PDA

View Full Version : DiFi lobbying Schwarzenegger


glockman19
09-16-2007, 7:15 PM
From THR

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
Senator Feinstein Urges Governor Schwarzenegger to Sign Bill Requiring Microstamping Technology for Newly-Designed Handguns


Washington, DC – U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) today urged California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger to sign into law a bill that would require “microstamping” technology in newly-designed semiautomatic handguns sold in California after January 1, 2010.

The California Legislature yesterday gave its final passage to the legislation, which would require new designs of semiautomatic handguns sold in California after January 1, 2010, to have microstamping technology.

Microstamping technology allows a serial number to be imprinted on shell casings as they are fired out of the gun. This would make it more likely that a gun used to commit a crime could be identified by the shell casings left at the scene.

Senator Feinstein recently supported an amendment to the School Safety and Law Enforcement Improvements Act to extend the use of microstamping technology, however the amendment did not pass out of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

The following is the text of Senator Feinstein’s letter to Governor Schwarzenegger:

September 11, 2007

Dear Governor Schwarzenegger:

I write to urge you to sign AB 1471, the Crime Gun Identification Act of 2007, which received final passage in the California Legislature yesterday. This bill would provide law enforcement with a new tool, known as “microstamping” technology, which will help in the identification of crime guns and the solving of handgun crimes.

Microstamping is a series of microscopic characters lasered onto the firing mechanism and chamber of semi-automatic handguns. When a handgun is fired, the characters are transferred to the bullet shell casing. Law enforcement can rapidly link shell casings found at a crime scene to the gun from which it was fired. In 2004, no arrests were made in 45 percent of the more than 1,400 homicides committed with handguns in California. But with microstamping technology, a murderer, armed criminal, or illegal gun trafficker could be rapidly identified and arrested.

I recently supported legislation to expand the use of microstamping, when it was offered last month as an amendment to the School Safety and Law Enforcement Improvements Act in the Senate Judiciary Committee. While we were not successful in passing a national microstamping bill, I urge you to promote the use of this important and valuable technology so that we can reduce gun violence and gun crime within California.

The Crime Gun Identification Act of 2007 is widely supported by most of California’s leading police chiefs, sheriffs, and mayors, as illustrated by the attached endorsement list. AB 1471 would apply only to newly-designed handguns sold after 2010, so existing handguns and existing handgun models would not be affected, and the bill would not impact law-abiding gun owners. In short, AB 1471 represents common-sense gun legislation, designed to reduce gun crime and save lives – and it deserves your support. I urge you to save more lives and solve more crimes in California by signing this bill into law.

Sincerely,

Dianne Feinstein
United States Senator
__________________

Dianne Feinstein is a Hypocrite. Has a CCW but does not support the "ordinary" citizen from being able to defend themselves and supports microstamping up to and including a national bill. She has been Senator since 1992 and I think that's enough. She has been given ample opportunity. The average age of Californians' is about 45 years old being repersented by a 74 year old woman. She certianly is NOT reperesentative of me o rmy age group. And with assets of between $43-99 million is an elitest. Unfortunately she was just re elected and we're stuck with her until 2012. Barbara Boxer is up in 2010. she should be the first to go.

hoffmang
09-16-2007, 7:18 PM
Keep dialing...

-Gene

Gringo Bandito
09-16-2007, 7:26 PM
From THR



Dianne Feinstein is a Hypocrite. Has a CCW but does not support the "ordinary" citizen from being able to defend themselves and supports microstamping up to and including a national bill. She has been Senator since 1992 and I think that's enough. She has been given ample opportunity. The average age of Californians' is about 45 years old being repersented by a 74 year old woman. She certianly is NOT reperesentative of me o rmy age group. And with assets of between $43-99 million is an elitest. Unfortunately she was just re elected and we're stuck with her until 2012. Barbara Boxer is up in 2010. she should be the first to go.

Those old crows are slowly killing CA and it makes me sick. :mad:

What is it with the politicians in this state? ***holes(shaking head).:ack2:

bulgron
09-16-2007, 9:35 PM
It seems like the more determined they are to screw with people's freedoms, the longer they keep working.

The woman is 74 and worth millions. Isn't it time for her to go live the good life in Palm Springs, or wherever it is that Socialists retire to?

SemiAutoSam
09-16-2007, 9:39 PM
Nope she aint done yet, As long as Californians and Americans in general own weapons she will be on the job until she is a wrinkled bag of bones.

Or maybe when the stupid voters of California get tired of her stepping on their and everyone else's rights then they might kick her out of office.

OK I was on a roll and in a somewhat intoxicated state a guy can dream right?

It seems like the more determined they are to screw with people's freedoms, the longer they keep working.

The woman is 74 and worth millions. Isn't it time for her to go live the good life in Palm Springs, or wherever it is that Socialists retire to?

CCWFacts
09-16-2007, 9:43 PM
She's not going to run again.

Where do Socialists retire? I would recommend the socialist paradise of North Korea. They have free health care over there.

Rck'n'ROll
09-16-2007, 10:01 PM
I would love it if Fienstien and Boxer did not get re-elected. but as it stands we live in a socialist state and they love these two women, for some reason. So I personally do not think they will be going anywhere soon.:(

bulgron
09-16-2007, 10:09 PM
She's not going to run again.


