Feinstein lets the cat out of the bag: Progressives want to take away ALL semi-automatic firearms - Granite Grok

Feinstein lets the cat out of the bag: Progressives want to take away ALL semi-automatic firearms

I spent this afternoon at a gathering of good friends where the purpose was to get out of the house, have a chance to yak, consume some good comestibles – and shoot guns!  Handguns, long guns; small calibers and larger ones (not quite .50 cal, but long range); semiautomatics, revolvers, and bolt action.  I’ve shot steel before, but only at short range and indoors so having the ability to shoot multiple 8″X5″ steel plates with both my Sig P220 and Colt AR in .223 was a lot of fun.  In fact, this was only the second time I’ve shot outdoors and beyond an indoor range’s limitation – and it was a blast.  Still have to adjust the sights on P220 as it shoots left and low (or is it my right hand trigger motion while left eye dominant?) but what a thrill to finally be able to try the new Vertex red/green dot with a 3X magnifier on the AR and see if I measured up to the capability of the system.  Am happy to report that just after a few rounds downrange to “figure it out” a bit, that to hit that same size steel plate 5 out of 6 shots out at about 170 yards put a smile on my face!  Next time, I’ll put the iron sights back on and try to duplicate it (and yeah, just like with those who customize cars and trick out their PCs, the AR is the same type of platform for gun folks to do set ups the way they want without having to be a gunsmith).  It was a delight to “compete against myself” in trying to better my skills – and the freedom to do so as a law abiding citizen.

So after having a great day with my semiautomatic modern sporting rifle and handgun, when I heard US Senator Diane Feinstein, once again on today’s Fox News Sunday, tell me that “I don’t need that” simply because she can’t trust me with it, I get ticked:

 Yes, I get tired of these coastal Progressive elites having the temerity that they “know” what is best for me and what my needs are.  I also get mad when they torture the simple language of the Constitution when they say “my need” is only for hunting and self-defense and totally disregard what the Founders actually believe it is for (or worse, believe that human nature has “progressed” past the Founders concerns in just the past 200 odd years).  Here is the transcript (emphasis mine):

WALLACE: All right. We have a couple of minutes left, and I want to ask you a question and Congressman King a question.

Senator, reaction to the Boston bombings has spilled into other issues, including gun control. There are some conservatives who say — some conservatives who say that, when a million people in Boston were forced to stay in their homes, that a lot of those people — particularly in Watertown where they were going door to door and there was a real concern that this fellow might be on the loose, might break into their house, might take hostages — would people like to have guns?

FEINSTEIN: Oh, some may have, yes. But if where you’re going is do they need an assault weapon? I don’t think so. As the vice president said —

WALLACE: Shouldn’t they have the right to decide whatever weapon they feel they need to protect themselves?

FEINSTEIN: Well, how about a machine gun then? We did away with machine guns because of how they’re used. I think we should do away with assault weapons because of how they’re used.

If we are law abiding citizens, with no unlawful record or a history of mental illness, why shouldn’t we be allowed to have the weapons we want in terms and with respect of American Jurisprudence that holds we are innocent before proven guilty.    BY DEFINITION, we understand the ramifications of their illegal or careless use, yet folks like Feinstein and Cuomo and Malloy decide to condemn the general public for the actions of a few.  And if it really was a case “of how they’re used“, why are murders by the politically named (and that’s all “assault weapon” is – a politically created monniker that makes no sense when speaking of actual firearms and their capabilities) outnumbered by bats, clubs, and knifes and FAR out number by handguns?

And she is dead wrong about machine guns – if you have the money and are willing to go through an extensive background check, you CAN buy a machine gun – and being a long term US Senator who has been against people having guns with a greater capacity than a single shot .22 rifle or handgun, she knows better.  The only thing to conclude is that she just lies about it.  Now, do *I* want a machine gun?  I might – but when you count how fast you send dollars rounds downrange with a fully automatic weapon, I put it in the same category for me as a red twin-turbo Lambo – I can’t afford the ammo and I couldn’t afford the speeding tickets.

But what’s worse is how she quickly skips over Wallace’s question about semi-automatics (one trigger pull – one bullet fired as opposed to one trigger pull – empty the mag with fully automatics):

WALLACE: Semiautomatics, that’s the most popular rifle in America.

FEINSTEIN: And you could use a 12-gauge shotgun and have a good defensive effect. And there’s the element of surprise.

Now, you’ve got police all over the place in Watertown, so I don’t really think that this is applicable. I think there are people that want to make this argument, but 12-gauge shotgun, there are many weapons, 2,000-plus weapons that are available to people for choice without an assault weapon.

She makes it clear that if it were up to her, all semi-automatic handguns and rifles would be confiscated:

If you can’t sell it, you can’t give it, can’t will it, and that the govt will destroy it upon your death, that is confiscation (albeit, in slow motion).

  • Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., said that she and other gun control advocates are considering a law that would create a program to purchase weapons from gun owners, a proposal that could be compulsory.
  • Dianne Feinstein in 1995 made clear that if she could have gotten the votes to confiscate the ‘assault weapons’ she was banning, then she absolutely would have done so.

So anytime she, or any of her ilk open their yaps about gun control, their lying lips are lying.  Each step is merely a step to their end – and Feinstein has reminded of this over and over again during these last few months.  Even with the stunning defeat of her renewed assault weapon ban (renewed with steroids) amendment to the defeated gun control bill, she shows that her dream of a gunless Utopia  – remove the guns and we become a Kumbaya heaven on earth overnight.

Except for those pesky criminals who, darn it, just won’t listen to ME!  You know, like these two:

CAMBRIDGE, Mass. (AP) — A Massachusetts police official say the brothers suspected of bombing the Boston Marathon before having shootouts with authorities didn’t have gun permits.

Cambridge Police Commissioner Robert Haas tells The Associated Press in an interview Sunday that neither Tamerlan Tsarnaev (tsahr-NEYE’-ehv) nor his brother Dzhokhar had permission to carry firearms.

Imagine that – criminals that refused to follow the laws and register themselves and their guns.  OK, US Senator Diane Feinstein – what are you going to say about Muslim terrorists that are going to have guns regardless of what you want?  How is taking them away from us going to take them away from them when their view of our laws is flagrant at the very least?

(H/T: The Corner)

>