NationStates Jolt Archive

Schumer & Feinstein -- Hypocrites?

It has been revealed that Congressman Charles Schumer has a concealed weapons permit, as does Congresswoman Dianne Feinstein. Given their historical anti-gun stance, doesn't this make them hypocrites? :confused:

I'm not so sure.

IMO Schumer, Feinstein and their ilk firmly believe that government officials and agents (i.e. them - the elite) should have access to firearms, but civilians should not. They are arrogant people who believe that they, as elected officials and their agents are better, smarter, more important and more trustworthy than the citizens.

That is the view of statisim -- rule by "experts" because the people cannot arrange their own affairs. Naturally, the "experts" need to be protected against the commoners, who (they believe) are typically stupid and dangerous. :headbang:

No, neither Feinstein nor Schumer are hypocrites. They are simply tyrants who believe that the laws they impose should only apply to the rabble. :mad: The real question is why such a clear double standard is tolerated in America, where all citizens are supposedly equal. :(

The answer? Because Americans don't understand their rights. They believe that any policy, legislation, or regulation is by definition "lawful"...that is to say, Constitutional. But we know better. And as more Americans learn the true meaning of the Bill of Rights, so will they.

So, are they being hypocritical?
Is it hypocritical for people to be Pro Choice on one facet of personal action and Anti-Choice on another?

Discuss.

Kinda like Rosie McDonnel has a bodyguard who carries a weapon. So why should the "elite" be allowed to protect themselves and the rest of us should not? Why, don't you know that there are crazed fans out here who would kill them given half a chance? Hmm. Kinda like there are crazies out here who would kill us given half a chance? :confused:

IMHO, they are "frakkin' hypocrites," not just "hypocrites." :headbang:

Kinda like Rosie McDonnel has a bodyguard who carries a weapon. So why should the "elite" be allowed to protect themselves and the rest of us should not? Why, don't you know that there are crazed fans out here who would kill them given half a chance? Hmm. Kinda like there are crazies out here who would kill us given half a chance? :confused:

IMHO, they are "frakkin' hypocrites," not just "hypocrites." :headbang:
The point is, a hypocrite is inconsistant when taking a stand. These two are entirely consistant in their actions and beliefs - and I think that is even scarier than hypocrisy.

The point is, a hypocrite is inconsistant when taking a stand. These two are entirely consistant in their actions and beliefs - and I think that is even scarier than hypocrisy.
Hmmm. You may just have a point there. Hadn't thought about it that way.

Schumer & Feinstein -- Hypocrites?

It has been revealed that Congressman Charles Schumer has a concealed weapons permit, as does Congresswoman Dianne Feinstein. Given their historical anti-gun stance, doesn't this make them hypocrites? :confused:

I'm not so sure.

IMO Schumer, Feinstein and their ilk firmly believe that government officials and agents (i.e. them - the elite) should have access to firearms, but civilians should not. They are arrogant people who believe that they, as elected officials and their agents are better, smarter, more important and more trustworthy than the citizens.

That is the view of statisim -- rule by "experts" because the people cannot arrange their own affairs. Naturally, the "experts" need to be protected against the commoners, who (they believe) are typically stupid and dangerous. :headbang:

No, neither Feinstein nor Schumer are hypocrites. They are simply tyrants who believe that the laws they impose should only apply to the rabble. :mad: The real question is why such a clear double standard is tolerated in America, where all citizens are supposedly equal. :(

The answer? Because Americans don't understand their rights. They believe that any policy, legislation, or regulation is by definition "lawful"...that is to say, Constitutional. But we know better. And as more Americans learn the true meaning of the Bill of Rights, so will they.

So, are they being hypocritical?
Is it hypocritical for people to be Pro Choice on one facet of personal action and Anti-Choice on another?

Discuss.

And another "Elite" who opposes ownership is:
Washington-based columnist, Carl Rowan, often wrote about the ills of firearms ownership. Until, that is, he shot and wounded a teenager who trespassed on his property. The white teenaged boy claimed he wanted to try Rowan's swimming pool. Rowan, an African-American, retaliated with deadly force using a firearm. That's when the news came out that Carl Rowan, gun-control advocate, actually possessed a license to own firearms.

Schumer & Feinstein -- Hypocrites?

It has been revealed that Congressman Charles Schumer has a concealed weapons permit, as does Congresswoman Dianne Feinstein. Given their historical anti-gun stance, doesn't this make them hypocrites? :confused:

I'm not so sure.

IMO Schumer, Feinstein and their ilk firmly believe that government officials and agents (i.e. them - the elite) should have access to firearms, but civilians should not. They are arrogant people who believe that they, as elected officials and their agents are better, smarter, more important and more trustworthy than the citizens.

That is the view of statisim -- rule by "experts" because the people cannot arrange their own affairs. Naturally, the "experts" need to be protected against the commoners, who (they believe) are typically stupid and dangerous. :headbang:

No, neither Feinstein nor Schumer are hypocrites. They are simply tyrants who believe that the laws they impose should only apply to the rabble. :mad: The real question is why such a clear double standard is tolerated in America, where all citizens are supposedly equal. :(

The answer? Because Americans don't understand their rights. They believe that any policy, legislation, or regulation is by definition "lawful"...that is to say, Constitutional. But we know better. And as more Americans learn the true meaning of the Bill of Rights, so will they.

