Feinstein: We cannot allow the rights of a few to override safety of all...

The Congressional Record ^ | February 24, 2013 | Dianne Feinstein (Traitor-CA)

[jimbobfoster]

“Put simply, we cannot allow the rights of a few to override the safety of all.”

This is why we have a Constitutional Republic instead of a Democracy. The purpose of our form of government is to protect “the rights of the few”. How much more basic can you get.

[broken_arrow1]

Twisted Sister and her A$$whipe cabal of commies!

[Mouton]

Seems to me her comment is a direct violation of her oath of office....the Constitution does not distinquish what percentage of the population has to be affected. Since she has been deliberating over this legislation for awhile, seems to me this is a premeditated comment and defacto breech of her oath too. Lastly, when a law is passed and a court is approached to interpret it, seems to me the law would be illegal on its face as it was drafted to limit someone’s inalianable right, by design.

[Cheerio]

If two or more persons conspire

In other words the transfer of any gun or ammo between two people. Since you cannot conduct a transfer with yourself I would interpret that to mean it covers every single transaction in America. All they have to prove is the "injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate" part.

Sounds pretty all encompassing to me.

[listenhillary]

You mean our "representatives" can't override the safety of all by banning guns and establishing gun free zones?

Sounds awesome to me! Did she fall on her head and common sense slipped in the crack?

[Major Matt Mason]

It isn't the "rights of a few", Ms. Feinstein, as most Americans have the right to own a firearm. No surprise that you're a DemocRat, though.

[paulist]

I couldn’t agree more. We can’t let the rights of a few (pregnant women) override the safety of all (unborn babies). We must put a stop to abortion! I’m behind you Senator Feinstein!

[jazusamo]

DiFi is an idiot but everyone here already knows that.

The Constitution was written to protect the rights of all of us as well as the rights of the few.

[FrankR]

"More like, we can’t allow the safety of a few to override the rights of all."

Isn't that what civil rights, women's right, gay rights, etc did exactly?

[Vince Ferrer]

That is not the America that our founding fathers envisioned.

Protecting minorities from the mob is exactly what the founders envisioned when forming a republic rather than a democracy. I wonder if she also would agree that the rights of racial minorities should not be considered against the safety of the majority. If that is her position, than an excellent case can be made to violate the rights of racial minorities in order to clean up the streets of Chicago. Yet I am sure she would be indignant at the thought.

The bill of rights exists to protect people from the arbitrary will of the mob.

Day after day these people prove how smart our founders really were.

[bluecat6]

The rights of a few.

‘Few’?

A right is a right. Whether it is excercised by all or not. In California gun owner may be a minority. In many other states they are the majority. In any case a right is a right.

The ‘few’ who do exercise this right are the ones that provide safety to those who do not.

There may only be a ‘few’ CCL carriers in a shopping mall. But these few provide safety for all those there. Just look at Portland recently.

Her statement is reckless and dangerous.

[Servant of the Cross]

Hey DiFi! Remember this?

Upon taking office, senators-elect must swear or affirm that they will "support and defend the Constitution." The president of the Senate or a surrogate administers the oath to newly elected or re-elected senators. The oath is required by the Constitution; the wording is prescribed by law.

[littleharbour]

“Put simply, we cannot allow the rights of a few to override the safety of all.”

Sure. And while you’re at it, let’s do away with that pesky “presumption of innocence”. We all know that they’re guilty any way.

And how about that “unreasonable search and seizure” clause? If you have nothing to hide, why should you mind the government arriving at your house unannounced and without a warrant?

Free speech? Can’t have the rights of a few overriding the rights of muslims not to be offended.

Freedom of religion? Only if it’s not a “hateful” religion that offends others.

The right to life? Well we’ve already taken it away from the unborn, so why not remove it for infants, the disabled and elderly as well? After all, we can’t “impose” a “burden” on people.

Habeus corpus? It’s ok for some people, but not for those who allegedly make a video to “insult Islam” thereby triggering a “spontaneous riot” in Benghazi and excusing the President’s decision to leave Americans to their death.

[Noumenon]

So, if we roundup all of the dems and RINO politicians in the morning and hang them before lunch, it would be just fine. Heck, I know that I would feel much safer. Let’s schedule this for next Monday and make a 3 day weekend out of it.

This works for me. I want the cigar and single malt concessions, though.

[wmap]

It is a universal right not exercised by everyone.

[Obadiah]

Fascist Leftists

[andy58-in-nh]

"We can't allow the rights of a few to override the safety of all".

[b4its2late]

You’re being way to kind in referring to her as just an idiot.

[Cheerio]

If I understand the strategy, clown and his operatives in RAT Senate are going to use mob rule to enact these new “policies” - another campaign for the low information voters to swamp the Capitol switchboard with. The GOP will again cower under their desk.

I am not sure this is what the Founders had in mind for amending the 2nd Amendment. /s