Diane Feinstien is a whacko.

Fusion pimp · Post by **Fusion pimp** » Fri Apr 23, 2004 1:58 pm

I wrote her a letter urging her to not support a re-newing of the assault weapons ban(sunsets in Sept) since they promised that if it didn't reduce crime(1994) they'd let it die out. Well, typical liars, she's not only trying to extend the ban, she's trying to add to it.
I received a generic response e-mail from her full of nothing but lies.

A couple:

"Semi-automatic assault weapons which fire up to 250 rounds of ammunition within seconds and without warning are weapons of war that do not belong on the streets of our communities."

"Military-Sniper Weapons - Senator Feinstein sponsored legislation to curb the sales of .50 caliber military sniper rifles in order to make it more difficult for terrorists, drug-traffickers and other criminals from obtaining these deadly weapons, which can pierce concrete from four miles away."

the scary thing is, people that don't know take it as truth. I asked her to provide a single case of a criminal using a .50 at 1/4 of its effective range.

Pierce concrete 4 miles away?

The truth is, the ban isn't about crime, it's about furthering her own agenda. She's publically stated that her eventual goal is a total weapons ban.

people need to wake-up.

B-

Darkside Heartless · Post by **Darkside Heartless** » Fri Apr 23, 2004 2:20 pm

Totally ban weapons who will have them I ask? Nobody but the criminals. I don't think they care about a weapons ban when they've already broken laws. I say gun registration, limiting access to larger machine guns and sniper rifles. With a total weapons ban, a robber walks into a bank, he owns the place, with only gun registration, there could customers with guns as well. I think the robber would be less likely to try to rob the place in the first place if he sees people walking around with licenced pistols. I think it would also make police work easier, plenty of back-up on scene already.
Besides I want a Grizzly .50 cal eventually.

Krom · Post by **Krom** » Fri Apr 23, 2004 2:31 pm

Never mind how much a precision .50 'sniper' rifle costs; criminals are unlikely to ever lay their hands on guns as expensive as those. And in addition, most armed hard criminals are using stolen handguns anyway.

IIRC that big sniper thing a while ago was a .22 right?

My .22 rifle is semi-auto, but 250 rounds of ammo within seconds? It only has a 17 round magazine on it!

Dedman · Post by **Dedman** » Fri Apr 23, 2004 3:00 pm

You are just now figuring this out?

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Fri Apr 23, 2004 6:25 pm

I thought the recently defeated bill to exclude firearm manufacturers from liability for mis-use of their product ( the one where Kerry et-al tried to tack on a number of unpalatable proviso's) was the same bill that would have extended the assault weapons ban. As such the ban will die quietly come Sept. No?

Kyouryuu · Post by **Kyouryuu** » Fri Apr 23, 2004 7:58 pm

I wouldn't say Feinstein is a wacko for this because I don't know enough about the issue...

... but I do know she is at the forefront of the special interest cash from the RIAA to arrest every last file swapper in this country.

Krom · Post by **Krom** » Fri Apr 23, 2004 8:04 pm

Really? From the sounds of it we have ourselves a 100% bona-fide political puppet here.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Fri Apr 23, 2004 8:55 pm

Isn't Feinstein the one that got deputised as a U.S. Marshall so she could "pack" anywhere in the U.S.?

Top Wop · Post by **Top Wop** » Sat Apr 24, 2004 11:02 am

Criminals are going to find guns one way or another and there isnt a law in the world that will prevent that.

Whats next? Baseball bats? Knives? Yea lets ban Swiss knives. They got so many blades and visious tools on them that they can actually kill 2 people! Mayby more!

Krom · Post by **Krom** » Sat Apr 24, 2004 11:21 am

Yeah, and next they will be telling us that all people have to have their arms and legs cut off, and their teeth removed, because you can punch, kick or bite someone so those are dangerous weapons that should be removed.

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Sat Apr 24, 2004 11:30 am

hmmm.. if i were you guys i'd be more worried about the dork who's trying to reinstate the draft.

