Marine To feinstein: I Will Not Register My Weapons

[Angry Irishman]

It doesn't matter what you think. It doesn't matter what I think. The only thing that matters is that the law must be obeyed is passed, and if anyone chooses to break it, they do so at their own peril. And you have said the law is illegal, which is totally not true. The court system would have to rule on that, if a bill ever got passed. All you are doing is throwing a typical ill-informed temper tantrum about wanting to pick and choose which laws are "right" based on your feelings and gut instinct. Hint: Doesn't work that way.

Basic civics 101, guess you ignored that in school

Again, unless you have that magic neocon legal ruling that lets you pick and choose which laws you obey based on what you "feel". LOL

Do you teach seventh grade civic studies? You must because that's all you can squawk like a parrot about.

Again, I understand the law....thanks so very much. If I break the law I understand the potential consequences. That said I don't agree with it. This is a public forum; am I allowed to state this? That's what people do on forums that are engaged in discussion.

Again, what are you're thoughts on the bill and the current laws regarding firearms? This country was founded by men who broke the law...remember your American history classes. Taxes for tea and such....

One and probably the most important premise of this republic is to remain skeptical of our government and to have the right to do so. If you choose to accept mindlessly everything that is taken from you and is illegal (not in the lawyers/law enforcement) sense but in Constitutional terms then feel free. I choose to be a patriot and not another sheep. It does very much matter what the citizens of this country think.

 

[Angry Irishman]

Feinstein is also a patriot, serving her country in the Senate. This will surely piss off some of you: "Feinstein has been re-elected four times since then and in the 2012 election, she claimed the record for the most popular votes in any U.S. Senate election in history, having received 7.75 million votes."
I don't really like her, she's too conservative-voted for Bush's tax cuts and wars. Guns seem to be the only issue where she is liberal.

The fact that she has sat in that seat for four years is problematic...regardless of the person. She'll draw a great pension and health care for life though. Someone who makes a career out of politics is serving themselves...not the state or the nation.

There are key members on the Hill that yield too much power and the same rational should be applied to those in Congress mandating limited terms just like the office of the President.

 

[marincounty]

The fact that she has sat in that seat for four years is problematic...regardless of the person. She'll draw a great pension and health care for life though. Someone who makes a career out of politics is serving themselves...not the state or the nation.

There are key members on the Hill that yield too much power and the same rational should be applied to those in Congress mandating limited terms just like the office of the President.

Her husband is very rich anyway, she needs nothing from anyone. Money is not a motivator for her. If you knew anything of Diane Feinstein's history you'd know she is not just serving herself.

We already have term limits- their called elections. Term limits are lobbyists best friends because they can dominate the process with inexperienced new politicians desperate for money.
Show me where term limits have improved governance anywhere.

 

[ericlp]

What the hell does anyone need an assault rifle for?

I don't know... But fuck that hero... I served 8 years myself and I think they should ban all assault rifles.

All anyone needs is a shotgun for home defense. Period.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Her husband is very rich anyway, she needs nothing from anyone. Money is not a motivator for her. If you knew anything of Diane Feinstein's history you'd know she is not just serving herself.

We already have term limits- their called elections. Term limits are lobbyists best friends because they can dominate the process with inexperienced new politicians desperate for money.
Show me where term limits have improved governance anywhere.

And what a patriot she is! Here's a tidbit from Cracked about something she and Obama back, and how great they are. As always the liberals support their actions. Bipartisanship- sleeping with the Neocons.

#1. The NDAA Will Remain, as Liberals Continue to Sleep on the Job

Hey, guess what? Remember a few months ago when I wrote an article explaining that despite the topic barely being covered by the media, we live in a country where the government can now lock you up indefinitely with no legal counsel and no right to an attorney based on some poorly defined "suspicion" of abetting terrorism? No? Here, please read it now. It's true: President Obama paid some lip service to the constitutionality of such a bill and then signed it, fighting any provisions that would in any way limit the power of the executive office. Neat trick, huh?

Getty

"For my next trick, I'll shrink the First Amendment to about this size while still being praised by hippies."
Katherine Forrest, United States District Court judge for the Southern District of New York, issued an order enjoining enforcement of the NDAA (before having her order stayed by a higher judicial panel), because this bill did indeed go further in expanding executive power than previous bills. Furthermore, the bill defined abetting terrorism so poorly that the journalists petitioning its constitutionality had a valid belief that their mere journalistic actions could qualify as assisting terrorists. Indeed, in court, the government attorneys could not allay that concern and were unable to provide specifics as to what actions would trigger indefinite imprisonment.

