Thursday, January 24, 2013

- Mrs. Feinstein's Exteme View

Do you fellas remember back when we had rule of law? The nice thing about that concept is that it gives you a firm place to grab onto when making relative arguments. Take this little tidbit that was written down as a law someplace back when such things mattered:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

So let's use that as our benchmark and have a conversation about extremism.

There are people who hold extreme views on a topic like private ownership of guns. As an example, Dianne Feinstein thinks anything that goes bang is an 'assault rifle' and therefore the above law shouldn't apply to it. She's trying to call pistols and shotguns assault weapons. She expects free citizens to get fingerprinted and to register before exercising their constitutionally protected rights - all because she's afraid of something she doesn't understand. Silly.

For her, the real issue in the law above that she thinks should be subject to her interpretation are the words "shall not be infringed". She doesn't think it's infringement to ban certain classes of weapons, make people get fingerprinted or to ask for permission from her before exercising their rights. It's just how she see's it.

There are other people with extreme views too. They generally have problems with the words - "militia" and "arms". We have a standing army now, but back when this law was written, we had a citizen's militia. Who was in the militia? Every able bodied (and able minded) man of a certain age. And what were the arms he was supposed to keep and bear? A weapon suitable for use in military operations.

So from their perspective, it's a reasonable and rational thing to assume that every able bodied man should be required (not just allowed) to keep and be able to bear a fully automatic carbine much like the ones used by our military. That's certainly no more of a stretch than Mrs. Feinstien's view of the words "shall not be infringed".

I personally don't hold either of these views - even if I'm more sympathetic to one than the other. I'm not as extreme as anyone depicted here. My only point is that we shouldn't pretend that Diane Feinstein doesn't hold an extreme view just because it's the same extreme view held by much of the media.

7 comments:

ikaika said...

she has backed off the NFA requirements for AR's and Hi-Cap (standard-cap) mags.

Sounds like her office got bogged down with the server e-mail overload.

This old bag is on her way out. It is her last hurrah and then the Senate can breathe a sigh of relief without giving her deference.

Even though she hails from the land of fruit loops, maybe enough of em realized that 2A isn't just for white men...

frithguild said...

Creature from the Black Lagoon

Anonymous said...

I believe the carbine she's holding is one of the older Colt AR-15 A2's they no longer manufacture. It has the pencil barrel at an even 16". Weighs in at about six pounds with the 20-round old school box magazines that I use. Such a sweet carbine. And that idiot would ban it.

I really don't like to be disrespectful to our elected leaders and I try to hold my tongue but if you're going to step all over our rights, endlessly raise taxes w/o any real attempt at taming spending, spend us into oblivion and turn the federal civil service into a clown show... you deserved to be called the b*&%$ that you are. I still can't do it but we all know she's just a b&%$#.

Anonymous said...

Someone I know (who is conservative and a gun owner) thinks it's reasonable to concede on the background checks for ALL, including private, sales. Me, I see that as the first step towards some sort of defacto gun registry. Some government bureaucracy will fiddle around and get the weapons involved in the sale added to part of the inquiry. Power grabs and expansion of scope (to include possibly unconstitutional acts) are not new to government agencies. "EPA" ring a bell?

Tom said...

I agree with you, and so does the NRA. they won't tolerate any incrementalism. We've all seen that movie countless times before.

Luke said...

All able bodied males who aren't already in the military are in the miliita, at least according to the MIlitia act of 1903. What that says to me, along with US v Miller is that you should be able to have the fully auto MG-42 if you want to.
However, once you use that firearm to perform and illegal act, then all bets are off and you should spend a long time in a deep, dark hole, or have a long drop on a short rope.

frithguild said...

I've had an idea running around my head that there is small group who know the success that information brought them in the last election that want the registry to mine information from it.