So, are they being hypocritical?
Is it hypocritical for people to be Pro Choice on one facet of personal action and Anti-Choice on another?

Discuss.

This is exactly how I figure it, well said. And my view of government is diammetrically opposite theirs. Unfortunately, Schumer represents me in Washington - but then that gives me the opportunity to communicate my concerns to him, for what good that does.

So no, they are not hypocrites. Their political desires are a threat to me and the US Constitution.

Schumer & Feinstein -- Hypocrites?

It has been revealed that Congressman Charles Schumer has a concealed weapons permit, as does Congresswoman Dianne Feinstein. Given their historical anti-gun stance, doesn't this make them hypocrites? :confused:

I'm not so sure.

IMO Schumer, Feinstein and their ilk firmly believe that government officials and agents (i.e. them - the elite) should have access to firearms, but civilians should not. They are arrogant people who believe that they, as elected officials and their agents are better, smarter, more important and more trustworthy than the citizens.

That is the view of statisim -- rule by "experts" because the people cannot arrange their own affairs. Naturally, the "experts" need to be protected against the commoners, who (they believe) are typically stupid and dangerous. :headbang:

No, neither Feinstein nor Schumer are hypocrites. They are simply tyrants who believe that the laws they impose should only apply to the rabble. :mad: The real question is why such a clear double standard is tolerated in America, where all citizens are supposedly equal. :(

The answer? Because Americans don't understand their rights. They believe that any policy, legislation, or regulation is by definition "lawful"...that is to say, Constitutional. But we know better. And as more Americans learn the true meaning of the Bill of Rights, so will they.

So, are they being hypocritical?
Is it hypocritical for people to be Pro Choice on one facet of personal action and Anti-Choice on another?

Discuss.

My response is that it seems clear that you are more comfortable beating on strawmen then you are on arguing about, say, reality. I can't say exactly what Feinstein and Schumer's postions on gun control is, but at the moment that's okay, because you don't seem to know either. Where we differ is that said lack of knowledge hasn't stopped you from imparting the most foolish possible motives on your opponents and then excoriating them for it.

The problem with your argument is very simple: I've met quite a few gun-control advocates in my life; hell, I am a gun control advocate. But I have never met one person in my life who wanted to use the government to forcibly remove guns from the hands of all citizens within society. The reason is simple: guns can serve a legitemate function, home defense and/or hunting among them. But what you seemingly fail to understand is that just because something serves a legitemate purpose does not mean that the government has or should not have any compelling reason to regulate and in some cases restrict access to it. Alcohol can serve a socially redeeming purpose, yet we restrict access to it on the grounds of social safety. Same thing with cars or porn. Gun-control advocates, far from being the statist advocates that you decry, are merely following the logic as it applies to guns.

Put simply, there are some kinds of weapons that definately serve a socially redeeming value that vastly outweighs their potential for abuse. A hunting rifle can be used for nefarious purposes, yes, but by and large it is far too bulky to be used for any other reason than the main for which it was constructed: hunting big game. You can't perform drive-by's with a bolt-action, and sticking up a convenience store with one would be ridiculous. As such, I see little reason to regulate who own such a weapon. A standard pump-action 12-gauge, however, can be used to stick up a convenience store or hurt quite a few people in short order. This is counterbalanced by the fact that such a weapon is also the single most proficient home-defense weapon available today, vastly outstripping any handgun or rifle. As such, I would consider some moderate measures, such as background checks and waiting-periods, a perfectly reasonable measure. An AR-15, on the other hand, has no socially redeeming value. The ammunition is too small to effectively hunt big game, it is inefficient as a home defense weapon because, unlike a Mauser pump for instance, if you try hand-to-hand with an AR-15, you'll simply break the weapon. All it is good for, really, is flipping it on full-auto mode and putting 30 rounds of ammo into the air in short order, which has the potential for devastating consequences for any civilians around. As such, there are good social reasons why we might want to consider banning the AR-15, irrespective of the fact that it isn't a commonly-used weapon in crime.

I don't think anything I've laid out here is all that out of the ordinary or contrary to reason. It definately isn't unconstitutional, as sooner or later gun advocates are going to have to accept that the liberal interpretation of "militia" is the settled law interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. But to the primary point, my view is hardly out of the mainstream of what gun-control advocates espouse. You'll note that I actually spoke favorably of weapons like ought-sixes and pump-action shotguns. So to say that I'm in favor of banning guns is what us simple-minded Mountain Westerners like to refer to as a "lie", because it deviates rather considerably from my stated view on the subject. Now, maybe my view differs from those of Schumer or Feinstein. I doubt it, however.

Schumer & Feinstein -- Hypocrites?

It has been revealed that Congressman Charles Schumer has a concealed weapons permit, as does Congresswoman Dianne Feinstein. Given their historical anti-gun stance, doesn't this make them hypocrites? :confused:

I'm not so sure.

IMO Schumer, Feinstein and their ilk firmly believe that government officials and agents (i.e. them - the elite) should have access to firearms, but civilians should not. They are arrogant people who believe that they, as elected officials and their agents are better, smarter, more important and more trustworthy than the citizens.
Yes, they believe that they are valuable enough to defend themselves, but that ordinary people are not important enough to defend themselves from criminals. :mad:

You know Syniks, you'd make your case better if you had some evidence that Schumer and Feinstein were pro-gun control. They very well may be--I don't know--but it's not like you've proven your case here. You've made an allegation for which you've provided nothing resembling proof as of yet.

