Why does Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) seem almost obsessed with taking firearms away from you and me? What’s the reason for her to do this? To understand her thinking, we’ll have to take a trip down memory lane, and when I’m done, you’ll understand why. As I dug deep into this subject, I came to the conclusion that Feinstein has “issues” with guns… your guns.
California Democrat Senator spends most of her days in the senate thinking of new ways to get your guns away from you, that is, when she’s not using her position as a U.S. senator to increase her wealth and that of her husband. Feinstein likes to think of herself as a “gun expert.” Although she does have a Concealed Weapon Permit and has taken training classes on how to use a gun, that hardly makes her an “expert on firearms.” From a physiological standpoint, one would almost say that she is obsessed with guns (once again…YOUR guns). It all started about forty years ago.
In an article by the San Francisco Chronicle in 2008:
On November 27th, 1978, at the time, Feinstein was president of the Board of Supervisors and a confidante of Dan White, the ex-supervisor who quit his seat only to want it back. Moscone had plans to appoint someone else and told Feinstein. She tried to track down White to explain the decision. She never got the chance. She was sitting at her desk at City Hall and tried speaking to White as he walked by. She did not know that he had just shot and killed the mayor.
She was sitting at her desk at City Hall and tried speaking to White as he walked by. She did not know that he had just shot and killed the mayor.
“I saw him come in. I said, ‘Dan, can I talk to you?’ And he went by, and I heard the door close, and I heard the shots and smelled the cordite, and I came out of my office. Dan went right by me. Nobody was around, every door was closed.
“I went down the hall. I opened the wrong door. I opened (Milk’s) door. I found Harvey on his stomach. I tried to get a pulse and put my finger through a bullet hole. He was clearly dead.
“I remember it, actually, as if it was yesterday. And it was one of the hardest moments, if not the hardest moment, of my life,” Feinstein said Tuesday. “It was a devastating moment. For San Francisco, it was a day of infamy.”
Feinstein, who replaced Moscone as mayor and went on to win two terms in her own right, now is California’s senior senator. She rarely has spoken publicly about the slayings. But she sat down for an hour with reporters in her San Francisco office Tuesday to recount the devastating events of Nov. 27, 1978, that shook San Francisco to the core.
On the day of the killings, Feinstein had just returned to City Hall after a three-week absence. She had gone on vacation to the Himalayas with Richard Blum, the man whom she would later marry, and had contracted dysentery. She then spent time at home recovering from the infection and an allergic reaction to antibiotics.
While abroad, she had spoken briefly to White, a colleague she said she had known well. He told her he was quitting his low-paying seat on the Board of Supervisors because the economic strain was taking too big a toll on his family. Feinstein said she told him that was the right thing to do.
But White, a conservative ex-firefighter and ex-policeman, was getting pressure from the business community and others who supported his candidacy to get his seat back. Moscone, a liberal who had struggled to muster the six votes he needed on the board to push through his progressive agenda, had decided to appoint a political ally to fill White’s seat. The mayor informed Feinstein of his decision that morning. She said she tried to reach White.
“I still believe that if I could have been there for that three weeks, I could have stopped it,” Feinstein said, her eyes reddening. “Now, who knows? Who knows?”
She said White hunted Milk down NOT because he was “homophobic,” but because he had considered Milk a friend who betrayed him for not helping persuade Moscone to reappoint him. Feinstein said Milk and White, both elected under a new system of district elections, met weekly for coffee in the Castro.
Okay, that’s a really good reason to be afraid, but it goes even deeper than that Lets fast forward to 2012.
In an article by Kerry Picket of BRIETBART, she wrote:
“Senator Dianne Feinstein (D – CA), author of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban, is leading the charge on Capitol Hill to bring back the legislation since it expired in 2004.
“I’m going to introduce in the Senate and the same bill will be introduced in the House, a bill to ban assault weapons. It will ban the sale, the transfer, the importation and the possession. Not retroactively but prospectively. And it will ban the same for big clips, drums or strips of more than 10 bullets. So there will be a bill. We’ve been working on it now for a year,” Sen. Feinstein said on NBC’s “Meet The Press.”
Feinstein’s plans to resuscitate the gun ban law comes on the heels of the deadly mass slaughter at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut by gunman Adam Lanza.
After the deadly Aurora, Colorado shooting Feinstein criticized those who said responsible conceal carry permit holders could have stopped gunman James Holmes, saying “…and maybe you could have had a firefight and killed many more people. These are people in a theater.”
