greater good”
Wasn’t Hitler’s people who came up with rational for killing minorities like Jews for the greater good of the German race?
Shame on Feinstein, a Jewish woman, for following on those same kind of meme.
Indeed, the many is an invention, called the collective, which, really, all it is, is an individual who has an army of slaves at his or her disposal because they think they share in his redistributed right of doing what he wants with all their surrendered powers to him.
Actually I think she might have borrowed this rational straight out of Mein Kampf, rationalizing away the right of the Jews for the sake of the many Germans.
This woman is completely stupid.
Obama is like that. I know some decent conservative black folkes who have completely turned around on so many views just because of the Obama emotionalism.
I dunno, it’s like they were pre brainwashed to switch views the minute this kind of person would go in power.
What she really is admitting is that the many are on a slave plantation and need safety.
This is slavery of the south concept, basically, embraced by a Jewish woman, straight out of Mein Kampf.
Lincoln warned us of this.
As the collective, or “Legions”, they call themselves Legion/collective, because “we are many”...
This is a demonic like phenomenum.
Foolish me. I always thought the Constitution, particularly the Bill of Rights, protects all of the people.
By the same logic, minorities would lose their rights for their overwhelming presence in gangs. Careful what you wish for, ma’am.
I have no clue as to any reasonable estimate of recent or new gun owners but I would have to say that by now the “few” are the progressive holdouts that are becoming more and more surrounded by gun owners.
Everey where I look I see or hear of people buying their first gun, asking for ammo, asking about maintenance advice or how to install optional equipment.
If ther4 was an uninterrupted supply of arms and ammo who knows what the percentage of gun ownership will become.
Unlike another country where a person would have just a pistol and a shotgun its must more involved in America.
People on average want at least four different weapons at home, per person no less.
Her primary motivation is the fear of an American Holocaust.
WE cannot allow the WRONGS of a few to override our safety.
God help me, I wanted to increase the font size as well... time to take a break.
Where does she stand on the trial of the traitor who leaked the classified military documents to wikileaks?
SOME are claiming “freedom of the press”, “whistleblower”, etc.
Even with that flimsy excuse (in the name of aiding and abetting the enemy in a time of war as well as the theft of the materials), it has cost lives. Does that “right” override safety?
Hoist the liberals on their on petard.
” Put simply, we cannot allow the rights of a few to override the safety of all. That is not the America that our founding fathers envisioned.”
She’s the Tzipi Livni of America.
The founding fathers. Let’s see. Just working from memory here: “Those that surrender their liberty for the sake of security deserve neither their liberty, nor their security.” -John Adams
Rights of the few should not endanger the many? So Diane Feinstein is also for legislation keeping incriminating evidence admissible, even if seized without a proper search warrant or probable cause? She is for keeping confessions admissible, even if obtained without a Miranda warning? Violent felons are let off Scott-free on a regular basis because the courts are concerned with these rights of the few, and the felons use that freedom to commit more violent crimes. Would such legislation even pass constitutional muster? Would Diane Feinstein be mad or glad if it didn’t?
And,exactly, where is the GOPe ‘leadership’ in opposing any infringement upon the Rights of the People?
Oh, right, they’re the ones willing to ‘make a deal’, then come with hand out, asking for $$$, saying “We did the best we could.”
Yes, they did the ‘best they could’ when slavery came around the vote again...Why they held the rank at only 60%
Where are the GOPe cheerleaders these days? Or the ones that said the SCOTUS was SO GREAT in ruling O’Care was simply a TAX (doesn’t matter how the LAW was written, eh?)
When wil F.R. finally realize that the 2-party cartel has sold them out? If it takes me crafting my own rifle to march upon D.C., when do we start?
Safety ?
sure feinstein we can surely afford to give away $292 million worth of our own safety equipment to the muslim Brotherhood/AlQaeda right now
Feinstein should be arrested and sent to Gitmo with Obama, Hillary and Holder
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.