There's a second question here as well--is it necessarily hypocrisy to oppose, say, a tax cut and yet take advantage of it? I don't think so. Is this really any different? This situation is perhaps a bit hazier, but again, I don't think so. It would be if said Senators had suggested a law that prohibits anyone but sitting Senators from carrying concealed weapons, perhaps, but I'm not so sure in this instance.

And another "Elite" who opposes ownership is:
Washington-based columnist, Carl Rowan, often wrote about the ills of firearms ownership. Until, that is, he shot and wounded a teenager who trespassed on his property. The white teenaged boy claimed he wanted to try Rowan's swimming pool. Rowan, an African-American, retaliated with deadly force using a firearm. That's when the news came out that Carl Rowan, gun-control advocate, actually possessed a license to own firearms.

This (IMO) is not hypocritical. Saying you support gun control and owning a gun with a license to do so is inline.

Many gun owners support gun control laws bacause they use guns in a manner consistent with their design. Like hunting.

They do this to prevent people from obtaining guns illegally that would bring about legislation taking guns away from everyone.

[QUOTE=Balipo]This (IMO) is not hypocritical. Saying you support gun control and owning a gun with a license to do so is inline.
[QUOTE]

Yes she is a Hypocrite. She and Charles Schumer are comepeltely anti-gun.

"Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of all Americans to feel safe."
--U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein Associated Press 11/18/93

"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an out right ban, picking up every one of them... "Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in, "I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here."
--U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), CBS-TV's "60 Minutes," 2/5/95

My response is that it seems clear that you are more comfortable beating on strawmen then you are on arguing about, say, reality. I can't say exactly what Feinstein and Schumer's postions on gun control is, but at the moment that's okay, because you don't seem to know either.It will take e a bit, but I will find you plenty of quotes twhere they explicitly declare their desire for civilian disarmament.Where we differ is that said lack of knowledge hasn't stopped you from imparting the most foolish possible motives on your opponents and then excoriating them for it.I'll see your Strawman and raise you an AdHominum. :rolleyes:
The problem with your argument is very simple: I've met quite a few gun-control advocates in my life; hell, I am a gun control advocate. But I have never met one person in my life who wanted to use the government to forcibly remove guns from the hands of all citizens within society.That's because they know that it would be both bloody and impossible. That's why they use/advocate incrimentalisim. The reason is simple: guns can serve a legitemate function, home defense and/or hunting among them. But what you seemingly fail to understand is that just because something serves a legitemate purpose does not mean that the government has or should not have any compelling reason to regulate and in some cases restrict access to it. Alcohol can serve a socially redeeming purpose, yet we restrict access to it on the grounds of social safety.I would be overjoyed if they applied the same restrictions to guns that they do to alcohol. Same thing with cars or porn.It looks like you have not seen my comparison of Gun & Automotive licensing rules. Gun-control advocates, far from being the statist advocates that you decry, are merely following the logic as it applies to guns.Demonstrably false - as you will see in a followup post.
Put simply, there are some kinds of weapons that definately serve a socially redeeming value that vastly outweighs their potential for abuse. A hunting rifle can be used for nefarious purposes, yes, but by and large it is far too bulky to be used for any other reason than the main for which it was constructed: hunting big game. You can't perform drive-by's with a bolt-action,I may be mistaken, but I believe the Washington DC sniper Malvo used a bolt gun. and sticking up a convenience store with one would be ridiculous.Why? As such, I see little reason to regulate who own such a weapon. A standard pump-action 12-gauge, however, can be used to stick up a convenience store or hurt quite a few people in short order. This is counterbalanced by the fact that such a weapon is also the single most proficient home-defense weapon available today, vastly outstripping any handgun or rifle. As such, I would consider some moderate measures, such as background checks and waiting-periods, a perfectly reasonable measure.We have those. They want more. An AR-15, on the other hand, has no socially redeeming value. The ammunition is too small to effectively hunt big game, it is inefficient as a home defense weapon because, unlike a Mauser pump for instance, if you try hand-to-hand with an AR-15, you'll simply break the weapon. All it is good for, really, is flipping it on full-auto mode and putting 30 rounds of ammo into the air in short order, which has the potential for devastating consequences for any civilians around.Here, you either demonstrate your total lack of understanding of US gun law or are being intentionally disengenuous. An AR-15 is not and cannot be made, fully automatic. AR-15s ARE, however, used in competitive target shooting. As such, there are good social reasons why we might want to consider banning the AR-15, irrespective of the fact that it isn't a commonly-used weapon in crime.Yep, it's scary looking. Ban it. :rolleyes:
I don't think anything I've laid out here is all that out of the ordinary or contrary to reason. It definately isn't unconstitutional, as sooner or later gun advocates are going to have to accept that the liberal interpretation of "militia" is the settled law interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.If it were "settled" the "scary looking firearms" ban would not have sunsetted. But to the primary point, my view is hardly out of the mainstream of what gun-control advocates espouse. Some. You forgot the word "some". You'll note that I actually spoke favorably of weapons like ought-sixes Yep, those firearms that the VPC would like to call "Sniper" rifles... and pump-action shotguns. So to say that I'm in favor of banning guns is what us simple-minded Mountain Westerners like to refer to as a "lie", Define "Mountain Westeners" - because that term can include people like "Cheif Chicken Feather Churchill" as well as folks who grew up in the middle of Wyoming - like I did. because it deviates rather considerably from my stated view on the subject. Now, maybe my view differs from those of Schumer or Feinstein. I doubt it, however.You need to look at the views of Schumer & Feinstein before you go doubting things like that.

