Friday, September 26, 2014

Dianne Feinstein's Famous Comments about "Banning Them All" and Gun Makers' "Outsmartation"

Kurt's comment which contains the link along with some of his usual nonsense.

Link to video

The famous remarks of Senator Dianne Feinstein about "ban[ning] them all, when taken in context, clearly refer to assault weapons.  They were talking about the diminished return achieved by the AWB because guns and magazines produced before the ban were still allowed.

The gun-rights fanatics have so often used her words out of context to say that gun control people want to ban all guns, that I'm glad Kurt finally helped us straighten that out.

The Louisville police chief had some good observations. "Violating the spirit of the law" and "exploiting a loophole" is how he described the unscrupulous and greedy gun makers who keep finding ways to perform, what Kurt calls, "outsmartation" but what I call shabby, disreputable behavior.

Of course, lying through his teeth, the President of Colt said, "I don't understand what they're talking about." I know Kurt liked that one.

54 comments:

  1. You're aware, I hope, that I coined the term "outsmartation" as a joke (an admittedly lame one), and that I do know that it's not a real word (and should never become one, ever).

    As for what Feinstein was talking about with the "turn them all in," I hadn't realized there was any question that she was referring specifically to so-called "assault weapons," rather than all guns. I certainly have never pretended otherwise.

    I have no doubt that she sees those, and .50 caliber rifles, as merely the "lowest hanging fruit," and that if she ever manages to pluck them, she'll go looking for a bigger ladder, in order to get to the next tier.

    You gotta admit, though, that the police magazine trade-in offer was clever as hell. Puts a smile on my face and a song in my heart.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think outsmartation is a witty and perfectly valid word.

      And, yes I agree the magazine trade-in was clever, in that shabby, low-life way that you so relish in.

      Delete
  2. And, yes I agree the magazine trade-in was clever, in that shabby, low-life way that you so relish in.

    Well, at least you've stopped referring to the people who come up with these ingenious methods of reducing the harm caused by unjust laws as "hidden criminals." Progress, I suppose.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, I haven't done that, Kurt. I just didn't mention it in this thread.

      Delete
    2. No, I haven't done that, Kurt. I just didn't mention it in this thread.

      Ah--guess I gave you too much credit yet again, in thinking that you had finally realized that to refer to people whose behavior is neither hidden nor criminal as "hidden criminals" is more than a little silly.

      One of my worst vices. One would think I'd have learned by now.

      Delete
  3. I've never heard of Dianne Feinstein's bill to ban all guns. Can one of you gun loons show me that bill?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sure can.

      n 1982, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors approved a measure banning gun ownership that was signed into law by Dianne Feinstein, who was then mayor. The city had been shaken in 1978 when Dan White walked into city hall and shot and killed Ms. Feinstein's predecessor, George Moscone, and supervisor Harvey Milk.


      http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/05/national/05gun.html?_r=0

      Delete
    2. That was not a total gun ban and you know it. Besides, it was for one city only.

      Not such a nice catch, after all.

      Delete
    3. That was not a total gun ban and you know it.

      All handguns is definitely a sweeping gun ban. We know that she has pushed for bans of so-called "assault weapons," of .50 caliber rifles, and now handguns. If one's in a hurry, it would probably be quicker to list the guns that she has not tried to ban than to list those that she has.

      Besides, it was for one city only.

      Yes--the "one city" over which she had power. Do you really think the "one city" extent of her ban was based on a similar limitation on what she wanted, rather than the limitation on her power--that she thought San Franciscans were uniquely unqualified to own handguns, but they would be fine for the rest of the country?

      Delete
    4. It was a total gun ban. I was there for SF Gun Ban II: Revenge of the Fiendstein in 2005 when you didn't even know it was going on. So don't tell me what I know. The measure got extra attention for the handgun part because it included confiscation (which even Chicago and DC didn't attempt), but it was also a ban on all long gun acquisitions and transfers, and you weren't even allowed to get any more ammo for the guns they so gratuitously let you keep.

      Delete
    5. Yes, it passed and was signed into law by Feinstein, but over turned by the courts. It is a perfect example of what she would do when she "has the votes".

      Delete
    6. And if it had not passed, it would still have demonstrated Feinstein's twisted lust for a total gun ban.

      Delete
    7. Do you think the Roberts court would also strike down a similar law nationally? You loons get all worked up over something that won't happen.

      Delete
    8. We started out talking about total civilian gun bans, then you changed it to this, Kurt: "All handguns is definitely a sweeping gun ban."

      That's an example of your honesty, right?

      Then, you went on to read Feinstein's mind and tell us what she intends and wants.

      Delete
    9. TS, you're right there with Kurt. You started out with "it was a total ban," and then you concluded with this: "and you weren't even allowed to get any more ammo for the guns they so gratuitously let you keep."

      So, it was a total ban, but you were allowed to keep some guns?

      And again, that was one single city.

      Delete
    10. To quote Anonymous: "You loons get all worked up over something that won't happen."

      And since you know that, you exaggerate what it was in order to sustain your exaggerated pretend outrage.

      Delete
    11. You [liberty advocates far wiser than Anon--not that that's a high hurdle] get all worked up over something that won't happen.

      So the fact (well, the assumption) that a ban wouldn't survive the Supreme Court means that we should just ignore attempts to ban guns? Has it occurred to you, genius, that getting a favorable court action might kinda require people "get[ting] all worked up"?

      Besides, Mikeb never tires of telling us that the majority in Heller and McDonald was razor thin, and that a (near?) future Supreme Court will restore order to the universe, by trampling the Second Amendment.

      Delete
    12. A ban with a grandfather clause is still a ban. That's the way most ban on anything are written. Feinstein had the gall to actually call for confiscation of handguns on top of it, which is unprecedented.