Yeah, that's what Boxer said, and then she did anyway.

The never go away until old age drags them kicking and screaming from the halls of power.

But both women are a bit long in the tooth and both have made noises about wanting to retire. I don't suppose that the CA Republican party has any plans to field a competitive race when these women give it up.

And by "competitive" I don't mean someone who thinks creationism belongs in a science class....

Crazed_SS
09-16-2007, 10:50 PM
I would love it if Fienstien and Boxer did not get re-elected. but as it stands we live in a socialist state and they love these two women, for some reason. So I personally do not think they will be going anywhere soon.:(

Maybe it's because I'm doing this lame political science major in "college", but one thing has become a pet peeve of mine is the throwing around of terms like "socialist" .. California is not a socialist state. Diane Feinstein is not a socialist.

Scarecrow Repair
09-16-2007, 11:34 PM
Maybe it's because I'm doing this lame political science major in "college", but one thing has become a pet peeve of mine is the throwing around of terms like "socialist" .. California is not a socialist state. Diane Feinstein is not a socialist.

Good luck on your educational campaign. There have been people here convinced that socialism means no private property of any kind, and in the same breath claim Democrat = socialist, and ignore the fact that even Soviet citizens could own private property.

Maybe you could use it for a paper in one of your classes .... but don't forget to get the opposite views in too, about gun owners being Neanderthals...

N6ATF
09-16-2007, 11:39 PM
She may have a CCW, but how often is she able to use it? Somehow I doubt she's packing in DC.

yellowsulphur
09-17-2007, 12:02 AM
D.C. issues permits albeit not to the average Joe though. Being a senator I see no problems with her getting a CCW for D.C. I'm curious though. When a high ranking government official get a CCW is it like what an average citizen would get or what a LEO would receive? Some jurisdictions restrict carrying on school campuses, liquor stores, businesses where >51% revenue is from alcohol sales, government buildings, and banks.

CCWFacts
09-17-2007, 8:14 AM
The rumor (which I believe is true) is that she has a Federal marshal status which lets her carry without regard to state law, and on commercial airplanes.

Can'thavenuthingood
09-17-2007, 8:23 AM
one thing has become a pet peeve of mine is the throwing around of terms like "socialist" .. California is not a socialist state. Diane Feinstein is not a socialist.

What is a 'Socialist', how is it being mis used?

What is the proper term?

Vick

SemiAutoSam
09-17-2007, 8:42 AM
With regard to the PRC I call it Communism.

What is a 'Socialist', how is it being mis used?

What is the proper term?

Vick

ldivinag
09-17-2007, 8:56 AM
What is a 'Socialist', how is it being mis used?

What is the proper term?

Vick


http://www.romm.org/soc_com.html

Davidwhitewolf
09-17-2007, 9:00 AM
The word in Sacramento is that everything Arnold's doing right now is to position himself to take Boxer's seat from her next cycle. Which would be just fine with me.

Of course that means he might actually sign this thing. So, as Gene says, keep dialing....

Corbin Dallas
09-17-2007, 11:30 AM
Maybe it's because I'm doing this lame political science major in "college", but one thing has become a pet peeve of mine is the throwing around of terms like "socialist" .. California is not a socialist state. Diane Feinstein is not a socialist.

The reason people call politician "socialists" and California "a socialist state" is because:

Many oppose the war and believe we should just leave
Many support illegal immigration and their rights to work here
Many support gay marriage and all right associated
Many believe places like git-mo should release everyone and cease to exist
Many believe health care for all should be a right
Many believe goods should be for use, not profit
Many believe large gas guzzling cars should be banned
Many believe the USA should save all oppressed people around the world

In California, it is the mentality of our governments "DO AS I SAY, NOT AS I DO" that warrents some of the population to call this place a socialist state...

Need I go on?

bulgron
09-17-2007, 11:57 AM
The reason people call politician "socialists" and California "a socialist state" is because:

Many oppose the war and believe we should just leave
Many support illegal immigration and their rights to work here
Many support gay marriage and all right associated
Many believe places like git-mo should release everyone and cease to exist
Many believe health care for all should be a right
Many believe goods should be for use, not profit
Many believe large gas guzzling cars should be banned
Many believe the USA should save all oppressed people around the world

In California, it is the mentality of our governments "DO AS I SAY, NOT AS I DO" that warrents some of the population to call this place a socialist state...

Need I go on?

Yes, but those things aren't really socialism, are they? They're better characterized as being purely anti-American, with a few socialistic traits thrown in.

The reason why I called Feinstein a socialist is because:

1. She's stridently anti-gun, and this is a typical hallmark of all authoritarians, including socialists.

2. She's old-school Democrat, which means that she's into promising the masses all kinds of goodies in order to get their votes in order to increase her own political power. Again, this is a surface-level socialistic trait.

Of course, you could say that Feinstein is NOT a socialist because she's stridently pro-capitalism, especially where defense contracts are concerned, and because she isn't really into broadly sharing power with anyone. Instead, she seems interested in focusing as much power as is possible in her own hands. In this, she's more a communist than a socialist, with definite shades of stalinism. This definition works especially well once you realize that Feinstein only gives lip service to socialist ideals, which according to the referenced article (http://www.romm.org/soc_com.html) is typical of a communist.