[QUOTE=Balipo]This (IMO) is not hypocritical. Saying you support gun control and owning a gun with a license to do so is inline.
[QUOTE]

Yes she is a Hypocrite. She and Charles Schumer are comepeltely anti-gun.

"Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of all Americans to feel safe."
--U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein Associated Press 11/18/93

"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an out right ban, picking up every one of them... "Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in, "I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here."
--U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), CBS-TV's "60 Minutes," 2/5/95

Unfortunately, that references 1) information presented 10 years ago, and 2) statements made primarily for rhetorical merit rather than as a reflection of realistic policy goals. Everyone and their mother recognizes that in an ideal world, we could ban guns because in that idea world, no one would need them. There would be no crime, deer would hop on our grill, etc. That says nothing about her actual willingness to vote for such a bill, because she hasn't sponsored one to do that. Probably because she recognizes that we are in the real world, but I'm guessing on that point.

You know Syniks, you'd make your case better if you had some evidence that Schumer and Feinstein were pro-gun control. They very well may be--I don't know--but it's not like you've proven your case here. You've made an allegation for which you've provided nothing resembling proof as of yet.Sorry. Most USians do not need proof, but I do suppose the numbers of non-US NSers warrants it. I'll pull some up after I get back to the office.
There's a second question here as well--is it necessarily hypocrisy to oppose, say, a tax cut and yet take advantage of it? I don't think so. Is this really any different? This situation is perhaps a bit hazier, but again, I don't think so. It would be if said Senators had suggested a law that prohibits anyone but sitting Senators from carrying concealed weapons, perhaps, but I'm not so sure in this instance.There is no current law that does so, but there are many, including Shumer & Feinstein, who would like to see otherwise. Again, I will source in a bit.

[QUOTE=Texsonia][QUOTE=Balipo]This (IMO) is not hypocritical. Saying you support gun control and owning a gun with a license to do so is inline.


Unfortunately, that references 1) information presented 10 years ago, and 2) statements made primarily for rhetorical merit rather than as a reflection of realistic policy goals. Everyone and their mother recognizes that in an ideal world, we could ban guns because in that idea world, no one would need them. There would be no crime, deer would hop on our grill, etc. That says nothing about her actual willingness to vote for such a bill, because she hasn't sponsored one to do that. Probably because she recognizes that we are in the real world, but I'm guessing on that point.Let me add that I'm always suspicious of quotes without context, or with ellipsis, and that post definitely fit the bill.

Sorry. Most USians do not need proof, but I do suppose the numbers of non-US NSers warrants it. I'll pull some up after I get back to the office.
Well, I'm a USian who needs proof on something like this because I'm used to seeing political groups of all stripes distorting the opinions of those they disagree with.

There is no current law that does so, but there are many, including Shumer & Feinstein, who would like to see otherwise. Again, I will source in a bit.
I wasn't suggesting there was such a law, or even that Feinstein or Schumer would support it or suggest it--just that I would consider that to be an example of the hypocrisy you describe. I don't think the scenario you describe, even if you're being completely objective and accurate, reaches the level of hypocrisy.

I'll see your Strawman and raise you an AdHominum. :rolleyes:

It's only Ad Hominem if I attack you personally. I didn't: I attacked your style of argumentation. Ergo, no Ad Hominem.

That's because they know that it would be both bloody and impossible. That's why they use/advocate incrimentalisim.

Some slopes are not slippery, you know. There is a point where even gun-control advocates would oppose further regulation even if it were attempted, the same as where the broad majority of people opposed further regulation of alcohol and violated the law in response to Prohibition.

It's a simple non sequitur to argue that because there are a hypothetical few loonies who want to do away with all guns everywhere in America, that we must therefore oppose any gun-control law no matter how sensible.

I would be overjoyed if they applied the same restrictions to guns that they do to alcohol. It looks like you have not seen my comparison of Gun & Automotive licensing rules. Demonstrably false - as you will see in a followup post.

1) I don't know enough to agree or disagree, yet I'm pleased that you agree with the principle of government regulation of firearms, at least.

2) No I haven't.

3) Okay, fire away.


I may be mistaken, but I believe the Washington DC sniper Malvo used a bolt gun.

Which does not in any way refute my point about the fact that despite the risk the benefits nevertheless outweigh them, hence society should allow their use in private hands. Malvo was one man, yet thousands of people use bolt-actions responsibly. So the best course of action is to allow possession of bolt-action weapons, and use government to ensure that those who have proven irresponsible in the past don't get them now. It's not foolproof, but nothing in life is.

Why?

. . .Because in a convenience store robbery, you want something that fires fast, can rapidly track targets, and is geared towards close-range combat, none of which are traits that your common hunting rifle possesses?