Krom · Post by **Krom** » Sat Apr 24, 2004 11:34 am

I am.

Kyouryuu · Post by **Kyouryuu** » Sat Apr 24, 2004 1:10 pm

Ferno wrote:hmmm.. if i were you guys i'd be more worried about the dork who's trying to reinstate the draft.

Psst... that's a dirty little secret you aren't supposed to know about until after the election!

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Sat Apr 24, 2004 5:01 pm

Ferno wrote:hmmm.. if i were you guys i'd be more worried about the dork who's trying to reinstate the draft.

The "Dork" be your very own duly elected congress. And don't worry..a little military service might do ya good

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Sat Apr 24, 2004 5:10 pm

Anyone want to bet a hundred dollars there will be a re-instatement of the draft?
I could use your money

bash · Post by **bash** » Sat Apr 24, 2004 5:15 pm

Fear not, there's no way the Democrats will succeed in reinstating the draft. It's just a scare tactic.

Beowulf · Post by **Beowulf** » Sat Apr 24, 2004 5:55 pm

I've got a weapon attached to each shoulder...no outlawing these though. I've got a right to bare arms.

Kyouryuu · Post by **Kyouryuu** » Sat Apr 24, 2004 6:18 pm

...

Where is that o_0 emote when you really need it?

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Sat Apr 24, 2004 8:17 pm

Nice one Beo...now go away

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Sat Apr 24, 2004 8:46 pm

woody, here's the difference.. if i want to do service, i will sign up for it.

but the people are forced to join, think of what's gonna happen: they will do a craptacular job and end up putting the rest in jeapordy.

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Sat Apr 24, 2004 8:55 pm

That's why certain people want to reinstate the draft -- some have said they want to reinstate the draft in order to actually lower the efficiency of our army, so that the president (etc) would be forced to use more diplomatic means to resolve conflicts.

(I forget where I read that -- probably on opinionjournal.com )

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Sat Apr 24, 2004 9:04 pm

lothar that doesn't make any sense...

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Sat Apr 24, 2004 9:11 pm

Actually Ferno, with good leadership and mixed in with regular troops, draftee's will perform just fine. After all, once you are in the thick of things you have great incentive to fight well and, well...you do not want to let your new found buddies down either. Try it sometime

fliptw · Post by **fliptw** » Sat Apr 24, 2004 9:12 pm

It makes sense if the army is suddenly flooded with new recruits.

Same logic with large class sizes actually.

Remember, modern recruits needs to be taught more stuff than when the last draft was instated.

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Sat Apr 24, 2004 9:38 pm

wood, there's always the one draftee that will always try to not conform. and he will be a dicipline case. you really think the army's gonna spend time babysitting people who don't wanna be there? Let's ask someone who is in the military for that answer...

BTW, are you in the military woody?

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Sun Apr 25, 2004 8:08 am

Not now Ferno, but I did spend 3 years in the USMC back in the late 60's. You know...the last time we had a draft. Surprisingly even though many of us did not want to be there, most of us agreed every young man should spend at least sometime in the service...if only to get out of the home environments and see what the real world was like. The discipline didn't hurt either.

Beowulf · Post by **Beowulf** » Sun Apr 25, 2004 8:56 am

Military service should not be forced upon those who do not want it. Why should a person be forced to fight for ideals that he does not believe in? Or a war he doesn't agree with? Or for a president he does not support? The only motivation for fighting would be to not die...while that may be motivating, it certainly doesn't give a soldier a sense of purpose.

I agree that reinstating the draft would have plus sides. The lazy, ungrateful, undisciplined slobs of our country would get a crash course in how to act like real men, and our percentage of overweight and obese people would probably go down. It would make us healthier as a people. It would probably help us take less for granted. But still, sending some poor sap out to die when he doesn't want to be there in the first place....it's not right.