But at the end of the day, I think it's best to describe Feinstein as an American aristocrat. In America, one doesn't become an aristocrat by birth, but instead one purchases a seat in the aristocratic class. It's all about money, and using that money to keep the masses from gaining enough power to knock you out of your privilege seat.

But these are hard concepts to get across to a casual audience, so it's simply easiest to go with the common perception, and just call her a socialist.

ravenbkp
09-17-2007, 12:01 PM
Here are a few others:

1. A manifest hatred of the productive and responsible.
2. Endless demands for more taxes to re allocate.
3. 50% of population already on public health care.
4. Anti rights pro, government power.
5. Making the state the religion
6. Schools used for indoctrination
7. Public employees have hundreds of millions of dollars to beat up the governor
8. Hillary proposes to jail you if you see a MD privately
9. John Edwards proposes to jail you if you do not see a MD on his schedule!
10. The bill or rights is considered invalid the work of old dead white scum

WHAT PART OF THIS SOUNDS LIKE A FREE NON SOCIALIST STATE TO YOU???????????????

There is more much more but I do not have all damm day. Bye Bye Be Gud.

SemiAutoSam
09-17-2007, 1:26 PM
Here are some of the reasons I call her and her boxing buddy COMMUNISTS.

http://www.criminalgovernment.com/docs/planks.html

TEN PLANKS OF THE COMMUNIST MANIFESTO

Could this be happening in America? If so, how?

Our "elected representatives" have passed laws implementing these anti-freedom concepts. The communists have achieved a de facto FEDERAL SOCIALIST GOVERNMENT in America.

In 1848 Karl Marx and Frederick Engels wrote a book outlining a political ideology, titled "The Communist Manifesto". Marxism's basic theme is that the proletariat (the "exploited" working class of a capitalistic society) will suffer from alienation and will rise up against the "bourgeoisie" (the middle class) and overthrow the system of "capitalism." After a brief period of rule by "the dictatorship of the proletariat" the classless society of communism would emerge. In his Manifesto Marx described the following ten steps as necessary steps to be taken to destroy a free enterprise society!! Notice how many of these conditions, foreign to the principles that America was founded upon, have now, in 1997, been realized by the concerted efforts of socialist activists? Remember, government interference in your daily life and business is intrusion and deprivation of our liberties!

First Plank: Abolition of property in land and the application of all rents of land to public purposes. (Zoning - Model ordinances proposed by Secretary of Commerce Herbert Hoover widely adopted. Supreme Court ruled "zoning" to be "constitutional" in 1921. Private owners of property required to get permission from government relative to the use of their property. Federally owned lands are leased for grazing, mining, timber usages, the fees being paid into the U.S. Treasury.)

Second Plank: A heavy progressive or graduated incometax. (Corporate Tax Act of 1909. The 16th Amendment, allegedly ratified in 1913. The Revenue Act of 1913, section 2, Income Tax. These laws have been purposely misapplied against American citizens to this day.)

Third Plank: Abolition of all rights of inheritance. (Partially accomplished by enactment of various state and federal "estate tax" laws taxing the "privilege" of transfering property after death and gift before death.)

Fourth Plank: CONFISCATION OF THE PROPERTY OF ALL EMIGRANTS AND REBELS. (The confiscation of property and persecution of those critical - "rebels" - of government policies and actions, frequently accomplished by prosecuting them in a courtroom drama on charges of violations of non-existing administrative or regulatory laws.)

Fifth Plank: Centralization of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly. (The Federal Reserve Bank, 1913- -the system of privately-owned Federal Reserve banks which maintain a monopoly on the valueless debt "money" in circulation.)

Sixth Plank: Centralization of the means of communications and transportation in the hands of the State. (Federal Radio Commission, 1927; Federal Communications Commission, 1934; Air Commerce Act of 1926; Civil Aeronautics Act of 1938; Federal Aviation Agency, 1958; becoming part of the Department of Transportation in 1966; Federal Highway Act of 1916 (federal funds made available to States for highway construction); Interstate Highway System, 1944 (funding began 1956); Interstate Commerce Commission given authority by Congress to regulate trucking and carriers on inland waterways, 1935-40; Department of Transportation, 1966.)

Seventh Plank: Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State, the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan. (Depart-ment of Agriculture, 1862; Agriculture Adjustment Act of 1933 -- farmers will receive government aid if and only if they relinquish control of farming activities; Tennessee Valley Authority, 1933 with the Hoover Dam completed in 1936.)

Eighth Plank: Equal liability of all to labor. Establishment of industrial armies especially for agriculture. (First labor unions, known as federations, appeared in 1820. National Labor Union established 1866. American Federation of Labor established 1886. Interstate Commerce Act of 1887 placed railways under federal regulation. Department of Labor, 1913. Labor-management negotiations sanctioned under Railway Labor Act of 1926. Civil Works Administration, 1933. National Labor Relations Act of 1935, stated purpose to free inter-state commerce from disruptive strikes by eliminating the cause of the strike. Works Progress Administration 1935. Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, mandated 40-hour work week and time-and-a-half for overtime, set "minimum wage" scale. Civil Rights Act of 1964, effectively the equal liability of all to labor.)

Ninth Plank: Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries, gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equitable distribution of population over the country. (Food processing companies, with the co-operation of the Farmers Home Administration foreclosures, are buying up farms and creating "conglomerates.")