We have those. They want more.

Then they will find themselves outnumbered by other gun-control advocates who oppose them. I'm not seeing the problem here.

Here, you either demonstrate your total lack of understanding of US gun law or are being intentionally disengenuous. An AR-15 is not and cannot be made, fully automatic. AR-15s ARE, however, used in competitive target shooting. Yep, it's scary looking. Ban it. :rolleyes:

Even in semi-auto mode, an AR-15 is a devastating weapon even against people in light personal armor. The fact that it, unlike the military M16-A2 version, it can only into 3-round burst mode instead of complete auto is a mere semantic point, because whether a guy unloads an AR in full auto or the slightly slower burst mode, people will still die horribly if he does so.

As for the competitive shooting, I see no problem with liscensing an AR-15 to the ownership of a gun club as opposed to a civilian. That does keep the riff-raff from owning an assault weapon while still allowing competitive events. The law can easily be tailored to such objections, and gun-control advocates have made such changes in the past.

Define "Mountain Westeners" - because that term can include people like "Cheif Chicken Feather Churchill" as well as folks who grew up in the middle of Wyoming - like I did.

It's a functional definition, but I don't believe you'll have a hard time seeing that a person who grew up in Idaho and now lives in Nevada qualifies as a "Mountain Westerner".

Even in semi-auto mode, an AR-15 is a devastating weapon even against people in light personal armor. The fact that it, unlike the military M16-A2 version, it can only into 3-round burst mode instead of complete auto is a mere semantic point, because whether a guy unloads an AR in full auto or the slightly slower burst mode, people will still die horribly if he does so.

.


This is the only part of the post I'll respond to. The AR-15 is a SEMI-AUTOMATIC rifle. It fires ONE round per trigger pull. The M16A2 fires 3 round bursts compared to the M16A1 that is Fully Automatic.

Your factual knowledge of firearms is incorrect.

They would indeed be hypocrites if they advocated banning guns. They do not. Here is how they have voted on gun issues:

Dianne Feinstein on Gun Control :

Voted NO on banning lawsuits against gun manufacturers for gun violence. (Mar 2004)
Voted YES on background checks at gun shows. (May 1999)
Voted NO on more penalties for gun & drug violations. (May 1999)
Voted NO on loosening license & background checks at gun shows. (May 1999)
Voted NO on maintaining current law: guns sold without trigger locks. (Jul 1998)


Charles Schumer on Gun Control

Voted NO on banning lawsuits against gun manufacturers for gun violence. (Mar 2004)
Voted YES on background checks at gun shows. (May 1999)
Voted NO on more penalties for gun & drug violations. (May 1999)
Voted NO on loosening license & background checks at gun shows. (May 1999)


I don't see any hypocrisy there at all. Now, if you can give a quote where they actually advocate the banning of guns, you might have something. Until then, you're merely dry-humping another strawman.

Hippocracy: Rule by horses! :D

Though well intentioned your argument has no merit. (Or you know nothing about the AR-15)
The same rifle you claim you will break in hand to hand is the same weapon that was carried in combat for 20 years ...with a bayonet stud no less. Let me tell you from first hand experience you can deliver a vertical but stroke of lethal force with no damage to the weapon. Next while the 5.56 ss109 round will not bring down an elf or an elephant it's flat trajectory gives it IDEAL characteristics for Whitetail Deer and varmint hunting.
The cost of the weapon is relatively high and out side of the sniper murders of a few years ago (which could just as easily have been done with a single shot bolt action rifle) seldom used in crimes. They have how ever been used to (when obtained from a civilian no less) take down armored bank robbers using illegal automatic weapons.




An AR-15, on the other hand, has no socially redeeming value. The ammunition is too small to effectively hunt big game, it is inefficient as a home defense weapon because, unlike a Mauser pump for instance, if you try hand-to-hand with an AR-15, you'll simply break the weapon. All it is good for, really, is flipping it on full-auto mode and putting 30 rounds of ammo into the air in short order, which has the potential for devastating consequences for any civilians around. As such, there are good social reasons why we might want to consider banning the AR-15, irrespective of the fact that it isn't a commonly-used weapon in crime.

Religon, government, society etc are all founded on hypocrisy so its the hypocrites that lead us.

amen

Religon, government, society etc are all founded on hypocrisy so its the hypocrites that lead us.

They would indeed be hypocrites if they advocated banning guns. They do not. Here is how they have voted on gun issues:

Dianne Feinstein on Gun Control :

Voted NO on banning lawsuits against gun manufacturers for gun violence. (Mar 2004)
Voted YES on background checks at gun shows. (May 1999)
Voted NO on more penalties for gun & drug violations. (May 1999)
Voted NO on loosening license & background checks at gun shows. (May 1999)
Voted NO on maintaining current law: guns sold without trigger locks. (Jul 1998)


Charles Schumer on Gun Control

Voted NO on banning lawsuits against gun manufacturers for gun violence. (Mar 2004)
Voted YES on background checks at gun shows. (May 1999)
Voted NO on more penalties for gun & drug violations. (May 1999)
Voted NO on loosening license & background checks at gun shows. (May 1999)


I don't see any hypocrisy there at all. Now, if you can give a quote where they actually advocate the banning of guns, you might have something. Until then, you're merely dry-humping another strawman.

