Sen. Feinstein Makes Wild Claim to Push Gun Control at Senate Committee Hearing


#1

Sen. Feinstein Makes Wild Claim to Push Gun Control at Senate Committee Hearing
Mar. 8, 2013 3:54pm
TheBlaze.com
Jason Howerton

During a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on gun control Thursday, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) shot down a proposed amendment to her “assault weapons” ban that would exempt military veterans from the gun ban. She also made some questionable claims.

[quote]“The time has come, America, to step up and ban these weapons. The other very important part of this bill is to ban large capacity ammunition feeding devices, those that hold more than 10 rounds. We have federal regulations and state laws that prohibit hunting ducks with more than three rounds. And yet it’s legal to hunt humans with 15-round, 30-round, even 150-round magazines. Limiting magazine capacity is critical because it is when a criminal, a drug dealer, a deranged individual has to pause to change magazines and reload that the police or brave bystanders have the opportunity to take that individual down.”
[/quote]
I’ve said for years that DiFei has half a brain, and occasionally uses it. This is not one of those occasions! Let me count some of the absurdities here:

  • Except for fully automatic military weapons, 150-round magazines don’t exist, and it is not legal for civilians to own such weapons (contrary to DiFei’s claim); this is just one example of how knowing the difference between semi-automatic and fully automatic is quite practical, discerning between absurd demagoguery and ordinary demagoguery;

Maybe some one more knowledgeable of such things could assist here, but how much would 150 rounds of 5.56 plus a magazine that large weigh? Would 6 months or a year of weight training be necessary to operate a weapon thus loaded?

  • Self-protection is “hunt(ing) humans”?

  • Was that what DiFei’s concealed carry permit was? A Human Hunting License?

  • A 3-round magazine is sufficient for self-defense? Really? Criminals only assault intended victims in twos or threes? And hold still so only one shot is needed to bring them down? And wait for intended victims to reload?

  • Criminals would would obey magazine capacity laws? Or be hindered by such a law from obtaining or fashioning large capacity magazines? And would oblige self-defenders (not using guns, of course) by reloading slowly and holding still long enough to be approached and tackled?


#2

you can get them but they are expensive

Armatac Industries Inc.


#3

Well, I sit corrected, and ~17 pounds doesn’t require weight training. OTOH, ~17 pounds is not very practical for most circumstances. Go to the gym and lift a 17-pound 3’-4’ iron bar to your shoulder, and what I mean will become fairly clear. It’s quite doable, but it’s clumsy and wearing - not good for quickness, control and endurance. I wonder how much more than that $390 a reasonably durable and reliable 9mm or .45 semi-auto pistol would cost (I really do not know).

Anyway, one absurdity I forgot for my list above, “hunting humans” is not legal, regardless of magazine size. It’s called “murder”.


#4

The liberals just don’t get it, do they? Does she think for an instant that the gangs in South Central LA, Detroit, Chicago, Baltimore, Washington DC, or any other place are suddenly going to drop their guns off at the nearest police station because of some new law??? Are they that stupid??? I’m convinced that these marxist-commie-liberal ideas have only two reasons: 1) they serve to continue the descent into marxist-communist ideology, and 2) these programs lend themselves to greater bureaucracies sucking up more taxpayer dollars for idiotic programs that don’t work. That is the bottom line: $$$.


#5

I wouldn’t say that any of this has to do with a lack of a brain; it’s her scruples that have been missing in action for as long as I can remember…


#6

Why hasn’t this lady just kicked it already? Its time for the crypt keeper to go out to pasture.


#7

[quote=“thejoshb, post:6, topic:38602”]
Its time for the crypt keeper to go out to pasture.
[/quote]Her and McCain are pretty cozy, aren’t they? It’s time for BOTH of them to get out to pasture, isn’t it? Maybe they can pontificate to the cows . . . reduce bovine campaign spending, maybe.