Tenth Plank: Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production. (Gradual shift from private education to publicly funded began in the Northern States, early 1800's. 1887: federal money (unconstitutionally) began funding specialized education. Smith-Lever Act of 1914, vocational education; Smith-Hughes Act of 1917 and other relief acts of the 1930's. Federal school lunch program of 1935; National School Lunch Act of 1946. National Defense Education Act of 1958, a reaction to Russia's Sputnik satellite demonstration, provided grants to education's specialties. Federal school aid law passed, 1965, greatly enlarged federal role in education, "head-start" programs, textbooks, library books.

(Research source: Encyclopedia Britannica.)
With regard to the PRC I call it Communism.

shark92651
09-17-2007, 1:54 PM
Yes, keep calling. There was a nice article in the latest issue of "America's First Freedom" magazine that described a 15 year FBI study that has been ignored by the mainstream media. That study confirms what we all know - the majority of guns used in crime are very not bought legally and therefore will NOT have any microstamping technology in them. This bill will do ZERO to reduce or help fight violent crime.

Crazed_SS
09-17-2007, 2:55 PM
Yes, but those things aren't really socialism, are they? They're better characterized as being purely anti-American, with a few socialistic traits thrown in.

The reason why I called Feinstein a socialist is because:

1. She's stridently anti-gun, and this is a typical hallmark of all authoritarians, including socialists.

2. She's old-school Democrat, which means that she's into promising the masses all kinds of goodies in order to get their votes in order to increase her own political power. Again, this is a surface-level socialistic trait.

Of course, you could say that Feinstein is NOT a socialist because she's stridently pro-capitalism, especially where defense contracts are concerned, and because she isn't really into broadly sharing power with anyone. Instead, she seems interested in focusing as much power as is possible in her own hands. In this, she's more a communist than a socialist, with definite shades of stalinism. This definition works especially well once you realize that Feinstein only gives lip service to socialist ideals, which according to the referenced article (http://www.romm.org/soc_com.html) is typical of a communist.

But at the end of the day, I think it's best to describe Feinstein as an American aristocrat. In America, one doesn't become an aristocrat by birth, but instead one purchases a seat in the aristocratic class. It's all about money, and using that money to keep the masses from gaining enough power to knock you out of your privilege seat.

But these are hard concepts to get across to a casual audience, so it's simply easiest to go with the common perception, and just call her a socialist.

Bingo.

And I guess this is why it bothers me so much. When people start tossing around terms they dont understand, it totally discredits anything they're saying. It's like when anti's start ranting about "cop-killer" bullets.. people who know even a little bit about guns roll their eyes because they know the antis have no clue about the terms they're using.

Same goes for gun owners tossing around "socialist" and "tyrant" and whatever other hyperbole you can come up with. I bet people who live under real socialism and real tyrants with crying with laughter hearing Californians using such terms.

Crazed_SS
09-17-2007, 3:02 PM
Here are a few others:

1. A manifest hatred of the productive and responsible.
2. Endless demands for more taxes to re allocate.
3. 50% of population already on public health care.
4. Anti rights pro, government power.
5. Making the state the religion
6. Schools used for indoctrination
7. Public employees have hundreds of millions of dollars to beat up the governor
8. Hillary proposes to jail you if you see a MD privately
9. John Edwards proposes to jail you if you do not see a MD on his schedule!
10. The bill or rights is considered invalid the work of old dead white scum

WHAT PART OF THIS SOUNDS LIKE A FREE NON SOCIALIST STATE TO YOU???????????????

There is more much more but I do not have all damm day. Bye Bye Be Gud.

Just about every part of that sounds like your opinion of things.

Where did Feinstein, or any other prominent democrat, say the Bill of Rights is invalid and the work of "old dead white scum"?

I understand your frustration, but making stuff up is not going to help anything.

glockk9mm
09-17-2007, 3:05 PM
the bill would not impact law-abiding gun owners.

LOL

SemiAutoSam
09-17-2007, 3:08 PM
I'm not suggesting your talking about me but.

Here is a question for you if you dont mind a little dialog here.

What do you call the kind of Government that California and or federal government representatives have us setup in if its not socialism or a possible blend of communism and socialism ?

DO you agree we do not have the same freedoms that the Citizens of this country had in its infancy or do you honestly think all of the freedoms in the constitution and bill of rights are still enjoyed by the people of California and or the rest of the country ?



.

Same goes for gun owners tossing around "socialist" and "tyrant" and whatever other hyperbole you can come up with. I bet people who live under real socialism and real tyrants with crying with laughter hearing Californians using such terms.

Crazed_SS
09-17-2007, 3:57 PM
I wasnt referring to you Sam.

But to answer your question, I would call the governent that we have here in California and the United States in general a Republic or Representative Democracy. I'd say California is even more of a Democracy because the proposition, referendum, and recall capabilities we have. If you got the votes, you can get just about anything on the ballot. Dont like the governor? Recall him!

Maybe we dont have as many freedoms as people did in 1700's, but that was over 200 years ago. Society changes and evolves overtime. I will admit that in certain areas, our government has adopted some socialist ideas, but we are FAR from living in a true socialist society. Our politicians (yes, even the Democrats) are capitalist pigs :)

I think gun owners have a tendency to see the world in Black and White sometimes. Just check out the thread about the gun case. :) There are a million shades of gray in law and politics.. just because I cant have a Mini-gun right now doesnt mean I'm being ruled by tyrants and need to overthrow the gov't.