Getty

"Wait, we're asking for the power to completely suspend due process, and you have the nerve to ask us for specifics?"
Not to fear, my more liberal friends claimed. Don't you get it? Obama is just trying to get re-elected. Republicans will paint him as soft on terrorism if he doesn't sign it. Some offered, duh, he's just setting it up nice and sweet for the Supreme Court to rule it unconstitutional. Somehow, even though the Obama administration folded (or waffled?) like a cheap suit over the First Amendment issues on the so-called Ground Zero mosque, my liberal friends assured me that no black man who didn't seem to hate women or gays could ever abide anything as wildly unconstitutional as the NDAA. None of those arguments made sense to me. Mostly because they were totally wrong.
The Obama administration has taken no action to amend the NDAA for 2013 -- oh, except for threatening to veto any bill that altered the executive authority he had under the 2012 bill. There was the Feinstein/Lee amendment, created to clarify that the NDAA could not remove an American citizen's right to due process, but you know what? That amendment was removed without explanation and replaced with language that makes no one's rights clear. Last month, the bill passed the Senate by an overwhelming margin.
So come 2013, we will have the NDAA again. None of the abuses to our due process have been remedied. And do you know the worst part? No one cares. You can find testimonials on YouTube, like this one from David Seaman, but the subject is ignored by mainstream media, and most people still don't believe that a "liberal" like Obama could sign such a bill. All my liberal friends were correctly up in arms when Bush pursued such wrong-headed measures, but it seems like as long as you're not pushing church-based legislation (like banning abortion and gay rights), a whole bunch of liberals don't seem motivated to keep watch over our Constitution. The apologists will come forth in the comments, and before they explain why our president's hands were tied on this one, I hope they read the first NDAA column and the court decision linked above. Their arguments, which were overly optimistic and flimsy, are even more tenuous now. It's not that I want to be right. I just want to remove some of the calming rationalizations that enable the present liberal apathy, because this apathy means that 2013 and beyond will see no shortage of abuses to our basic freedoms.


Read more: http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-obnoxious-things-that-wont-go-away-in-2013_p2/#ixzz2HCYMbue8

 

[frowertr]

I don't know... But fuck that hero... I served 8 years myself and I think they should ban all assault rifles.

All anyone needs is a shotgun for home defense. Period.

Lol. Thanks for telling me what I need. I didn't know. Appreciate it...



If we want to talk about the best home defense weapon (which this thread isn't about) then a handgun is far better than a shotgun. Give me the ability to use a single handed firearm any day where I can squeeze off 10+ shots in a matter of seconds.

Shotguns while nice for assaulting, aren't great for home defense. Pumps always require two hands so if you don't have a hand free you better hope you have one in the pipe before you pull the trigger. Semi autos don't but they are still cumbersome/heavy to use and still can only carry a limited number of rounds compared to a modern semi auto handgun.

 

[Emos]

She's an old rotting bitch, she's has to be a heart attack away , good riddance.

If her ban passes I predict many more Jared Loughners. And I can't say I'd care either.

Wow, in favor of more mass killings! What a sociopath.

 

[schneiderguy]

I don't know... But fuck that hero... I served 8 years myself and I think they should ban all assault rifles.

All anyone needs is a shotgun for home defense. Period.

An AR-15 is safer in a home defense situation for everyone involved (except the criminal).

 

[wirednuts]

I am a Marine Corps Veteran of 8 years, and I will not have some woman who proclaims the evil of an inanimate object, yet carries one, tell me I may not have one.
http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-902515?hpt=hp_bn1

that pretty much made up my mind right there. even if this guy has a point, you can tell he is an asshole.

 

[wirednuts]

I don't know... But fuck that hero... I served 8 years myself and I think they should ban all assault rifles.

All anyone needs is a shotgun for home defense. Period.

i agree. assult weapons can be controlled too.. theyre large in size and you can easily classify them. its nothing like a general gun ban where you could call certain NERF toys weapons with a little modding.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

An AR-15 is safer in a home defense situation for everyone involved (except the criminal).

Considering overpenetration of a .223 round compared to shotgun pellets it appears that you would be incorrect.

 

[Lemon law]

Still gotta love the thread title, " Marine To feinstein: I Will Not Register My Weapons"

Which is blessed wrong on two counts.

(1) Where does this crapola come from that Nancy Pelosi, now only minority leader in the US House of Representatives is the only key person in the USA who sets and controls US domestic firearms laws.

(2) And this argument sounds very familial to that current US marine reservist birther who claimed because he alone was certain Obama was not his legitimate commander and Chief of the US military, he was free to disregard any lawful orders from a US President. While still collecting a generous militarily salary from the US tax payer.

We all know how that one ended, as the idiot got booted out of the US military and lost a substantial part of his military pension. And ought to consider himself lucky he was not tried and convicted of treason and jailed for it.

(3) And now we are talking about an EX US birther and a EX Marine who now have the same rights of an ordinary citizen. As tell me again, why only ex-militarily personnel who served our country as honorably as Charles Grander, LT Calley, and Linde England are the only people in the USA who have a right to set US domestic policy guns laws, and even better yet declare themselves above the laws other civilians such as themselves have to obey?

As we can also ask, what about all those ex-military personnel who also more honorably served. And see a need for US domestic gun control. We can also ask, why do a mere two nuts have any right in proclaiming they alone can speak for a much bigger and better group who have served in the US military as citizen soldiers?

 

[exdeath]

Considering overpenetration of a .223 round compared to shotgun pellets it appears that you would be incorrect.

Unless you're using XM855 SS109 steel core bullets, most .223/5.56 bullets pretty much disintegrate upon passing through the first solid object they hit.

It's also safer for the defender due to less reloads, less recoil, lighter weight easier to handle weapon, etc.

 

[schneiderguy]

Considering overpenetration of a .223 round compared to shotgun pellets it appears that you would be incorrect.

Depends upon what ammo you're using. Most .223 bullets will fragment going through walls.

http://230grain.com/showthread.php?65428-Ammunition-Drywall-Penetration-Analysis-Test-(Adpat)

In addition, the lighter weight and lighter recoiling AR-15 will be easier to shoot accurately, minimizing the chance of missed shots.

edit: oops, exdeath posted the same thing while I was typing this up

 

[DCal430]

Would love for this to pass, this fool refuse to comply, get arrested, and is paraded around in chains as an example for everyone else. In fact I don't know why we don't parade criminals in chains in this country to serve as a warning to others.

 

[Broheim]

Considering overpenetration of a .223 round compared to shotgun pellets it appears that you would be incorrect.

00 buckshot overpenetrates, a good selfdefense .223/5.56mm is designed to tumble and disintegrate inside of the body of the target (which will also occur in a wall). I'm not saying that the .223/5.56mm wont overpenetrate, but with a shotgun you also have to take into account that your "cone of fire" increases as the pellets travel.

in the danish army we would only use shotguns to fire breaching rounds and would then use our rifles to clear rooms.

 

[Cerb]

I read an article recently that I thought was very on point. Why the fetishization of the second amendment but not the others?

It's the blinders. Take them off. The 1st, 4th, 7th (Google, "mandatory binding arbitration," if you've only been watching MSM), and 14th are also quite a talked about, and threatened.

Would love for this to pass, this fool refuse to comply, get arrested, and is paraded around in chains as an example for everyone else. In fact I don't know why we don't parade criminals in chains in this country to serve as a warning to others.

Except that reality would look a lot more like a high-profile USSC case, removing from the law any meaningful teeth.

Purchasing and selling may be wholly different, but it would be very hard to make any useful enforcement provisions stick for firearms people already own. There are at least 3 amendments in the way (2, 4, and 5).

 

[TerryMathews]

It's the blinders. Take them off. The 1st, 4th, 7th (Google, "mandatory binding arbitration," if you've only been watching MSM), and 14th are also quite a talked about, and threatened.

Except that reality would look a lot more like a high-profile USSC case, removing from the law any meaningful teeth.

Purchasing and selling may be wholly different, but it would be very hard to make any useful enforcement provisions stick for firearms people already own. There are at least 3 amendments in the way (2, 4, and 5).

And maybe we don't talk about it as much but thousands of people benefit daily from the 6th.

A certain portion of the population should be very happy about the existence of the 13th and 15th.

More people should talk about repealing the 16th...

 

[HumblePie]

Umm, FBI said that for consistent defensive penetration rating you need 12 inches after considering thick clothing. Some guns/ammo combination match that, some don't and some exceed that. And that's 12 inches into ballistics gel designed to simulate human body matter. Any round that can't penetrate 12 inches of ballistics gel and at least two thick pieces of denim jeans will not be good for him defense?

Why? Because you don't always get a clear headshot nor can every land that shot even if given it. Most of the time there is an arm in the way, or shoulder, or what not. Plus clothing on the perp. In winter that clothing will likely be thicker as well. This doesn't even bring into consideration armor protection at all either. Just that without 12 inches of penetration the likely hood of stopping some is drastically reduced. You just won't do significant enough damage to a determined perp.

Shotguns loaded with birdshot for example aren't going to do that kind of penetration. 00 buckshot can, and 000 buckshot will do more than that. But a 5.56 round certainly will reach that mark every time. Some handgun ammo will, and some won't. Even if you are using something a .44 magnum revolver, even that has more than enough penetration still is not guaranteed to stop the target even on a good center mass shot.

Handgun's aren't really all that great for defense because 1) they are harder to aim, 2) the bullets are slower velocity so they tend to "punch, dent, and tumble" instead of fragment upon impact 3) require more rounds typically to stop the target. Because of number 1, there is a chance of hitting other targets besides the one you want to stop.

Shotguns are better than handguns in some ways and worse in others. They are easier to aim and control, however, since their ammo loads are designed to spread a bit there is still always a chance of a missed shot or loads hitting other targets. Like handgun ammo, if the load is such that it will reach at least the recommended 12 in penetration rating, those loads are still some really big slugs that aren't designed to fragment upon impact. Missed shots at walls and doors will certainly keep going through and may hit bystanders. Also with shotguns, the harder punching shots tend to have quite a bit of recoil to them making follow up shots a little harder to aim. Then factor in that most shotguns fire 6 rounds, and require manual action by the user typically to reset the chamber means in cases with multiple threats, a shotgun is now much worse than either a handgun or rifle for defense.

AR-15 rifles have a ammo that meets the 12 inch penetration recommendation, as well as more for some munitions, and have much higher velocity rounds that will break upon impact. Meaning that a round from an AR15 is more likely to easily go through 12 inches of flesh, but be completely stopped by a door or a wall. Hand gun and heavy shotgun ammo that can go through 12 inches of flesh will still also go through a wall or door easily.

AR15's have less recoil than either hand guns or shotguns, are easy to handle, have fast reloading, and high capacity mags in the case of multiple threats. Like semi auto handguns, they fire faster than manually actuated shotguns so they can cause more trauma to stop an attacker faster. The only downside to an AR15 for defense purposes is that they can't be concealed. This is why people don't carry them in the street. But they are ideal for home defense. You don't need to worry about concealing an AR15 at home any more than you need to worry about concealing a home defense shotgun.


However, ANY gun is better than your fists, knife, baseball bat, or whatever when it comes to defending yourself against an attacker that also has a gun.

 

[pauldun170]

While I agree with the sentiment, he must not have been much of a marine to have spent 8 years in the service and left a corporal.

lol

Still gotta love the thread title, " Marine To feinstein: I Will Not Register My Weapons"

Which is blessed wrong on two counts.

(1) Where does this crapola come from that Nancy Pelosi, now only minority leader in the US House of Representatives is the only key person in the USA who sets and controls US domestic firearms laws.

(2) And this argument sounds very familial to that current US marine reservist birther who claimed because he alone was certain Obama was not his legitimate commander and Chief of the US military, he was free to disregard any lawful orders from a US President. While still collecting a generous militarily salary from the US tax payer.

We all know how that one ended, as the idiot got booted out of the US military and lost a substantial part of his military pension. And ought to consider himself lucky he was not tried and convicted of treason and jailed for it.

(3) And now we are talking about an EX US birther and a EX Marine who now have the same rights of an ordinary citizen. As tell me again, why only ex-militarily personnel who served our country as honorably as Charles Grander, LT Calley, and Linde England are the only people in the USA who have a right to set US domestic policy guns laws, and even better yet declare themselves above the laws other civilians such as themselves have to obey?

As we can also ask, what about all those ex-military personnel who also more honorably served. And see a need for US domestic gun control. We can also ask, why do a mere two nuts have any right in proclaiming they alone can speak for a much bigger and better group who have served in the US military as citizen soldiers?

