Skip to comments.Feinstein: We cannot allow the rights of a few to override safety...
Posted on 01/25/2013 8:55:11 AM PST by kiryandilEdited on 01/25/2013 11:24:37 AM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
It will be an uphill battle--all the way. I know this.
But we need to ask ourselves:
Do we let the gun industry take over and dictate policy to this country? Do we let those who profit from increasing sales of these military style-weapons prevent us from taking commonsense steps to stop the carnage?
Or should we empower our elected representatives to vote their conscience based on their experience, based on their sense of right and wrong and based on their need to protect their schools, their malls, their workplaces and their businesses?
This legislation is my life's goal. As long as I am a member of the Senate, I will work night and day to pass this bill into law. No matter how long it takes, I will fight until assault weapons are taken off our streets.
Put simply, we cannot allow the rights of a few to override the safety of all. That is not the America that our founding fathers envisioned. And that is not the America I want my children and grandchildren to live in.
So I ask everyone watching at home: please get involved and stay involved.
The success or failure of this bill depends not on me, but on you. If the American people rise up and demand action from their elected officials, we will be victorious. If the American people say ``no'' to military-style assault weapons, we will rid our Nation of this scourge.
Please, talk to your senator and your member of Congress.
By Mr. FEINSTEIN (for herself,) Mr. BLUMENTHAL, Ms. AYOTTE, Mr. BENNET, Mr.
“We cannot allow the rights of a few to override safety.”
Nor can we allow the will of many to override the freedoms of many.
We go to war to provide freedom. Do we go to war to provide safety? Yes, and often that war is by exercising our freedoms! You cannot have safety without freedom! Don’t give up your rights to freedom or you will lose your safety.
Something wrong with the lib’s logic?
“Put simply, we cannot allow the rights of a few to override the safety of all. That is not the America that our founding fathers envisioned. And that is not the America I want my children and grandchildren to live in.”
I agree with him completely. We cannot allow the priviledged few who live behind gated communities with rent-a-cops or government security to override the rights of the average American to defend his or her family, home, and property. This is why we must push back against the feckless attempts to disarm the American people led by those who do not need these rights to protect their safety.
Remember — support the Second Amendment. It’s for the children.
Sarah for Senate 2014!
Senator Feinstein said the uote in question when she was introducing Senate Bill 150 (her Assualt Weapons Ban bill), not Senator Begich. If you go back one page, you will see that these are Feinstein’s remarks.
After Feinstein finished her remarks with “please, talk to your senator and your member of congress”, Begich began talking about his bill, the Mental Health First Aid Act of 2013.
“Put simply, we cannot allow the rights of a few to override the safety of all” was spoken by Feinstein, not Begich.
PRECISELY One-Hundred-and-Eighty-Degrees out-of-phase with the Founding Fathers:
Rationalized like a true tyrant....
Just substitute “auto industry” for “gun industry” and see if it makes any sense.
How many auto related deaths are there a year? 40,000? That’s the number that sticks in my head for some reason. In any case it’s a lot.
So why don’t we ban cars? Where’s the outrage?
I’m sure He feels the same way about the Homosexual agenda...
I do not like Begich one bit but this is not accurate. Those were remarks inserted in the record by Feinstein accompanying her bill. The part at the end of the page that says Begich was the introduction of a bill that is not related (a Red Cross bill). There are no subject matter breaks in the Congressional Record in the summary of legislation introduced each day.
This thread should be pulled because it is not accurate.
“Put simply, we cannot allow the rights of a few to override the safety of all was spoken by Feinstein, not Begich.”
Who said it doesn’t change my opinion. We cannot allow the rights of the few who don’t need the protections offered by the Second Amendment to override the safety of all by disarming citizens and leaving them vulnerable to assault.
When Feinstein, et. al. set the example by disarming first, and dismissing their armed security, I will *consider* the issue. (Just consider it.)
Breathtaking (in its simplistic idiocy). Rights of a few? We all have these rights, not just a few.
Our rights don't come from the government or a piece of paper (the Constitution), but governments are known for taking them away. Is that the kind of nation Mr. Begitch wants to live in? How would he squeal if we tried to take away his right to free speech but kept it for ourselves?
Liberalism is a mental disease.
Write to the mods. People post inflammatory half-truths here all the time and they do a lot of damage.
I wondered the same thing since it doesn’t show up at his site. Thanks for clarifying this.
The rights of a few? The Second Amendment applies to all U.S. citizens. It's Feinstein's proposed bill, with its exemptions for government officials, which grants rights to only a few.
Why not? At least they respond to the desires of the American people: unlike the Main Stream Media, the industry that CURRENTLY dictates policy to this country by way of spineless politicians.
Do we let those who profit from increasing sales of these military style-weapons prevent us from taking commonsense steps to stop the carnage?............................................. Do we stop all the American Citizens from doing as they damn please with their own money? Do we decide what each American can have or not have? Of course, we can, its called Govt. and he who controls Govt. decides!
check out post 11. I don’t think Begich said this.
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. Ben Franklin. February 1775.
So we're to think that gun manufactures are making the American public, by the hundreds of thousands, go out and buy these weapons?
Screw these people!