SemiAutoSam
09-17-2007, 4:07 PM
I can respect that.

Its also a fact that no two people see things exactly the same way.

I also read too much at times and see things that I feel government has done in the history of our country that are what I consider treasonous and in the 1700's From what I have read could be considered a hanging offence.

Things are always up to interpretation.

Thanks for the reply.

I wasn't referring to you Sam.

But to answer your question, I would call the government that we have here in California and the United States in general a Republic or Representative Democracy. I'd say California is even more of a Democracy because the proposition, referendum, and recall capabilities we have. If you got the votes, you can get just about anything on the ballot. Don't like the governor? Recall him!

Maybe we dont have as many freedoms as people did in 1700's, but that was over 200 years ago. Society changes and evolves overtime. I will admit that in certain areas, our government has adopted some socialist ideas, but we are FAR from living in a true socialist society. Our politicians (yes, even the Democrats) are capitalist pigs :)

I think gun owners have a tendency to see the world in Black and White sometimes. Just check out the thread about the gun case. :) There are a million shades of gray in law and politics.. just because I cant have a Mini-gun right now doesn't mean I'm being ruled by tyrants and need to overthrow the gov't.

ravenbkp
09-18-2007, 6:15 PM
Crazed: Better part of 4 years poli sci history and military science. you have not been paying attention. Go back and read the republic again then Joseph Tussamns Obligation and the body politic finish up with the prince. Then read some damm history

It is really simple play defense now or end your life on your knees!

It is a very short road and nearly 100 million people have walked it in the last 100 years you self righteous pitiful........$%^&*#@!#$% Hitler was elected, Stalin Mao and Pol Pot, Ho Chi Min Hitler all friends of the people and mindless murdering collectivists. Do not bother writing, this board has to have a PLONK/Blocking feature and I am going to find it. Bye Bye Be Good

M. Sage
09-18-2007, 6:36 PM
Our politicians (yes, even the Democrats) are capitalist pigs :)

Well, for themselves...

It seems like one of the distinguishing traits of socialism is that the leadership feel that they are in fact better than everybody else, despite what they preach.

hoffmang
09-18-2007, 6:36 PM
Crazed,

I agree with you that a lot of the talking points above aren't socialism, but I will not agree with you that both Boxer and Feinstein don't have quite a few socialist policy leanings.

1. "Rich taxes" beyond simple progressive tax schemes.
2. Socialized (read compelled and state controlled) health care. Think just about this one. What a red herring to let the state into every corner of life for the "common" good.
3. A monopoly of force for the state without a duty to protect.
4. Labor Union policy above economic growth.
5. Central planning of corporate decision making.

Where do Boxer or Feinstein deviate from "soft" or even "hard" socialism?

-Gene

Scarecrow Repair
09-18-2007, 7:37 PM
Where do Boxer or Feinstein deviate from "soft" or even "hard" socialism?

Nannyism. The privileged, whether by birth or bank account, know more than mere people, who are too stupid to understand anything more complicated than what's for lunch.

Socialists are starry eyed dreamers who think people can all get together and live in harmony. They would be right if society were static and no one ever came up with any new inventions or more efficient ways of doing things and nothing ever upset the apple cart. They are so wooly eyed that the wolves take charge and pay lip service to the ideals of socialism. Every socialist state falters in the face of competition before it gets very far down the path towards dictatorship.

Then there is fascism, the merging of business and the state, which only pretends to have the interest of the nation in mind, never pretends it is doing anything for the people. People live for the state, and only the leaders know how to run the state.

Communism never has existed in any form except, what would you call it, Stalinism? Basically a dictatorship which dresses itself up in psuedo-socialist clothing but cares even less for the people than fascism.

All strong man governments eventually fall apart from the inheritance problem: who succeeds the current strongman? If elected, they pick someone inoffensive who they each think they can jerk around. If chosen y battle, the territory splits up. See Asimov's Foundation series for an interesting fictional account of strong emperor and strong generals not tolerating each other :-)

Actually, all governments have to face the reality of competition. A single world government would tend towards socialism and dictatorship until it too would be torn apart by internal jealousies, and then you'd be back to multiple governments and the reality of competition would be in force again.

gazzavc
09-18-2007, 8:16 PM
The sad part about Feinstien is that she is Jewish and should know better.

In 1933 the German government under the Nazi's began a series of laws to disarm and segregate the population. As we all know 6 million people, Jew, Christian and otherwise, perished in the death camps.

Feinstein is doing to us exactly what the Nazi's did to the German population before the war. Shame on her, she should know better.

I can't understand why any Jew , that has read and understands history, would have ANYTHING to do with gun control.

Gary

(and now back to my bagel & lox)

SemiAutoSam
09-18-2007, 8:25 PM
LOL yeah sure she should. I would tell a tale about her and her $$$$ but its politically correct and well a long story.


The sad part about Feinstien is that she is Jewish and should know better.

In 1933 the German government under the Nazi's began a series of laws to disarm and segregate the population. As we all know 6 million people, Jew, Christian and otherwise, perished in the death camps.

