Dianne Feinstein’s—and the Left’s—Cognitive Dissonance on Guns

pjmedia.com ^ | 9/2/2014 | Michael Walsho

[rktman]

".....Sen. Feinstein (“I have a deep belief that these weapons are antithetical to our values”) is one of the foremost proponents of the disarming of the American people — “gun control” — in Congress. The Left would rather see you die than have the ability to defend yourself. They fear the power of the citizenry more than they fear America’s enemies. What does that tell you about who they are? For how is the threat posed to America by ISIS anything other than a validation of the Second Amendment and your right to keep and bear arms?

[rktman]

Inverse liblogic is not logical or explainable.

[Georgia Girl 2]

“.....Sen. Feinstein (“I have a deep belief that these weapons are antithetical to our values”) “

Well I’m sure that’s true. Controlling a population from cradle to grave is a lot easier if they are unarmed.

[ek_hornbeck]

Unfortunately, the supposed "cognitive dissonance" of liberals over guns isn't born of ignorance or illogic from which they could be dissuaded. It's a hypocrisy that's (from their perspective) well thought through and entirely consistent.

The goal of the Left is not "a gun free America," no matter what their rhetoric may say. Their goal is an America where the general population is disarmed and only government goons have guns. The Left isn't interested in disarming any Federal agencies or police, and they don't seem to have any problem with private security agencies paid for by celebrities and the super-rich being armed to the teeth. "A gun free America" is their newspeak for "disarming ordinary, middle class American citizens." That's their goal, there's no cognitive dissonance about it whatsoever as soon as you see what's really behind the rhetoric.

[Iron Munro]

Now that Obama has declared the US constitution invalid.....

[longfellow]

Just thought of the funniest headline, Diane frankenfeinstein stabbed to death.

[rktman]

Why can’t they be honest about it and just say: “You peasants will NOT be allowed to have firearms.”. :>} We know why.

[.45 Long Colt]

You are right. CONTROL is the goal, not safety.

[MrB]

Oh, I’ll explain it.

Disregard all the “reasons” they give in the open,
and understand that they don’t want you to have the means to defend yourself...

FROM THEM.

[MrB]

Thank you for the longer explanation of what I meant in my simple post -

they don’t want you to be able to defend yourself FROM THEM.

[vette6387]

“Just thought of the funniest headline, Diane frankenfeinstein stabbed to death.”

Or

“Where is Dan White when we really need him.”

[realcleanguy]

Diane has a CC permit and armed body guards. However she doesn’t think the “little people” needs guns.

[Gay State Conservative]

Cognitive dissonance...as in “guns for me,but none for thee”

[Gay State Conservative]

“Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of citizens to keep and bear arms … The right of citizens to bear arms is just one guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard, against the tyranny which now appears remote in America but which historically has proven to be always possible.”

Hubert H. Humphrey

[Pining_4_TX]

What a hypocrite! Sen. Feinstein and her husband make big bucks from investing in defense stocks that make all kinds of mean, nasty weapons... big ones. Obviously it isn’t really guns that is her problem, it’s freedom.

[Billthedrill]

Admiral Yamamoto may not in fact have said that a Japanese invasion of the U.S. was impossible because “there would be a rifle behind every blade of grass,” but the gist certainly used to be right.

It was, I read somewhere, actually his Chief of Staff who stated that. Is it still true? Check gun sales over the last couple of decades. It's more true now than it was then.

What matters in this sort of asymmetrical warfare isn't how many guns are purchased, but how they're distributed, because they have to be accessible to the victims in order for the terrorists to be opposed. That will influence the probable targets, a thing that the inhabitants of Chicago and New York may not find reassuring.

[Vendome]

Ibn Feinstein...

[BobL]

Typically the left, in situations like this, blame “environmental factors” for the outcome.

In this case, it should be MORE THAN CLEAR that the FACT that these two journalists did not see the BEAUTY of Pure Islam was why they could not be permitted to continue reporting. They had gotten TOO CLOSE, and yet their TEA PARTY prejudices prevented them on reporting just how wonderful Islam is.

It’s sad that they lost their heads over it...but it is understandable, considering the degree of EMBARRASSMENT they caused their captors.

(again, as seen by the liberals)