Sources please.

both the first one, second, and last are anti-gun measures.

"Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of all Americans to feel safe."
"Mr. and Mrs. America, turn `em all in."


http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/02/26/MNGGLBHDAN1.DTL
California Sen. Dianne Feinstein renewed one of Washington's long- running and most bitterly fought battles Friday, saying she will introduce legislation seeking to reinstate the federal assault weapons ban that expired in September after 10 years.

Politicians by nature are hypocrites. No use making a big deal out of it, everyone knows it so why say anything about it?

Sources please.

both the first one, second, and last are anti-gun measures.

"Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of all Americans to feel safe."
"Mr. and Mrs. America, turn `em all in."


http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/02/26/MNGGLBHDAN1.DTL
California Sen. Dianne Feinstein renewed one of Washington's long- running and most bitterly fought battles Friday, saying she will introduce legislation seeking to reinstate the federal assault weapons ban that expired in September after 10 years.Sorry, but I disagree that they're anti-gun measures. the first has to do with lawsuits--if the suits are frivolous, judges will toss them or juries will find against the plaintiffs. And frankly, I don't know how any reasonable person other than perhaps a gun dealer can be opposed to tightening the gun show loophole.

And the article you linked to doesn't include either of the quotes--were you intending to suggest that it did? The article also doesn't refer to what the original poster was talking about either, so I wonder why you posted it to begin with.

Sorry, but I disagree that they're anti-gun measures. the first has to do with lawsuits--if the suits are frivolous, judges will toss them or juries will find against the plaintiffs. And frankly, I don't know how any reasonable person other than perhaps a gun dealer can be opposed to tightening the gun show loophole.

Which shows you haven't done the research. Court cases are expensive whether you win or lose. These cases were designed to drive the industry into bankrupcy through numerous lawsuits.

As for the "Gun Show Loophole" There really isn't one. It's a myth. Most of the measures are designed to reduce gunshows to the point where they don't become viable.

And the article you linked to doesn't include either of the quotes--were you intending to suggest that it did? The article also doesn't refer to what the original poster was talking about either, so I wonder why you posted it to begin with

The poster was talking about them not wanting to ban guns. They do want to ban guns. That was what the whole CAWB was all about. Both Feinstien and Schumer sponsored that bill and the attempts to renew and expand it.

I never said the quotes were in the article. They are well documented quotes by Feinstein on her positions.

The poster was talking about them not wanting to ban guns. They do want to ban guns. That was what the whole CAWB was all about. Both Feinstien and Schumer sponsored that bill and the attempts to renew and expand it.

I never said the quotes were in the article. They are well documented quotes by Feinstein on her positions.
No--they want to extend the assault weapons ban. There's like multiple football fields of logic between that an "they want to ban guns." As to the Feinstein quotes, someone earlier mentioned them as well--I'd like some context, quite frankly, because it's awful easy to take quotes out of context and twist them. I'm not saying that Feinstein didn't say it, or even that she's being quoted out of context--I'd just like to see it for myself.

No--they want to extend the assault weapons ban. There's like multiple football fields of logic between that an "they want to ban guns." As to the Feinstein quotes, someone earlier mentioned them as well--I'd like some context, quite frankly, because it's awful easy to take quotes out of context and twist them. I'm not saying that Feinstein didn't say it, or even that she's being quoted out of context--I'd just like to see it for myself.

Read your own words.

Bans every gun made to comply with the Clinton ban.
The Clinton ban dictated the kinds of grips, stocks and attachments new guns can have. Manufacturers and gun owners complied and new guns conform to the Clinton-Feinstein requirements. H.R. 2038/S.1431 bans the new guns too.



Bans guns exempted by name or type under the Clinton ban.
Commonplace Ruger Mini 14s, Mini-30s, Ranch Rifles, .30 Caliber Carbines, and fixed-magazine semi-automatic center-fire rifles.



Bans all semi-automatic shotguns.
Bans Remington, Winchester, Beretta, Benelli, and other shotguns commonly used for hunting, trap, skeet, sporting clays, and self-defense. Bans them by banning their main component, called the "receiver" (sec. 2(a)(30)(J)), and bans them because they have "any characteristic that can function as a grip"(sec. 2(H)(ii) and (b)(42)). Any characteristic.



Bans all detachable-magazine semi-automatic rifles because they have "any characteristic that can function as a grip." (sec.2(a)(30)(D)(iii) and (iv), and (b)(41) and (42)). Any characteristic.


Bans target shooting rifles.
Bans the three centerfire rifles most popular for marksmanship competitions: the Colt AR-15, the Springfield M1A and the M1 "Garand."



Bans guns for self-defense.
Bans any semi-automatic shotgun or rifle an Attorney General one day claims isn`t "sporting," even though the U.S. Constitution, the constitutions of 44 states, and the laws of all 50 states recognize the right to use guns for defense.



Bans 65 named guns (the Clinton law bans 19);
Bans semi-auto fixed-magazine pistols of over 10 rounds capacity;

Bans frames, receivers, and parts used to repair or refurbish guns;

Bans importation of magazines exempted by the Clinton ban;

Bans selling a legally-owned "assault weapon" with a magazine of over 10 rounds capacity.





The turn them all in was from 60 minutes the other was from the Washington times.

