On Thursday Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) held a full committee meeting to vote on a bipartisan measure that is claimed to curb illegal gun trafficking and purchasing, but is more akin to "thought legislation" for those purchasing firearms. During that meeting, Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) advocated for the removal of veteran's rights to keep and bear arms by stating, "find a way that veterans who are incapacitated for one reason or another mentally don’t have access to this kind of weapon." Pick up her statement around the 42:20 mark.
She then completely lied about the ability of a "bump stock," which she called a "slide stock," claiming that it altered an AR-15 to go from semi-automatic to fully automatic. It does no such thing. The trigger is reset every time the stock "bumps." In fact, you can get the same effect with any semi-automatic firearms by using your thumb and your belt loop. Does the Senator from California want to ban belt loops?
She claims that she is concerned because calls her come into her office as if more gun control is "some wild eyed scheme."
"It is not," she affirmed, though we all know that is exactly what it is.
She appealed not to the Constitution, that document she swore to support and defend, but instead appealed polling data, to emotion and the "majority" of people she claims to have on her side, even from religious groups for more gun control legislation.
If a majority of people favor the legislation, then do what the Constitution demands and start trying to amend it Mrs. Feinstein. Stop undermining it! Federal gun laws are unconstitutional. I don't care how many people favor it.
But she referenced clear targets of the gun legislation and that is our veterans.
In context Senator Feinstein said:
"…this adds an exemption of retired military. As I understand our bill, no issue has arose in this regard during the 10 years the expired ban was effect… and what we did in the other bill was exempt possession by the United States or a department or agency of the United States… that included active military. The problem with expanding this is that you know with the advent of PTSD, which I think is a new phenomenon as a product of the Iraq War, it’s not clear how the seller or transferrer of a firearm covered by this bill would verify that an individual was a member, or a veteran, and that there was no impairment of that individual with respect to having a weapon like this. So you know I would be happy to sit down with you again and see if we could work something out but I think we have to — if you’re going to do this, find a way that veterans who are incapacitated for one reason or another mentally don’t have access to this kind of weapon."
If there is anyone who deserves to be able to keep and bear their arms are those who have honorably served our country and upheld their oath to the Constitution, unlike the current Senator from California. Yet they are being attacked. They are already attacked in New York under Governor Cuomo's treasonous SAFE Act, which is being protested and amendments are being put forward to repeal the controversial gun law. Even New Yorkers are are taking aim at SAFE Act, seeking to nullify it via each county.
The bottom line is if veterans are so dangerous to our society, why are they being allowed back into it? The fact is our veterans are not dangerous. There is no doubt that war is a terrible thing and should be avoided unless absolutely necessary, but here are men who have gone into combat and do have both physical and psychological scars. However, if I recall correctly Ms. Feinstein said that she witnessed a shooting, which led to her obtaining a firearm and concealed carry permit. Could we ascertain that she was somehow traumatized and is not fit to carry a firearm? I'm sure many in this audience would just be happy with her out of office, but I don't think that is the criteria for taking a Constitutionally protected right away.
Veterans deserve a lot more respect than what is portrayed from this treasonous woman and I'm hopeful that we, as Americans, will come to our veterans' aid if the Federal government attempts to disarm them. After all they put their lives on the line to maintain the law of the land that is to protect our freedoms to keep and bear arms.
Kurt Nimmo adds:
Thankfully, Feinstein’s bill will most certainly be dead on arrival and – for now – the American people (with the exception of Americans unfortunate enough to live in New York state) will have their Second Amendment rights spared.
Feinstein’s remark, however, reveals a deep-seated mistrust and contempt for America’s veterans. It also reveals the fear by government of the revolutionary potential of veterans, a fear dutifully expressed by the Department of Homeland Security when it said returning veterans are “right wing extremists” who may challenge the government.
Incidentally, Feinstein is way off the mark. Although PTSD is a relatively new definition, soldiers returning from combat have experienced anxiety disorders since time immemorial. It is nothing new. She is merely exploiting a modern psychology term in order to add substance to her argument that veterans are insane and as such must have their Second Amendment rights nullified.
By the way, if this legislation is about gun trafficking, why has no one brought up the issue of the Obama administration's willful and knowledgeable trafficking of weapons over the Mexican border? Seems like that should be where the focus of this leads to, not the infringing of the rights of Americans, especially our veterans.