Write your congress-critter AND the members of the Judiciary committee and stop these bills in their tracks!
The gun grabber's legislative (National) bill compendium, updated (almost) daily:
H.R. 21: NRA Members' Gun Safety Act of 2013. Sponsor: Rep Moran, James P., Referred to the Judicary committee.
H.R. 34: Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2013. Sponsor: Rep Rush, Bobby L., Referred to the Judicary committee.
H.R. 117: Handgun Licensing and Registration Act of 2013. Sponsor: Rep Holt, Rush, Referred to the Judicary committee.
H.R. 137: Fix Gun Checks Act of 2013. Sponsor: Rep McCarthy, Carolyn, Referred to the Judicary committee.
H.R. 138: Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Device Act. Sponsor: Rep McCarthy, Carolyn, Referred to the Judicary committee.
H.R. 141: Gun Show Loophole Closing Act of 2013. Sponsor: Rep McCarthy, Carolyn, Referred to the Judicary committee.
H.R. 142: Stop Online Ammunition Sales Act of 2013. Sponsor: Rep McCarthy, Carolyn, Referred to the Judicary committee.
H.R. 226: Support Assault Firearms Elimination and Reduction for our Streets Act. Sponsor: Rep DeLauro, Rosa L., Referred to the Ways and Means committee.
H.R. 227: Buyback Our Safety Act. Sponsor: Rep Deutch, Theodore E., Referred to the Judicary committee.
H.R. 236: Crackdown on Deadbeat Gun Dealers Act of 2013. Sponsor: Rep Langevin, James R., Referred to the Judicary committee.
H.R. 238: Fire Sale Loophole Closing Act. Sponsor: Rep Meng, Grace, Referred to the Judicary committee.
H.R. 329: To amend the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007 to encourage States to provide records to the National Instant Background Check System.
H.R. 404: To enhance criminal penalties for straw purchasers of firearms.
S.22: A bill to establish background check procedures for gun shows.
S.33: A bill to prohibit the transfer or possession of large capacity ammunition feeding devices, and for other purposes.
S.34: A bill to increase public safety by permitting the Attorney General to deny the transfer of firearms or the issuance of firearms and explosives licenses to known or suspected dangerous terrorists.
S.35: A bill to require face to face purchases of ammunition, to require licensing of ammunition dealers, and to require reporting regarding bulk purchases of ammunition.
S.54: A bill to increase public safety by punishing and deterring firearms trafficking. ("trafficking = "private sales")
And an interesting side note:
H.R. 339: To require the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives to make video recordings of the examination and testing of firearms and ammunition, and for other purposes.
1) It's not the rights of a few. Everyone has the right to self defense. It is a perfect right derived from the natural moral duty and natural right of life.
2) Natural rights are God given and are absolute. The majority cannot violate them without penalty from God.
Or this one?
I sure hope this is an accurate statement from markie boy. He is up for re-election in 2 years and we need every bit of ammunition to bring this phony down. He never has won an election fairly. He was the patsie put in place by a fraudulent DOJ conviction of Ted Stevens. His election decided in a recount was the deciding 60th vote for obamacare. Who knows where the AK state republican party will come down on this or his buddy murkowski. AK politics are really screwed up.
It would be a terrible waste to put our most promising quarterback in as a lineman. I want to see that woman in the White House in 2016.
Hmmm... I wonder if Feinswein would allow
“the rights of a few” mentally disturbed individuals to walk freely amongst the citizenry “to override the safety of all”.
True. The comment itself is troubling.
My point was to correct the thread’s title. If the thread credited the quote to DiFi, then the thread would be fine. But, the thread erroneously attached Begich to the remark instead.
Accuracy is very important.
Who the bleep is Begich and why does he think he can collectivize the Constitution?
‘That is not the America that our founding fathers envisioned.’
Actually, the founding fathers are looking more and more prophetic with each passing day.
“Something wrong with the libs logic?”
That question doesn’t make any sense.
Flack is right...this thread is inaccurate and no link to assertion.
Should be pulled.
NOTE the anti-iife, anti-individual, anti-truth, anti-American treasonous domestic enemy. Thanks for alerting us, kiryandil.
I just received a response letter from Begich in which he said he would not support any gun control, what was needed was in the direction of mental Illness problems across America. He is AAA by NRA. He can win the 2014 election if he becomes a conservative Dem, but will lose to anybody the REpubs field if he votes for gun control. I think this statement from Begich is bogus.
...or that they are willfully ignoring the law (the US Constitution).
As a matter of fact that is exactly what the founding fathers had in mind when they wrote and ratified the Bill Of Rights.
The Bill of Rights delineates the individual rights of the Sovereign Citizen that the Federal Government is NOT empowered to violate.
If you want your children and grand children to live in a dictatorship or to live under tyranny I suggest that you take them to Zimbabwe with you and there renounce your citizenship.
And by the way in case you did not know the words on the Great Seal of the United States E Pluribus Unum literally means Of Many One which for the illiterate means that although the citizens of the United States are many each of us is an individual with individual rights; ours by right of birth given unto us by the Creator that can not be rescinded by government.
.... This legislation is my life’s goal.....
Your life is a failure by anyone’s standards.