Kyouryuu · Post by **Kyouryuu** » Sun Apr 25, 2004 9:01 am

Beowulf wrote:undisciplined slobs of our country would get a crash course in how to act like real men

True, if you accept the notion that real "manliness" only comes from war and fighting and not, for example, being a good father, holding a steady job, helping the community, etc.

However, depends on how you read into "slobs." If you are referring to America as a whole, or just its "slobbish" actors, the latter of which the above argument does not apply.

Beowulf wrote:It would probably help us take less for granted.

True dat.

woodchip wrote:I did spend 3 years in the USMC back in the late 60's

And what did you do then? I'm not prodding for argument, I'm just really curious.

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Sun Apr 25, 2004 10:56 am

Ferno, I know it doesn't make sense -- that's part of what makes it so retarded.

Dedman · Post by **Dedman** » Sun Apr 25, 2004 12:58 pm

I fully support 2 years of compulsory service in our armed forces.

Remember Beo, soldiers do more than fight wars. They are always preparing for was, that is true. I spent 6 years in the Navy and never had to go fight a war. In times of natural disasters they can also be called upon to provide disaster relief.

The service has a tendency to build character and allows one to realize what their priorities should be.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Sun Apr 25, 2004 2:37 pm

Ky, after I got out I went to college and graduated from Mich. State with a degree in Zoology. Also spent a year working on a masters in Entomology. Eventually I wound up starting my own construction business. I might have made the marines a career as my drill instructor nominated me to go to Annapolis. Alas, I just had my 20th birthday about 2 months prior and they didn't want anyone older than 19. Such is life.

Kyouryuu · Post by **Kyouryuu** » Sun Apr 25, 2004 2:41 pm

From zoology to construction? That's an interesting leap.

Birdseye · Post by **Birdseye** » Sun Apr 25, 2004 2:58 pm

more examples of how both the democrats and republicans are bought-off sharks that are not serving you. Vote third party.

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Sun Apr 25, 2004 5:24 pm

*sigh*

I don't see how this shows anything about Republicans, since almost all of the lawmakers suggesting or talking about reinstating the draft are Democrats. Also, I don't see how voting third-party is better, unless you vote for a particular third party that opposes the draft (not all of them do.)

Bold Deceiver · Post by **Bold Deceiver** » Sun Apr 25, 2004 5:44 pm

Birdseye wrote:more examples of how both the democrats and republicans are bought-off sharks that are not serving you. Vote third party.

I urge all Democrats to heed the advice of Birdseye.

BD

kurupt · Post by **kurupt** » Sun Apr 25, 2004 6:29 pm

Ferno wrote:but the people are forced to join, think of what's gonna happen: they will do a craptacular job and end up putting the rest in jeapordy.

i beg to differ. not many people will act a fool with muslims trying to kill them.

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Sun Apr 25, 2004 6:31 pm

Birds, while i like that idea, isn't that how bush got in?

well one of the ways anyhow...

Bold Deceiver · Post by **Bold Deceiver** » Sun Apr 25, 2004 8:12 pm

Ferno wrote:Birds, while i like that idea, isn't that how bush got in?

well one of the ways anyhow...

Look Ferno. Either yer in or yer out, maaaaaaaaaaaan. Third Party is the way to be, if you're a Dem. It's the only way to make a statement, my man.

BD

Birdseye · Post by **Birdseye** » Mon Apr 26, 2004 5:02 am

Hey, if you enjoy voting for politicians controlled by corporate interests, it's your right BD. Others of us are upset with the political system, with jerkoffs like Feinstein and Bush, your choices in the 2 major parties are ★■◆● and ★■◆● however you slice it.

There are some people who think big business belongs in government. That's fine, free country and all...

I just wish they didn't stop selling beer at 2am.

Kyouryuu · Post by **Kyouryuu** » Mon Apr 26, 2004 8:50 am

Do you ever listen to speeches? Do you ever read the positions of candidates? Are you informed of their plans and propositions? Or do you just talk out of your oshiri and denounce anyone with "corporate influence"? I wonder.