Skip to content

Feinstein’s Gun Grab and The Problem Isn’t Guns …

February 7, 2013

What no one is telling us about Feinstein’s gun legislation – Part 1

By on Feb 07, 2013  @ Conservative Daily News

Sen. Dianne Feinstein has been on a mission since the original Clinton gun ban failed to meet her expectations – the complete and total revocation of the second amendment rights for any and all private persons.

Right after the Sandy Hook tragedy, she was able to pull out an all-encompassing piece of gun legislation that went much further than Clinton dared while using the murder of innocents to affect her political agenda. The question everyone should be asking is – what’s in it? (and no, we shouldn’t wait until they pass it to ask – we know what happens when they do that.)

The intermediate goal of the bill is apparent in section 1: ‘This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Assault Weapons Ban of 2013’’’ – the long term goal is up to the reader to discern. The question is what do they intend next?

The way that Congress tries to bury the details is by only showing the amendments to existing U.S. code and/or bills, amendments and laws. We’ll spend the time to show you the existing codified law referenced in the Senators’ bill so you can best judge what the changes mean. Otherwise, the bill seems harmless…

READ MORE HERE

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Guns are not the problem …

gabrielle-giffords-shooter-mug-shot-i9lanza-adam-ap-breitbart-com

th

About these ads
5 Comments leave one →
  1. bill permalink
    February 7, 2013 3:10 pm

    The purpose of the Second Amendment is to arm people in order to prevent future tyranny. They need the tools to do this.

    The term “Well Regulated” in the Second Amendment meant “Well Manned and Equipped ” in 1791 as was determined in the 1939 United States v. Miller case after referencing the autobiography of Benjamin Franklin. The concept of Government Regulation, as we understand it today, did not exist at the time.

    United States v. Miller also determined that the term “Arms” refers to “Ordinary Military Weapons” (not crew operated). American Citizens have the right to Keep and Bear, which means Own and Carry, any weapons that a soldier carries into battle. That includes past, present and future weapons. A Militia consisted of armed volunteers willing to fight with their personal arms and not under government control.

    The 2008 Heller v. Washington DC decision reaffirmed that the Right to Bear Arms was an Individual right. The 2010 McDonald v. Chicago decision reaffirmed it yet again and made it clear that it applies to every state, every city and every town in the United States.

    To limit the Second Amendment to muskets would be the equivalent of limiting the First Amendment to the 18th century Printing Press.

    Liberty is worth the risk of death!

  2. February 7, 2013 3:42 pm

    Feinstein is a hypocritical, cold-blooded b! I don’t know if she still does, but she did have a C & C license and carried the weapon wherever she went. At one time she said that if someone tries to take her down she will take out that person first. The video is on YouTube as well as on my Twitter. I think it’s also on my blog.
    Speaking of blogging–I recently was accused, by another blogger, of “scraping” and/or blogging illegally because I copy and paste articles I feel are pertinent to the time. It is how I spread the “word,” more or less. When I do this, I copy the post verbatim and which always includes the direct link to the website, the name of the blog, the author, and I am set up to ping the blogger when I do the reblogging. Now, the problem is that she is threatening me and is determined, by her tone, to shut me down. When I first opened my blog, I did a lot of research to get the rules and regulation of copy and paste, and according to the major bloggers, for instance WND.com and others, I was told me that it was not illegal although it would be “nice” if I credited the byline. Since I credit everything, I believed I was covered.
    Steve, plagiarism is abhorrent to me, and I make every effort not to, even accidentally. This woman, if I understand her, is not accusing me of plagiarism but of copyright infringement. Frankly, I do not know the difference. To compound the issue, this person’s post was filled with a lack of citations for quotes she published, and that’s something I could never do. I don’t understand how she is thinking. She has basically demanded I print only a synopsis of the post, along with the link back to her site, and then to notify her when I’ve done it.
    It seems to me that whether I reblog a paragraph, or the entire piece is relatively the same thing. I thought the point was to give full accreditation where it is due and that’s the end of it. Now, I feel like a child in the principal’s office. What do you think, and do you know of any WordPress rules that support her tedious and disturbing claims/threats?
    J/duckyack

    • February 7, 2013 5:02 pm

      Apparently someone who doesn’t like you is trying to intimidate you. If the person is not the author of anything you are using, don’t sweat it. I at times will post something like you do giving links and credit to the author and I’ve never had a problem, though I usually try to write most of my own stuff most of the time. Sometimes I will comment to the author first letting them know I’m going to use their stuff if it’s something I really like and then proceed with posting it here and I’ve never had a problem. One of my posts was featured at the Post & Email a while back and the Canada Free Press picked it up too. (Stevex09)
      You could make a statement concerning “fair use” to let everyone know how you operate your blog. Check out some blogs on my side bar. Some will have a “fair use” statement and you can use their wording.
      http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=AtupXEmNBk5kzdP6zBL0xgmbvZx4?fr=yfp-t-701-1-s&toggle=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF-8&p=fair%20use%20guidelines

    • February 7, 2013 5:33 pm

      Thanks so much, Steve. As to someone who doesn’t like me and is trying to intimidate me, I think you have something there. I’m such a Nellie that initially I want to crawl under the covers when something like this happens. The opposite of that side is more like a demon, which comes out when I haven’t done anything wrong but still accused. I have never had a problem before, either, and in the beginning I did a lot of research on accreditation, etc. Every professional blogger, including some news cites, told me what I wanted to do was fine. The only thing anyone has asked me to do is to give the author’s byline. I would do that anyway, and it really disturbs me that this woman is behaving this way. By the way, kudos to you regarding your piece being published! That’s quite an accolade. Early on, I did write a post on the way my blog is set up, notifying folks that unless it comes under MY TWO SENSE, the focus article belongs to the post’s author.
      Thanks for the link and thank you again. I hope you and yours are well! I’ll update on further exciting drama.
      Judith

  3. February 7, 2013 10:36 pm

    Dear DuckYak:

    Maybe you can find something helpful in the following information:

    https://www.eff.org/issues/bloggers/legal

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 445 other followers

%d bloggers like this: