Colt Forum banner
Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 20 of 30 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,839 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
This infuriates me:


Quote of the day by Dianne Feinstein..........
Dianne Feinstein: "All vets are mentally ill in some way and government should prevent them from owning firearms." Yep, - she really said it on Thursday in a meeting in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee...and the quote below from the LA Times is priceless. Sometimes even the
L.A. Times gets it right. Kurt Nimmo: "Senator Feinstein insults all U.S. Veterans as she flays about in a vain attempt to save her anti-firearms bill.
This Senator needs to be held accountable for her bias and ignorance with regards to our US Military veterans. I have requested that my Senators and Congresswoman invite me to a full session of Congress and publicly respond to Senator Feinstein's mistaken statement. I assured them it would be brief and professional; and would not be a personal attack. I feel strongly enough to request an invitation to address the full Senate (and the House) on this matter. I believe it to be one of my Constitutional Rights to petition the government.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,039 Posts
You really have to wonder how this woman ever got elected to anything in the first place. Are the people in California actually that clueless?
because she's a liberal in lala land and yes apparently a majority of the voters are clueless given her continued reelections. :bang_wall:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
168 Posts
Early in her career in San Francisco, she saw Harvey Milk get his brains blown out.....ever since then she's been on the anti gun bandwagon. So, by her own definition, she's nuts too?...lol
Yet interestingly she holds a CA CCW, I'm not sure if it is still this way but years ago there were only two permits issued I San Fran, she was one of them.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
737 Posts
And how many Army,Navy, Marine Corp,and Air Force bases are located in CA?Well it surely doesn't matter 'cause everyone knows what a huge surplus of funds that state has in reserve[NOT!!!] Nick
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
7,709 Posts
.......... I take offense to the majority of California voters that put her in office, repeatedly.
I have to ask this question: WHO in their right mind would vote Feinstein into office once, much less repeatedly? Same goes for her bosom buddy Pelosi, who we all know is off her rocker. The good news? Feinstein is 80 and maybe the good people of California will help her toddle off to a nursing home after declaring her incompetent to hold office.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,839 Posts
Discussion Starter · #19 ·
I stand corrected...partly. Here is what Snope.com has to say on the issue:

Origins: A subject of discussion during a U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee meeting on 7 March 2013 was an amendment offered by Texas senator John Cornyn which sought to modify the Assault Weapons Ban of 2013 legislation proposed by California senator Dianne Feinstein by allowing an exemption for former military personnel (in addition to an exemption for retired law enforcement personnel which was already part of the bill). Senator Cornyn objected to the notion that the original bill should provide an exemption for retired law enforcement but not for retired military, saying (in part): Members and veterans of the Armed Forces are the most highly-trained and qualified individuals to own these weapons for self-defense purposes. We should think long and hard before disarming these heroes, preventing them from protecting their families and communities.

Is it because we believe [retired police] have some special competency and training to use these weapons to defend themselves and others, or do we think their families are worthy of special protection?

If you don't believe these weapons can be used lawfully for self-defense, then you should be offering an amendment to strike the pass for law enforcement. But of course, I don’t expect that.
In response, Senator Feinstein stated neither that "all vets are mentally ill" nor that "the government should prevent [veterans] from owning firearms"; that claim is a highly exaggerated paraphrase of her remarks. What Feinstein did do was express her opinion that creating an exemption in an assault weapons ban (not a general firearms ban) for retired military personnel might was inadvisable due to both the prevalence of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) among that group and the difficulty of verifying that a potential gun purchaser was in fact a veteran, and that the proposed amendment should therefore include a provision for screening out "mentally incapacitated" veterans: If I understand this, this [amendment] adds an exemption of retired military. As I understand our bill, no issue has arose [sic] in this regard during the 10 years the expired ban was in effect and what we did in the other bill was exempt possession by the United States or a department or agency of the United States. So that included active military. The problem with expanding this is that, you know, with the advent of PTSD, which I think is a new phenomenon as a product of the Iraq War, it’s not clear how the seller or transferrer of a firearm covered by this bill would verify that an individual was a member, or a veteran, and that there was no impairment of that individual with respect to having a weapon like this. So, you know, I would be happy to sit down with you again and see if we could work something out but I think we have to — if you’re going to do this, find a way that veterans who are incapacitated for one reason or another mentally don’t have access to this kind of weapon.
 
1 - 20 of 30 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top