Feinstein is doing to us exactly what the Nazi's did to the German population before the war. Shame on her, she should know better.

I can't understand why any Jew , that has read and understands history, would have ANYTHING to do with gun control.

Gary

(and now back to my bagel & lox)

gazzavc
09-18-2007, 9:19 PM
Sam

I'm always up for a good story !!

Gaz

bulgron
09-18-2007, 10:31 PM
I can't understand why any Jew , that has read and understands history, would have ANYTHING to do with gun control.


Because gun control is a fine thing so long as you're the one controlling the guns. And Feinstein, being a member of the American aristocracy (this being rather more important than her being a jew), believes that she's the one who controls the guns. Or, that is, she thinks she would if only we subjects would just give them up.

ca_bubba11
09-19-2007, 8:10 AM
Crazed: Better part of 4 years poli sci history and military science. you have not been paying attention. Go back and read the republic again then Joseph Tussamns Obligation and the body politic finish up with the prince. Then read some damm history



Plato's Republic is junk. So is Machiavelli. Medieval hate filled territorial authoritarian BS.

While we are pointing out the gaps in each other's education, I recommend some Betrand Russell ("Unpopular Essays", "The History of Western Philosophy"). Rosseau's "Social Contract." Paine's "The Rights of Man." M.K. Gandhi's "A Story of My Experiments with Truth"

I have read some damn history. Not the popular "I love American so much we are saviors of the world remember WWII, 9/11!" jingoist crap that they teach you in school.

I recommend Christopher Hitchens, especially his work on uncovering the scumbags that Henry Kissinger and his masters were, and several decades of hypocritical meddlesome America foreign policy and our hand in the Middle-Eastern power structure, and subsequent wars, funding of people who later turned into terrorists. Nial Ferguson "Empire." Amy Chua "World On Fire." Stiglitz "Globalization and Its Discontents." Also don't forget to read up on the US involvement in South America.

Paratus et Vigilans
09-19-2007, 9:36 AM
Bingo.

And I guess this is why it bothers me so much. When people start tossing around terms they dont understand, it totally discredits anything they're saying. It's like when anti's start ranting about "cop-killer" bullets.. people who know even a little bit about guns roll their eyes because they know the antis have no clue about the terms they're using.

Same goes for gun owners tossing around "socialist" and "tyrant" and whatever other hyperbole you can come up with. I bet people who live under real socialism and real tyrants with crying with laughter hearing Californians using such terms.


Crazed,

Here's the definition set I think is easiest for all to understand:

Socialism: You have two cows. The government takes one and gives it to someone else.
Communism: You have two cows. The government takes both of them and evenly distributes the milk.
Capitalism: You have two cows. You sell one and buy a bull.

It may be overly simplistic, but it generally gets the point across! :D

Paratus et Vigilans
09-19-2007, 9:41 AM
I can respect that.

Its also a fact that no two people see things exactly the same way.

I also read too much at times and see things that I feel government has done in the history of our country that are what I consider treasonous and in the 1700's From what I have read could be considered a hanging offence.

Things are always up to interpretation.

Thanks for the reply.

Sam,

You always do such a good job of stating your position and being polite in your discourse!

Even where we disagree on things, and there are more than a few places that we do :), you conduct yourself as a gentleman. It is appreciated! Thanks for making this board a better place!

Jim

M. Sage
09-19-2007, 4:53 PM
Nannyism. The privileged, whether by birth or bank account, know more than mere people, who are too stupid to understand anything more complicated than what's for lunch.

IMO, there are a lot of different kinds of socialist.

"Average" socialists, the ones you're likely to bump into street-level:

One is the starry-eyed dreamer who honestly believes everybody should share and share alike. They're in the minority and not terribly bright. Also usually suffer nobly for the cause, wearing it on their shirt sleeve. Don't realize that they're trying to make everybody's life hell. Despite a low-IQ, usually has a lot of college education, usually in a field that has limited or no practical application.

The other is the poor, got nuthin' but want everything without any effort schmuck. They're the ones most vocal in their support, despite the fact that they wind up just as bad off, if not worse thanks to their support. Deep down, they want everybody to be equally miserable.

The rich socialists usually break up two ways:

The idiots who are usually "old money" and believe that socialism is right, mainly because they don't understand how the world works thanks to their green insulation (never honestly worked a full day in their lives). They feel that us "little people" can't manage on our own, so we should redistribute. Note that deep down, the seem to believe that the average Joe is a flaming idiot whose life sucks and needs help.

The ones like DiFi and Boxer: meddlers. They think socialism would be great, because everybody else should have the same amount of stuff. Well, except the leaders, of course. All animals are equal, but some are more equal. They're usually control freaks who think that mankind is too freaking stupid to live without being told how. In other words, nanny-staters. Also usually appear to be fairly unhappy with their lives, assuming that bad things are always around the corner.

Of course, there are the opportunists who use the platform to rise to power, but I think these sum up most socialists.

Scope
09-19-2007, 7:27 PM
But at the end of the day, I think it's best to describe Feinstein as an American aristocrat. In America, one doesn't become an aristocrat by birth, but instead one purchases a seat in the aristocratic class. It's all about money, and using that money to keep the masses from gaining enough power to knock you out of your privilege seat.