Read first page and last page. Skipped all in between.
Posting just to acknowledge these two posts

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Still gotta love the thread title, " Marine To feinstein: I Will Not Register My Weapons"

Which is blessed wrong on two counts.

(1) Where does this crapola come from that Nancy Pelosi, now only minority leader in the US House of Representatives is the only key person in the USA who sets and controls US domestic firearms laws.

(2) And this argument sounds very familial to that current US marine reservist birther who claimed because he alone was certain Obama was not his legitimate commander and Chief of the US military, he was free to disregard any lawful orders from a US President. While still collecting a generous militarily salary from the US tax payer.

We all know how that one ended, as the idiot got booted out of the US military and lost a substantial part of his military pension. And ought to consider himself lucky he was not tried and convicted of treason and jailed for it.

(3) And now we are talking about an EX US birther and a EX Marine who now have the same rights of an ordinary citizen. As tell me again, why only ex-militarily personnel who served our country as honorably as Charles Grander, LT Calley, and Linde England are the only people in the USA who have a right to set US domestic policy guns laws, and even better yet declare themselves above the laws other civilians such as themselves have to obey?

As we can also ask, what about all those ex-military personnel who also more honorably served. And see a need for US domestic gun control. We can also ask, why do a mere two nuts have any right in proclaiming they alone can speak for a much bigger and better group who have served in the US military as citizen soldiers?

Agreed on all counts. I am a veteran myself, but I think the idea that veterans are necessarily entitled to greater deference or even respect is just silly. There are some great, smart people in the armed forces, and some who are dishonest, stupid, lazy, and worse. I certainly don't think a veteran's opinion on an issue that has nothing to do with military service is entitled to any more respect than anybody else's.

 

[PokerGuy]

Awesome letter, agree 100%.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

00 buckshot overpenetrates, a good selfdefense .223/5.56mm is designed to tumble and disintegrate inside of the body of the target (which will also occur in a wall). I'm not saying that the .223/5.56mm wont overpenetrate, but with a shotgun you also have to take into account that your "cone of fire" increases as the pellets travel.

in the danish army we would only use shotguns to fire breaching rounds and would then use our rifles to clear rooms.

Good to know. I am more familiar with mil. rounds, and drywall isn't a good thing to be behind if someone's shooting in your direction.

Interesting test here.

 

[Incorruptible]

Agreed on all counts. I am a veteran myself, but I think the idea that veterans are necessarily entitled to greater deference or even respect is just silly. There are some great, smart people in the armed forces, and some who are dishonest, stupid, lazy, and worse. I certainly don't think a veteran's opinion on an issue that has nothing to do with military service is entitled to any more respect than anybody else's.

That is debatable, But this guy is perfectly right on this issue though. That pos has no right to violate the rights of Americans.

He is taking a stand against her and he is an American patriot

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

Do you teach seventh grade civic studies? You must because that's all you can squawk like a parrot about.

No, but trying to explain high school civics to you is tiresome, since you refuse to accept the facts, and arguing based on your emotions and feelings.

Again, I understand the law....thanks so very much. If I break the law I understand the potential consequences. That said I don't agree with it. This is a public forum; am I allowed to state this? That's what people do on forums that are engaged in discussion.

Again, what are you're thoughts on the bill and the current laws regarding firearms? This country was founded by men who broke the law...remember your American history classes. Taxes for tea and such....

One and probably the most important premise of this republic is to remain skeptical of our government and to have the right to do so. If you choose to accept mindlessly everything that is taken from you and is illegal (not in the lawyers/law enforcement) sense but in Constitutional terms then feel free. I choose to be a patriot and not another sheep. It does very much matter what the citizens of this country think.

So move the goalposts much? Can't argue your points, so try something else?

Did you not say this proposed law is illegal?

Read the Constitution. The second amendment is clear. Her bill is violating that right.

If you want to degrade and redefine your Constitutional rights then have a nut.

Everything about her bill infringes on our rights....happy.

You quite clear in saying that you believe this proposed bill is unconstitutional. NOT that you are now just disagreeing with it. But I guess you bailed on that premise after getting shot down by several people, and have walked back your claims to just disagreeing with it.

And like I pointed out, it doesn't matter what I think or you think. If and when it gets passed, it must be obeyed or suffer the consequences. Period.

So others have asked you too, what is your reasoning, other then you "know" you don't like it? And have you come up with a legal reasoning for picking which laws you follow yet?