Opponents of the Assault Weapons Ban point to Feinstein’s hypocrisy on the issue, as the Senator herself said she obtained a concealed carry permit in California when she felt her life was threatened.
“In 1995, Feinstein described this experience: “Less than 20 years ago, I was the target of a terrorist group. It was the New World Liberation Front. They blew up power stations and put a bomb at my home when my husband was dying of cancer and the bomb was set to detonate around 2 ‘o clock in the morning, but it was a construction explosive that doesn’t detonate when it drops below freezing. It doesn’t usually freeze in San Francisco, but on this night it dropped below freezing and the bomb didn’t detonate.
“I was very lucky, but I thought of what might have happened. Later the same group shot out all the windows of my home and I know the sense of helplessness that people feel. I know the urge to arm yourself, because that’s what I did. I was trained in firearms. When I walked to the hospital when my husband was sick, I carried a concealed weapon. I made the determination that if somebody was going to try to take me out I was going to take them with me. Now having said all of that, that was period of time ago and I’ve watched through these 20 years as terrorism has increased both on the far extremist left and the far extremist right in this country.”
Well, that is plenty of reason to be afraid and want to arm yourself. Who could blame Feinstein for wanting to protect herself with a gun? Let’s take a look at the group that supposedly targeted Feinstein.
The “New World Liberation Front,” was a Marxist-Leninist-Maoist organization which had carried out an uninterrupted urban guerilla offensive around the Bay Area and Northern California for almost three years, was at the time (the 1970’s), the most tactically advanced guerilla group in the United States.
What they weren’t: “Tea Party, bible thumping, conservative gun-toting red-necks.” Sounds kinda “Left-Wing” to me.
Hmmm….. a “Marxist-Leninist-Maoist” organization? From her attempts to curtail our God given rights under the 2nd Amendment, isn’t she adopting that exact ideology? After all, those guys (Communists) were strict in their belief about the peasants not owning guns too.
It looks to me like Feinstein has real reason to be afraid, but instead of going after the group, or individuals that supposedly wanted her dead, she has more of a “blanket approach” when it comes to gun control legislation. Now, most “terrorists groups” don’t go down to the local gun store and legally purchase weapons. Sadly, there are a number of cases where someone purchasing a firearm lies on the Firearms Transaction Record, or Form 4473.
However, the reality is that criminals and terrorists don’t buy their guns “legally” anyway. So introducing legislation that would prohibit law-abiding citizens from owning handguns and rifles, especially what Feinstein calls “assault weapons with high capacity magazines,” is not aimed at those she claims to want to restrict guns from (which we never gave the Federal Government authority to do in the first place).
I’ve clarified what the difference was between a “sporting rifle” and an “assault rifle” is before. However, Dianne Feinstein ignores the obvious and continues on her endless crusade to limit and even prohibit, private ownership of the various “sporting rifles” modeled after real “assault rifles.” But not wanting to leave any stone uncovered, Feinstein wants to do away with what she calls “high capacity” magazines for various sporting rifles and handguns as well.
Since the good senator is now 81 years old, one can’t help wonder, why she doesn’t just retire and take the fortune that she has made and enjoy her “golden years” in peace and luxury? Why does she continue to bang the drum for harsher gun control laws?
I’ll tell you – fear! She obviously is scared to death of the possibility that she is a “target,” and that death by assassination is constantly stalking her. With the fortune that she has made for herself and her husband during her political career, she could buy an island somewhere in the Pacific Ocean and pay for a private army to protect her around the clock. It doesn’t take a degree in psychology to see that she obviously lives her life in fear. In a way, I almost feel sorry for the old gal, but I don’t. The only thing that she lives for, it seems to me anyway, is to make sure that you and I (regular citizens) have nothing more than pop-guns and slingshots to protect ourselves and our families with.
I would say that the senator might even be suffering from a slight case of PTSD or maybe dementia has set-in (Well, she is 81 years old!). If that is so, then using her own logic, she should not be allowed anywhere near a gun, let alone, try to lecture law abiding citizens on responsible gun ownership and limit our Constitutional right to bear arms. Either way, at 81 years of age, maybe she needs to think about purchasing that island I mentioned earlier and retiring.Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook and Twitter, and follow our friends at RepublicanLegion.com.
Become an insider!
Sign up for the free Freedom Outpost email newsletter, and we'll make sure to keep you in the loop.