That's an interesting title. I kind of like it, although it doesn't roll of the tongue so well.

Often times "socialist" is thrown around as a catch-all phrase for anyone far left of center, which DiFi is.

dfletcher
09-19-2007, 9:47 PM
Aristocracy is very much about heritage and birthright - to have money is a given. But simply assembling alot of money is no indication of acceptance. Diane Feinstein is not aristocracy, she's just a yenta whose husband happens to have a few dollars.

bulgron
09-19-2007, 10:04 PM
Aristocracy is very much about heritage and birthright - to have money is a given. But simply assembling alot of money is no indication of acceptance. Diane Feinstein is not aristocracy, she's just a yenta whose husband happens to have a few dollars.

America redefined aristocracy so that it's less about birthright and more about money. While it is true that just having lots of bucks doesn't mean you're accepted into the aristocracy, I'd say Feinstein's rather rarified position of power in government is a pretty good indication of her acceptance by the American aristocratic class. She never would have gotten there if they hadn't accepted her.

tom_92673
09-19-2007, 10:35 PM
Diane Feinstein panders to the elitists in CA. She works to get money in the hands of a few in CA, including contracts for her husbands company. She uses political hand waiving to convince the "forward thinking" (read liberals) that she is protecting them from the evil uneducated masses. People are so desparate to believe that they are amongst that group that they go along with her BS. At least in Southern California, nobody believes they are getting fair shake in life unless they have what every celebrity has, and without thinking goes along with whatever is the popular view.

DiFi is in no way a representative of the people, and in no way do we have a representative democracy in this country. Representative of who? We all saw the canned response letters she sends to her constituency. Her platforms aren't based on the will of the people, they're based on her will and the policy of her party. That is authoritarianism any way you slice it.

Charliegone
09-19-2007, 11:42 PM
I think DiFi is more of a Statist than Socialist. I would also throw GWB in that definition too.

hoffmang
09-20-2007, 9:04 AM
So why isn't she pandering to me? :rolleyes: (Sorry... Inside joke from a thread that went down the memory hole...)

-Gene

Charliegone
09-20-2007, 9:27 AM
So why isn't she pandering to me? :rolleyes: (Sorry... Inside joke from a thread that went down the memory hole...)

-Gene

Because your not buff like Ahnold.:p

hoffmang
09-20-2007, 9:48 AM
Ahnold is going to become her BFF in the Senate all too soon.

-Gene

eckerph
09-20-2007, 10:13 AM
I think someone needs to take one for the team and lay some serious pipe to these two broads. Maybe they would be in a much better state of mind.

FortCourageArmory
09-20-2007, 10:14 AM
I think someone needs to take one for the team and lay some serious pipe to these two broads. Maybe they would be in a much better state of mind.

AAARRRRRGGGGHHHH......the visual from that suggestion....I think I need an ice pick to get it out of my head!!!

gazzavc
09-20-2007, 10:37 AM
At the end of the day Feinstien is a horrible old battleaxe that needs to be replaced by someone who is in touch withe the mainstream in this state, not the elitist ruling class.

How does she manage to get reelected time after time when she is such a useless pile of rubbish.

Crazed_SS
09-20-2007, 10:43 AM
How does she manage to get reelected time after time when she is such a useless pile of rubbish.

Because people vote for her and no one tries to seriously run against her?

I remembered some guy named Mountjoy running against her last election.. I went to his website and it was completely devoid of any content and looked like it had been put together by a 14yr old.

The woman isnt all-powerful.. all it takes for her to lose her job is for citizens to vote her out. It's become painfully apparent that the majority of Californians want her as a Senator.

bulgron
09-20-2007, 12:01 PM
Because people vote for her and no one tries to seriously run against her?

I remembered some guy named Mountjoy running against her last election.. I went to his website and it was completely devoid of any content and looked like it had been put together by a 14yr old.

The woman isnt all-powerful.. all it takes for her to lose her job is for citizens to vote her out. It's become painfully apparent that the majority of Californians want her as a Senator.

Correction: the majority of Californians want her to be their Senator when the alternative is some guy named Mountjoy who is running a painfully inadequate campaign.

If the Republicans would put up someone viable, they could probably beat her. But it has to be someone that resonates with Californians.

Crazed_SS
09-20-2007, 12:52 PM
Well yea.. but the woman has been Senator for as long as I can remember now. You telling the Republicans couldnt find anyone in all these years to challenge her? The Democrats were able to unseat Santorum in Pennsylvania with ease in the 2006 elections as the guy was a little too extreme.

The majority of Californians probably see her as a being a bit left of center, but not an outright leftist, tyrant, aristocrat, socialist or whatever colorful label you wish to use. That's why I stated people should be careful with the words they use.. All the hyperbole simply turns people off to your position.

It's sad to say, but if the best arguments against DiFi are the ones in this thread, she's gonna be Senator for another decade.

FortCourageArmory
09-20-2007, 12:54 PM
If the GOP in the state would field a candidate that can run a half-way decent campaign, DiFi is beatable. Show me that candidate and I'll back them from here to next year.

