Just saw this gem on Facebook...Feinstein

[RickRyder]

I am sick of this woman's idiotic nonsense!

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/04/22/feinstein_on_watertown_ma_residents_do_they_need_an_assault_weapon_i_dont_think_so.html

[wweigle]

The use of a shotgun creates an element of surprise?. Is she Biden's sister? Appears to have the same genetic makeup.

[RickRyder]

By the way, I do not currently own any AW's, but under Feinstein's ideals, my 10/22, .17HMR and of course my AR 15 are...I have a shotgun, it has an 18 inch barrel, I can handle it no problem, I am also 6' 2" 240 pounds...I don't think my 5'2" 120 pound fiance would do to well with the shotgun, and my .40 would be hard for her to control, but she can fire the AR 15 no problem...I'd LOVE to see a video of Feinstein shooting my Super Nova Tactical 12 Gauge! I'll supply the gun and as much ammo as she wants, but we are talking self defense so I will only supply 00 buck or slugs...She would also have to sign a waiver not holding me liable for her shoulder...

[kvvmpu]

By the way, I do not currently own any AW's, but under Fienstein's ideals, my 10/22, .17HMR and of course my AR 15 are...I have a shotgun, it has an 18 inch barrel, I can handle it no problem, I am also 6' 2" 240 pounds...I don't think my 5'2" 120 pound fiance would do to well with the shotgun, and my .40 would be hard for her to control, but she can fire the AR 15 no problem...I'd LOVE to see a video of Fienstein shooting my Super Nova Tactical 12 Gauge! I'll supply the gun and as much ammo as she wants, but we are talking self defense so I will only supply 00 buck or slugs...She would also have to sign a waiver not holding me liable for her shoulder...

I'll pay money to see video her shooting your shotgun!

[RickRyder]

HAHAHA, best one I've seen yet!

[lakersandguns]

What a dumbass

[penguin0123]

The next thing you know, she'll be recommending a double barrel .410

[AlaskaGuy]

What a dumbass

ROFL

[kraqus]

Priceless video!

Is she Biden's sister? Appears to have the same genetic makeup.

No, they are not....




Benny

[stony]

I love this argument: what about a machine gun? what about rocket launchers? what about nuclear weapons? should we be allowed to own those things? People like DiFi use this as a basis for weapons that they don't like. Essentially, they say, "we have already banned some stuff... why not others?"

Let me destroy that argument right now. Personally, I believe that people should be allowed to own machine guns. However, as far as explosives/nuclear weapons/biological weapons go, they all have a varying degree of being indiscriminate in their use. It could be argued that banning these sorts of arms (and I suppose that the same argument could be made for machine guns) is not unconstitutional because of this. If you look at the arguments of some natural law scholars (which our Declaration of Independence and US Constitution is based on) make this argument. Particularly, John Locke states in his Second Treatise on Civil Government,

"...it being reasonable and just, I should have a right to destroy that which threatens me with destruction: for, by the fundamental law of nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred: and one may destroy a man who makes war upon him, or has discovered an enmity to his being, for the same reason that he may kill a wolf or a lion; because such men are not under the ties of the commonlaw of reason, have no other rule, but that of force and violence, and so may be treated as beasts of prey, those dangerous and noxious creatures, that will be sure to destroy him whenever he falls into their power."

Now, Locke also makes the case for the natural right for people to be secure in their life, liberty and property. Notice that he states, "when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred." Weapons like nuclear weapons, cruise missiles, etc are indiscriminate by their very nature. Particularly with nuclear weapons, it is near impossible to control whether or not they take the life of the innocent. Therefore, by employing such weapons, you are depriving the innocent their right to life. Locke states that we have a right to employ weapons against those that make war on us but do not have the right to deprive the rights of the innocent.

There is nothing indiscriminate about what DiFi calls an "assault weapon." In fact, an AR-15 is far less indiscriminate than a 12 ga shotgun. They are far more accurate and as a result, you are much less likely to deprive the innocent of their right to life. The theory of natural law dictates that the AR-15 should receive even greater protection than Biden and DiFi's shotguns.

[Wherryj]

The use of a shotgun creates an element of surprise?. Is she Biden's sister? Appears to have the same genetic makeup.

But I thought that it was the racking of the slide that would make all perpetrators quiver in fear and allow you to stop the crime without firing the weapon at all???

Isn't the sound the slide makes supposed to be part of the shotgun's effectiveness? How can the sound also allow "surprise"? I'm even more confused listening to her than I am listening to Biden.

[Peaceful John]

I love this argument: what about a machine gun? what about rocket launchers? what about nuclear weapons? should we be allowed to own those things? People like DiFi use this as a basis for weapons that they don't like. Essentially, they say, "we have already banned some stuff... why not others?"

Let me destroy that argument right now. Personally, I believe that people should be allowed to own machine guns. However, as far as explosives/nuclear weapons/biological weapons go, they all have a varying degree of being indiscriminate in their use. It could be argued that banning these sorts of arms (and I suppose that the same argument could be made for machine guns) is not unconstitutional because of this. If you look at the arguments of some natural law scholars (which our Declaration of Independence and US Constitution is based on) make this argument. Particularly, John Locke states in his Second Treatise on Civil Government,

"...it being reasonable and just, I should have a right to destroy that which threatens me with destruction: for, by the fundamental law of nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred: and one may destroy a man who makes war upon him, or has discovered an enmity to his being, for the same reason that he may kill a wolf or a lion; because such men are not under the ties of the commonlaw of reason, have no other rule, but that of force and violence, and so may be treated as beasts of prey, those dangerous and noxious creatures, that will be sure to destroy him whenever he falls into their power."

Now, Locke also makes the case for the natural right for people to be secure in their life, liberty and property. Notice that he states, "when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred." Weapons like nuclear weapons, cruise missiles, etc are indiscriminate by their very nature. Particularly with nuclear weapons, it is near impossible to control whether or not they take the life of the innocent. Therefore, by employing such weapons, you are depriving the innocent their right to life. Locke states that we have a right to employ weapons against those that make war on us but do not have the right to deprive the rights of the innocent.

There is nothing indiscriminate about what DiFi calls an "assault weapon." In fact, an AR-15 is far less indiscriminate than a 12 ga shotgun. They are far more accurate and as a result, you are much less likely to deprive the innocent of their right to life. The theory of natural law dictates that the AR-15 should receive even greater protection than Biden and DiFi's shotguns.

Stoney, that's really well said.

[HKMadness]

Feinstein On Watertown, MA Residents: "Do They Need An Assault Weapon? I Don't Think So"

At least she's trying to uphold our bill of needs, according to HER opinion

That's what she's paid to do by her constituents, isn't it? California, love everything except the politics

[sugi942]

Priceless video!





No, they are not....




Benny

You're right. They're brothers.

[RickRyder]

Stoney, that's really well said.

+1

The only sad part is people with common sense and the ability to reason can understand that argument. Most of these gun grabbers wouldn't even be able to makes sense of John Locke's Second Treatise on Civil Government because they are too STUPID!