Here’s what she’s talking about:
Simulated Automatic Fire AR-15 – The Slide Fire SSAR-15
http://www.gunsamerica.com/blog/slide-fire-solutions-ssar-15-bump-fire-device-ar-15/
Did she get up there and cry and wring her hands about the ‘devastation’ she saw as a SF Supervisor when the whole Harvey Milk thing happened? Oh the carnage, the disaster....with the ‘assault’.....er, uh, REVOLVER used.
It just might be that Americans love freedom from both internal and external governments. Maybe she ought to look in a mirror and ask herself if it’s right for her to tell people what to do just because she thinks it’s right. There are pro’s and con’s to every issue, but what is right for one person is not right for another. America is about people having a choice, not government rule in all aspects of life. Current intrusions into our private lives are at a level I never would have imagined 50 years ago when books like 1984 and Brave New World represented the future we feared, not one we embraced.
Really? In Viet Nam, Carlos Hathcock had more kills with a Winchester 70 .30-06 rifle than any grunt did with a M-16 during the entire war. This is the exact same rifle millions of hunters used to hunt deer with for decades. Feinstein doesn't have a clue what she's talking about.
It’s like listening to your aunt talk about the 3-4 defense. In the end she hasn’t got a clue.
Hey Di Fi! Dead is dead!
Conceding the notion that there is such a thing as an “assault weapon” available to the consumer (as opposed to a “weapon” that can never be used to assault anyone — a nerf bat?), can we then imagine that some speech protected by the first amendment can be termed “assault speech,” like, say, proposals to usurp the second amendment, and thus should be “REGISTERED”—??
Did Feinstein get her license before proposing all this muck?
And where do I get my license to prevent troops from living in my house with me?
After the weapons, "I don't know why anyone would object to a tracking device being implanted so we could locate them if they got lost". Then, "I don't know why anyone would object to being relocated.......etc."
We need the same weapons the state needs. During the cold war we used a strategy called MAD. It kept the Soviets from taking away our rights.
It has always been about handguns. Assault rifles are just a decoy to try and get their anti-gun foot in the door.
Once they get a ban on AWs then they will use the same reasons to go after handguns.
John Kennedy killed with a 5 shot bolt action rifle.
Charles Whitman, killed 14, wounded 32 others mostly with a bolt action 6mm hunting rifle. Also used a shotgun and an m1 carbine.
Medgar Evers, shot with a 5 shot 1917 bolt action Enfield rifle.
Martin Luther King, shot with a 4 shot Remington 760 pump action Gamemaster rifle.
Bobby Kennedy with a .22 Iver Johnson Cadet revolver.
George Wallace wounded with a 5 shot Charter Arms .38spl revolver.
Howard Johnsons shooter killed nine, wounded thirteen with a 4 shot RUGER .44 mag Deerslayer rifle.
Gerald Ford attacked with a 7 shot 1911 semi auto.
Edmond OK post office with two National Guard 7 shot 1911 pistols.
Ronald Reagan and Jim Brady with an RG-14 .22 revolver.
What do they all have in common? NONE over 7 rounds, yet after each one came a cry of panic to ban all of them.
The latest incidents have smoked the antis out of their holes and we now see their real agenda is a TOTAL BAN on firearms.
In 1968, Americans, who were mostly hunters at that time, were blindsided by the 1968 Gun Control Act.
Today, most Americans are recreational shooters and are HOPPING MAD! They will not go softly into that good night.
Liberals truly believe that the government should have an absolute monopoly on power because they believe that the government will always bee good and that power will only be used against “bad” people.
And those lethal unique features would be drive-by: (1) bayonetings, (2) rifle grenadings, (3) pistol grippings, (4) flash suppressorings, and (5) high cap magazine batterings.
OK, that must be it. Right?
(Sound of crickets chirping.)