As for the lawsuits. Here's what the lawyers have to say:

Second Amendment rights? Boolsheet! . . . We comin’ after ‘em; we are a bad dream for the gun industry."--Trial attorney Wendell Gauthier
The Weekly Standard, Feb. 1, 1999

"If the Court of Appeals disagrees with me or somebody else disagrees with my rulings, it doesn't bother me. After almost 33 years, I don’t feel I have to justify myself to anybody but myself."-- Judge Jack Weinstein after the Hamilton v. Accu-Tek trial's end.
New York Magazine, April 5, 1999

"You don’t need a legislative majority to file a lawsuit."-- Trial attorney Elisa Barnes
Wall Street Journal, Oct. 21, 1999

"[I]t is imperative to steer the argument about guns away from the problematic area of criminal use, with its inconvenient focus on criminals. . . ."--Reporter Peter Boyer describing the belief of Brady Campaign attorney Dennis Henigan
The New Yorker, May 17, 1999

"The legal fees alone are enough to bankrupt the industry. The pressure is going to be on."--Trial attorney John Coale
Washington Post, March 18, 2000

"You just stir things up. I mean look, the gun issue’s all over the place now. . . . We got bills flying all over Congress. . . . Eventually, the industry has to see us as the only reasonable people in town. It ain’t going to be reasonable up on that Hill. And we are reasonable (ha-ha-ha). That’s what it comes down to."--Trial attorney John Coale
Washington Post, March 18, 2000

"We have the capacity to squeeze manufacturers like a pincer and hurt them in the marketplace."--New York Attorney General Elliot Spitzer
Dayton Daily News, March 30, 2000

"Fed up with trying to move legislation, the [Clinton] White House is launching lawsuits to succeed where legislation failed. The strategy may work, but at the cost of making our frail democracy even weaker. . . . This is faux legislation which sacrifices democracy to the discretion of administration officials operating in secrecy"--Robert Reich, former Clinton Administration Secretary of Labor
American Prospect, Jan. 17, 2002

They are arrogant people who believe that they, as elected officials and their agents are better, smarter, more important and more trustworthy than the citizens.

Welll ... yeah. They're politicians. Elected officials in a system that pits the willing against the able and sides with the willing.

That attitude is unavoidable regarldess of which side of the aisle you're on. Governance of the people has long ago been replaced by punidtry and the photo-op.

I can't pinpoint the exact date of the death of America, but I've narrowed it down to sometime in the 1880s.

However, messages like yours and others, and a slight breeze going through various media may spell a coming change in the weather. Maybe if enough people would get angry, someone somewhere would actually do something.

Welll ... yeah. They're politicians. Elected officials in a system that pits the willing against the able and sides with the willing.

That attitude is unavoidable regarldess of which side of the aisle you're on. Governance of the people has long ago been replaced by punidtry and the photo-op.

I can't pinpoint the exact date of the death of America, but I've narrowed it down to sometime in the 1880s.

However, messages like yours and others, and a slight breeze going through various media may spell a coming change in the weather. Maybe if enough people would get angry, someone somewhere would actually do something.

Agreed. We need to make politicians from Frist to Durbin accountable for what they say and do.

They would indeed be hypocrites if they advocated banning guns. They do not. Here is how they have voted on gun issues:

Dianne Feinstein on Gun Control :
<Snip>
Charles Schumer on Gun Control
<snip>

I don't see any hypocrisy there at all. Now, if you can give a quote where they actually advocate the banning of guns, you might have something. Until then, you're merely dry-humping another strawman.
Besides authoring the “Assault Weapons Ban” during the Clinton administration – a ban which, on its face and in post-mortem had no merit or efficacy, showboating (http://www.stentorian.com/2ndamend/dianne_f.html), and

Sen. Feinstein

"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them, Mr. and Mrs. America turn 'em all in, I would have done it." -Senator Diane Feinstein refering to what she wished she could have done with regard to "assault weapons" (60 Minutes, CBS, 5 Feb. 1995)

"Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of Americans to feel safe." -- U.S. Senator Diane Feinstein, quoted by AP, 11/18/93

Other Feinstein: (as you posted)
http://www.issues2000.org/Senate/Dianne_Feinstein.htm
http://www.issues2000.org/Domestic/Dianne_Feinstein_Gun_Control.htm


Sen. Schumer

"We're here to tell the NRA their nightmare is true..." -- U.S. Representative Charles Schumer, quoted on NBC, 11/30/93

"We're going to hammer guns on the anvil of relentless legislative strategy! We're going to beat guns into submission!" -- U.S. Representative Charles Schumer, quoted on NBC, 12/8/93
Other Schumer:

http://www.issues2000.org/Senate/Charles_Schumer.htm
http://www.issues2000.org/Domestic/Charles_Schumer_Gun_Control.htm

Charles Schumer positively linked with VPC & HCI - who are on record as wanting total gun bans. http://www.vpc.org/press/0003fel.htm

--------------------------

Ok, onward:

Automobile Registration vs. Gun Registration.

"why don't we treat guns like cars..."

