Feinstein: 'Gun owners and gun people' have a 'hammerlock' on Congress

The Hill ^

[tumblindice]

He was talking about a S&W .38 police special.
Democrat actors and writers don’t mind making a living slinging guns around, but they have to carry around a commensurate amount of liberal guilt as well.
It helps them to assuage that guilt if they point out that the gun (having no safety at all) is ‘safe’ and if they campaign every chance they get against the 2nd amendment.

[DPMD]

Is Feinstein, with her personal firearms collection and fleet of armed bodyguards, a member of the “gun people”?

[Doug Loss]

Well...wikipedia. As I said, they’re all after-the-fact estimates. At any rate, they weren’t near 100 KT.

[Kip Russell]

At any rate, they weren’t near 100 KT.

Quite so. For the first 5 years, all atomic bombs had a maximum yield of 30 KT or so. The first atomic bomb produced in large number was the Mark IV (550 produced) which had a yield of anywhere from 1 to 31 KT, depending upon the exact sub-model.

[William Tell]

Doug Loss said: "Point of fact:"

I got lazy. I learned years ago to "when in doubt, look it up". There's always somebody on FR who knows.

Thanks.

[depressed in 06]

What, gun people haven’t succumbed to Communist propaganda?

[saintgermaine]

And she and her husband have a hammerlock on corruption.

[Chgogal]

It’s time to quote a great American philosopher, Si Robertson, “More Sin Control, Less Gun Control.”

[Wurlitzer]

Get serious! It is impossible to debate someone who claims our government would use nukes against us.

The arms in the 2nd amendment were NOT defined for a damned good reason and that is the 2nd was our protection against our government not deer hunting. Thomas Jefferson was quite clear on this.

The way our constitution was designed was to FORBID the government from doing anything unless We The People assigned one or more of OUR creator given rights to the government and nowhere in the Constitution can any honest person (leaves out all lawyers and liberals) locate anything which allows the government to define what arms we are entitled to own.

Anything less than what the government would use against us renders us defenseless, hence the need for the founders to include the phrase “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED”

[Some Fat Guy in L.A.]

So she’s giving up her armed guards in protest, right?

[William Tell]

Wurlitzer said: "It is impossible to debate someone who claims our government would use nukes against us."

What will a government that is run by communists who must appease their starving constituencies do when the productive refuse to contribute and threaten to leave the union? Just let them leave?

Do you really believe that you won't be killed, by whatever means are necessary, to coerce others into continuing to pay? Where do you think we are heading? What can stop the nation from going over the cliff?

Seventeen trillion dollars have been spent that has not been earned. Perhaps another 100 or 200 trillion have been promised which cannot be delivered.

A day is coming soon when other nations will have less reason to buy our goods. The present course is entirely unsustainable.

When the day comes, the starving masses won't say, "The government is using nukes on us". They will say, "The government is using nukes on THEM".

If you are convinced that the government will not use nukes on us, please tell me what other weapon systems we can be sure will not be used? Any at all?