A Marine Tells it to Sen. Feinstein
Shortly after the Sandy Hook shootings, Sen. Diane Feinstein proposed a new version of the 1994 assault weapons ban to be introduced at the beginning of this new 2013 Senate session. The new bill requires universal gun registration, banning of ammo clips greater than 10 bullets for rifles and handguns, and banning rifles with “one or more military characteristics.” But her bill allows for “legitimate hunters.”
What is a “military” characteristic? Being able to march on a parade field with it, holding the gun stock? What is a “legitimate” hunter? Food markets are found in all fifty states, so who needs to hunt for food, anyway? And we haven’t even gotten to see the fine print of a bill authored by the same political party that gave us ObamaCare’s thousands of pages — an over one million word monstrosity. The fact is these two benign sounding terms, and the ambiguous term “assault rifle” are really vague weasel words to placate the gullible. But most gun owners are not gullible when it comes to new gun legislation introduced by Sen. Feinstein, a politician with a long public record of being very much against gun rights.
In 1995, Diane Feinstein created quite a furor as she stood at a microphone to say she wished she had the votes in the U.S. Senate for a total confiscation of every gun in America. That same year, Feinstein admitted at a Senate hearing that she had a concealed carry permit to protect herself from “The New World Liberation Front” which had shot out her windows and placed a bomb (which didn’t detonate) at her home. Despite what seems to be a hypocritical contradiction, there is no conflict in Sen. Feinstein’s thinking. She is strongly in favor of herself being well armed for self-protection. The rest of us, well, not so much. The rest of us can wait for the police to arrive. Or the ambulance. Or the hearse.
[readon2 url=”http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2013/01/a_marine_tells_it_to_sen_feinstein.html”]Read the rest at American Thinker[/readon2]