Let's see:

Drivers Licenses.
1: Drivers Licenses are Shall Issue permits with universal reciprocity, requiring only a basic knowledge of safe handling and use regulations.
2: Licenses are NOT required for purchase of a vehicle.
3: Licenses are NOT required for off (public) road use, i.e. agricultural use (farms/farm roads), racetracks, private land, USFS/BIA/BLM dirt trails etc.
4: Drivers education / auto safety classes are MANDATORY in many public school districts.

Vehicle Registration:
1: Registration of a motor vehicle is NOT required unless said vehicle is to be USED on public roads. Custom/show cars, racecars, farm equipment, antiques are exempt unless they are to be commonly USED on public roadways. If I am towing a '32 roadster (or ’99 dragster) through town, I cannot be cited for its' lack of registration.
2: Registration of vehicles exceeding "fleet" quantities is not required. I may maintain as many unregistered vehicles on my private property as I desire (provided they do not constitute an "eyesore" or some such other visibly property-devaluing neighborhood gripe.)
3: Registration and extra taxation of High Performance vehicles is NOT required, unless they are to be used on public roads. A 13,000 hp Pratt & Whitney Jet Car (which has no "practical" or "sporting" use) may be owned and kept, unregistered, alongside a VW powered off-road-only dune buggy, and used in non-public spaces with impunity.

Law enforcement of DMV rules:
As we know, there are literally thousands of people out there driving without a license. The only time they get punished is if they are caught violating some other driving law (i.e. causing harm to or endangering another’s person or property). Vehicle registration is somewhat easier to spot, as registration is denoted by a sticker of some sort, visible while the vehicle is in use. (Someone sees you use it without a tag, you get a ticket.)

DMV style “Gun” Licenses: Gun owners would "get":
1: A genuinely nationally reciprocal, truly "shall-issue" concealed carry license. Now, while everyone hates DoL and the Licensing dept., you can't say they just arbitrarily deny licenses (as some "authorizing agencies" for CCW permits have done.) Only a basic knowledge of safe handling and use regulations would be required.
2: Licenses would NOT be required for purchase of a gun.
3: Licenses would NOT be required for non-urban public land use, i.e. agricultural use (hunting/varmint control), ranges, private land, USFS/BIA/BLM hunting areas etc.
4: True gun safety (handling & disablement) could be taught in schools, not just anti-gun rhetoric.

“Registration” DMV style… Gun owners would “get”:
1: A Licensing & registration system that is useful (to the government) only after the fact, i.e. after the shooting stops (ignoring for the moment the fact of door-to-door tracking and confiscation – see California and NYC).
Registration of a firearm would NOT be required unless said firearm is to be USED in a public place. Custom/show guns, race-guns, long-arms or side arms, antiques, etc would be exempt unless they are to be commonly USED in public.
2: A DMV style registration system would deny “arsenal” registration rhetoric just as it currently does not apply to off-road “fleets”.
3: Removal of the National Firearms Act (1934) provisions against Class III (high performance/ specialized) weapons. If guns were to be treated as cars, the substantial similarity rules would apply. Just as "High Performance" or specialty vehicles are not restricted, except in their place of use (not on public roads), neither then could the law be justified in restricting the possession of "high performance" (Class III) firearms.

Law Enforcement:
Like Cars, so Guns. It can be truthfully stated that a gun in my possession, regardless of type, in a public place, is NOT being USED, only carried (much like towing a dragster), and therefore it need not be registered nor I licensed. However, should I use that firearm in said public place without License and Registration, I may be subject to penalty upon the assured following inquest … (to be judged by twelve) … perhaps.

Herein we see another potential benefit to "DMV style" gun laws... the principle of reasonable justification and good-Samaritan laws. I may speed, drive an unregistered car, drive without a license, etc in the commission of a life saving act. Judges and juries routinely throw out charges (if charges are even filed) of "rule violation" in such cases. Similar dismissals have obtained (and will continue to obtain) for many “rule violations” of current gun laws. Criminals would obviously receive no such benefit.

So, Cool. :cool: I would LOVE for it to be as easy and legal to buy guns as it is to buy Alcohol or Cars… but I don’t think you meant it that way. :rolleyes:

So, Cool. :cool: I would LOVE for it to be as easy and legal to buy guns as it is to buy Alcohol or Cars… but I don’t think you meant it that way. :rolleyes:

Heh ... come to Texas.

No license/registration needed to purchase a firearm.
No license/registration needed to keep a firearm in your home.
No license/registration needed to use a firearm.
No license/registration needed for the private sale of a firearm.
Basic 8 hour safety class and criminal background check by DPS for CCP.

Easy!

Heh ... come to Texas.

No license/registration needed to purchase a firearm.
No license/registration needed to keep a firearm in your home.
No license/registration needed to use a firearm.
No license/registration needed for the private sale of a firearm.
Basic 8 hour safety class and criminal background check by DPS for CCP.

Easy!
Well, yeah, it's that way here in Indiana too, & Vermont, & Wyoming, and a whole lot of other places who dont cotton to the idea that "shall not be infringed" only applies to the State government.

How about - Universally easy within the US - with consistant laws applying - as they (generally) do to cars and booze.

How about - Universally easy within the US - with consistant laws applying - as they (generally) do to cars and booze.

Hey I'm all for it. Consistency is essential when it comes to civil liberties, be it gay marriage or weapon ownership.

*some part of Hell freezes over as the smelly hippie agrees with the libertarian gun-nut* :p :D