Senator Dianne Feinstein: Continues Crusade Against Firearms and 2nd Amendment

US Senator Dianne Feinstein, the infamous member of Congress whose unrelenting crusade against the Second Amendment and firearms, sponsoring the Federal assault weapon and magazine ban between 1994 and 2004 (and still has a seat in Congress) is now asking President Obama to have the BATFE to reinterpret a provision of the Gun Control Act of 1968 to prohibit the importation of various semi-auto firearms and their parts. Daily Caller reported that “at a minimum” Feinstein wants the BATFE to:

prohibit importation of all semiautomatic rifles that can accept, or be readily converted to accept, a large capacity ammunition magazine of more than 10 rounds . . . . prohibit semiautomatic rifles with fixed magazines with a capacity of more than 10 rounds, prohibit the importation of the frame or receiver of any prohibited rifle . . . . prohibit the practice of importing assault rifles in parts …prohibit the use of a "thumbhole" stock . . . . and prohibit the importation of assault pistols.

If the bill she sponsored had passed last year it would have been the biggest ban in American history. As long as she hold office in Congress she will never give up, despite angrily telling a committee that she was not a child and understood what is in the US Constitution. So, if she “understands” constitutional law, then she committed perjury when she gave her oath when taking office. Typically of progressive-liberal socialists, she interprets what she thinks the constitutional law is – and damn anyone who corrects her or does follow the articles of that constitutional law. Actually a child would probably understand it better than she.

Feinstein wants only this person to have firearms

In that letter to Obama, Feinstein once again showed that she does not understand what is going on because she insists that it requires the Attorney General to approve the importation of firearms meeting either standard by using Gun Control Act, 18 USC 925(d)(3) to make her point. Problem is that it does not hold up to what she perceives of it.

In one breath she is complaining about the CIA spying on the Intelligence Committee of which she is a member, and in another breath she is insisting that Obama (as he has before) abuse his power of authority and defy limited powers of the Constitution.

If Senator Feinstein is so literate with articles of the Constitution and its amendments, she should know that the US Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller, 2008, ruled that the Second Amendment protects the individual the right to keep and bear arms for defensive purposes, not merely for sports.

Shame on citizens of her state if they let this person continue her career, and indeed it is a career, in Congress any longer than this year's congressional elections. Being the hypocrite that progressives are, when she was the mayor of San Francisco, she stated she was deeply committed to proposing a ban of private ownership of handguns in that city as she carried one on her person “for protection”. What Feinstein and others like her think and say is that the elite can protect themselves but the rest of the population cannot. In 1993, she called semiautomatic firearms weapons of mass destruction, despite admitting that those firearms are rarely used in crime. In her train of thought, any firearm that looks scary to her should be banned.

Violent crimes had been decreasing and continued to decrease as Feinstein continued her crusade against the Second Amendment. The US murder rate is now almost an all-time-low, despite the horrific incidents of mass shootings that the media covers extensively. and more Americans own more firearms than ever before; which the media will not report or do they report the many times in 24 hours when someone across the country uses a firearm to defend and prevent death and injury.

Meanwhile from other sources, the crusade against firearms continues, where they are claiming that there are more suicides committed with firearms than in killing bad guys. Truth or not, they are bent upon creating a totalitarian welfare state, and as tyrants always do, take means to defence from the citizens. Has not any nation, especially US, not learned from tyrants like Hitler, Stalin, and Mao?

In January of 2014, Feinstein in her crusade against firearms, she allegedly stated, published by blogs like Eagle Rising, which destroys its credibility:

All vets are mentally ill in some way and government should prevent them from owning firearms.

This is untrue, according to FactCheck and Snopes, as well as in the YouTube segment of Senator Feinstein's response that follows - nothing close of what she allegedly stated:

However, it is true what was said about her and her progressive socialist partners in California: [Burt Prelutsky - 2009]

Frankly, I don't know what it is about California, but we seem to have a strange urge to elect really obnoxious women to high office. … There's no getting around the fact that the last time anyone saw the likes of Barbara Boxer, Dianne Feinstein, Maxine Waters, and Nancy Pelosi, they were stirring a cauldron when the curtain went up on 'Macbeth'.

Here is the video when she gets angry at Ted Cruz when he addresses what is in the Second Amendment, against what her crusade is about:

Notice that her counterpart in committee defended Senator Feinstein, quoting from the Heller case – but did not realize that the US Supreme Court ruled the opposite of what both presented.

Feinstein holding AR15 semi-auto

Senator Feinstein and all those with her mentality: She has openly stated that citizens should not have handguns, whether revolvers or semi-auto, when she was governor of California. She insists that AR15s, and weapons like them are “weapons of war” - they are not because they are semi-automatic. “Weapons of war” are already banned from being privately owned, to a degree that the following weapons must have a federally approved/permission to own and are strictly guarded: automatic weapons like submachineguns and machine guns; mortars, artillery or any device that fires an exploding projectile; explosive devices of any type; and so-called silencers that are actually suppressors. Citizens consider this reasonable within Second Amendment rights; but that is not good enough for totalitarian politicians who want control of citizens. The best ways to control citizens is to control the educational system, monetary system, and firearms from the hands of law-abiding citizens. Compromise has been established where citizens who wish to carry firearms (concealed or open) must have a carrying permit, which affords law enforcement agencies to ensure that the person has no mental problems or are not criminals or those who have committed a crime; all in the form of background checks. 

That background system is broken, otherwise Adam Lanza in the Connecticut school shooting would never have had access to firearms kept by and registered by his mother – who paid for that mistake with her life. She was aware of her son's mental problems (and so was the estranged father) and did not perform proper parental discipline by keeping track of what he was up to after what was revealed on Adam's computer when that information was released recently by the FBI. But still, Connecticut now joins the few states left who punish law-abiding citizens for the actions of a minority criminal and insane element of our society. That and other actions like it has NEVER stopped violent crimes or even reduced them, a statistical and historical fact; yet these people insist upon those excuses to counter the Second Amendment at every turn and every possible means they can contrive.

Progressives is a good description of these people because they are progressively taking away rights and liberties of all categories right before the eyes of its citizens. 

 

2nd Amendment Firearms: 1776 and Now