Crazed_SS
09-20-2007, 1:13 PM
The GOP would have to field a candidate with an extrodinary, not just half-decent, campaign to take down Feinstein. Obviously she isnt popular here on calguns, but for many Californians she's their woman.. Maybe if we got a movie star running against her :)

CCWFacts
09-20-2007, 1:18 PM
Correction: the majority of Californians want her to be their Senator when the alternative is some guy named Mountjoy who is running a painfully inadequate campaign.

"Painfully inadequate" is too kind. He didn't even run. I read somewhere that this was the first senate campaign since the 60s where a candidate didn't run any TV ads. If I ran at least I would have a strong website, Youtube videos, and be in touch with California. None of that stuff is terribly expensive.

The problem is we are on the brink of a situation where Repubs think there is no hope of winning in this state, so strong, viable Repub candidates can't even be recruited, which makes Repubs less viable, etc. We are so so lucky that Arnie is here. If it weren't for him, the Repub party would be irrelevant in this state, and instead of whining about Arnie signing AB50, we would be whining about Governor Davis signing a microstamping bill, a semi-auto ban, a handgun ban, etc.

The Repub party is in real trouble in this state and is on the brink of complete irrelevance. They are losing money and they are in the red financially.

bulgron
09-20-2007, 2:07 PM
The Repub party is in real trouble in this state and is on the brink of complete irrelevance. They are losing money and they are in the red financially.

Yep. It isn't a good thing either. I'm not a big fan of the Republican party, but I'm even less of a fan of a one-party state.

The Republicans are going to have to learn something from the Democrats, who under the leadership of Howard Dean started their 50 state strategy in 2006. This strategy means the the Democrats will leave no seat uncontested in the entire United States for any given election (provided they can find a viable candidate, that is). The idea being that even if they don't think they can win, they don't want the Republicans to have a "safe seat" and therefore be able to focus their resources on some other more heavily contested election.

By abandoning California, not only is the Republican party giving up on a hugely important state but they're also allowing the Democrats to take resources from California and focus them on other competitive races around the country. That is a losing strategy both for California Republicans and for Republicans nationwide.

But in order to be competitive in California, the California Republican party is going to have to find liberal or moderate politicians to support. This flies directly in the face of the ultra-religious-conservative brand of politician that Republicans seem to want to back.

Moderate Republicans can win elections in California, obviously. Just look at Arnold. And in 1992, Michael Huffington, a liberal Republican, lost to Feinstein by only 1.9% of the vote. He had to do it with his own money, though, since, if I remember correctly, he didn't get much love from the national Republican party.

Feinstein has apparently said she won't run for re-election again. If so, then in 2012 there's going to be an open Senate seat in California. Now would be a good time for California Republicans to go looking for a moderate or liberal politician to push for that seat.

But, sadly, I suspect that the Republican party would rather collapse completely than support politicians who aren't willing to live, eat and breath God. :rolleyes:

Which means that we should all just join the Democratic party, and use the primaries to push pro-gun politicians into state-wide office.

CCWFacts
09-20-2007, 2:26 PM
But, sadly, I suspect that the Republican party would rather collapse completely than support politicians who aren't willing to live, eat and breath God.

Yup. Very sad. There are so many small-government non-thumpers out there that they could be getting... but no, they are addicted to this small group, who have no traction among urban educated Californians.

Which means that we should all just join the Democratic party, and use the primaries to push pro-gun politicians into state-wide office.

That may be the only option. It means not just voting in the Dem primaries but getting involved in local Dem committees to help influence recruiting of candidates.

tom_92673
09-20-2007, 8:38 PM
Well yea.. but the woman has been Senator for as long as I can remember now. You telling the Republicans couldnt find anyone in all these years to challenge her? The Democrats were able to unseat Santorum in Pennsylvania with ease in the 2006 elections as the guy was a little too extreme.

The majority of Californians probably see her as a being a bit left of center, but not an outright leftist, tyrant, aristocrat, socialist or whatever colorful label you wish to use. That's why I stated people should be careful with the words they use.. All the hyperbole simply turns people off to your position.

It's sad to say, but if the best arguments against DiFi are the ones in this thread, she's gonna be Senator for another decade.


God I remember when I first went to college and read a few books. i thought I was so much smarter than everyone else. Then I got a job and realized that things in the real world taught much harsher and more important lessons than history books.

Crazed_SS
09-20-2007, 8:49 PM
God I remember when I first went to college and read a few books. i thought I was so much smarter than everyone else. Then I got a job and realized that things in the real world taught much harsher and more important lessons than history books.

I have a job. In fact, I've been working since I was 17. I think I make a decent amount of money too. It allows me to waste money on trips to Vegas, 405hp Sports cars, overpriced San Diego real estate, $1600 rifles, and $1200 pistols.

I didnt learn about voting in College. They taught that stuff in Junior High and High School. :)

EDIT: I know what you mean though, I hate college people too. Always wanting to show off what the professor lectured about. Honestly I wouldnt even go to school if I wasnt getting the GI Bill.

crunchy
09-20-2007, 9:02 PM
Has anyone ever seen these two in the same room in the Senate? Hmmmm. Really, the similarity is uncanny. Both in the wrinkled, foul visage twisted by evil, and the thirst for power.

http://blog.otownhandyman.com/wp-content/images/feinstein.jpg

http://www.philipcoppens.com/sw_palpatine.jpg

N6ATF
09-20-2007, 11:41 PM
Dick Mountjoy.

So... easy... to... mock...