      So what does this "not a total gun ban" become when the last gun owner dies? Is it a total gun ban then?

      Delete
    13. That's an example of your honesty, right?

      It's certainly honest. A total (and confiscatory, mind you) handgun ban is a sweeping gun ban--(unconstitutionally sweeping, as the Supreme Court has twice ruled as a settled point of Constitutional law).

      Then, you went on to read Feinstein's mind and tell us what she intends and wants.

      No--I went on to read history, and told you what else she has tried to ban. And it wasn't a comprehensive list--I didn't mention her federal law banning information she considers "too dangerous" for us lowly peasants to be allowed to have.

      Delete
  4. I'm not one of these mythical "gun loons," of course, Anon, but can you show me that anyone has claimed the existence of such a bill?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Mike, here's links to where we previously discussed San Francisco's total gun ban, with excerpts and links to the actual text. You even conceded my point. You said it's not indicative of your whole movement. Well, it sure is indicative of Dianne Feinstein.

    http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/2010/11/robert-farago-on-adomas-grigonis.html?showComment=1289058648031&m=1

    http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/2010/11/proposition-h-in-san-francisco-2005.html?m=1

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Let's just call that game, set, and match to TS, shall we, Mikeb?

      Yep, I think we shall.

      Delete
    2. Since the bill was struck down and never became law, no we shall not.

      Delete
    3. "Let's just call that game, set, and match to TS, shall we, Mikeb?"

      Well, not really. Those two posts from 2010 were mainly concerned with arguing about the meaning of "ban." I did acquiesce to the fact that if the writers of the law themselves use the word then it was fair to call it a ban, but I still question the way you guys use it in a sweeping way intending total civilian disarmament and then use any example of gun prohibition to supposedly prove your point.

      As far as Dianne Feinstein goes, in 2010 and even as recently as few weeks ago, I had not heard her comments about "banning all of them" in context. As soon as I heard that I started posting about it.

      So, even the worst example you guys have which was limited to one city only was not a total gun ban.

      Delete
    4. I only owned one handgun at the time, which I was ordered to turn into the police within 90 days- a handgun that they new I had because it was registered. And I wasn't allowed to acquire any shotgun, rifle, or any other type of firearm, or ammunition. So what was it for me if not a total gun ban? Huh?

      Delete
    5. So what was it for me if not a total gun ban? Huh?

      I, too, wait with bated breath for the answer to that question.

      So, even the worst example you guys have which was limited to one city only . . .

      What is it with you and your bizarre insistence that a draconian law that's limited to one city is therefore not draconian? It's like the time you hilariously claimed that Chicago didn't ban gun ranges (despite requiring range time to get a permit to own a pistol), because Chicago's ban only applied to Chicago.

      Delete
    6. “Since the bill was struck down and never became law, no we shall not.”

      You are moving the goal posts. This whole thread, and particularly the other one, is about Dianne Feinstein’s will. She made a comment that she wanted a lot more in 1994, but “didn’t have the votes”. This topic isn’t about what she can get, it’s about what she wants. We don’t even know how far she was willing to go in 1982. Maybe she wanted all gun owners executed, but “didn't have the votes” from city council.

      Delete
    7. What hogwash. Go ahead argue fantasy like a typical loon.

      Delete
    8. TS, I suppose you could say it was a total gun ban for you personally. I love the way you keep finding new ways to define ban.

      The post wasn't so much about Dianne Feinstein's will as it was about the lying gun-rights folks who purposely misrepresented those famous remarks about not enough votes.

      Are you like Kurt, TS? Did you NEVER hear of that misrepresented version of her comments too?

      Delete
    9. I love the way you keep finding new ways to define ban.

      Oh, now that's classic--you, of all people, accusing someone else of redefining the word "ban."

      Every day truly is Opposite Day.

      Delete
    10. Ah, so when I hear the oft repeated phrase, "no one wants to take away your guns", I shouldn't take such a literal interpretation of the word "your" to be referring to me. And we should all take that lesson to heart, got it.

      As far as defining the word "ban", again, I am using it as the text of the bill did.

      MikeB: "Are you like Kurt, TS? Did you NEVER hear of that misrepresented version of her comments too?"

      No, I have seen that done for a long time. It's a misrepresentation of her quote that I don't approve of, but ironically ends up being right about her. I have no doubt, she would go to the end... if she had the votes. Not that it matters too much. Her small steps that she might very well have the votes for, are worth fighting on their own merits.

      Delete
    11. Thanks TS for that admission. Maybe there has been a time when I called you the reasonable one, certainly compared to Kurt, you are.

      How about this: I support removing every single firearm of any kind from the civilian population. Now, that would be a total ban. Get it?

      Delete
    12. How about this: I support removing every single firearm of any kind from the civilian population.

      Pretty much what I've suspected all along.

      Delete
  6. Mikeb, you seem to be balking at the idea of calling a gun prohibition a "ban," if the law in question contains a "grandfather clause." For example:

    So, it was a total ban, but you were allowed to keep some guns?

    On the other hand, you lovingly cite California's ban of so-called "assault weapons," as "proper gun control":

    Assault Weapons Ban using the California model which would include restrictions on extended magazines.

    Here's the confusing part, Mikeb: California's AWB has a grandfather clause:

    Illegal to possess, import, or purchase assault weapons and .50 BMG rifles, unless such weapons were acquired by the owner prior to June 1, 1989.

    So should the state of California (and you) stop referring to the state's "assault weapon" restrictions as a "ban"?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Listen, you guys are the exaggerating liars who keep using the wrong expression "total gun ban." Odd, that, since you and TS love to be extremely precise when it's convenient.

      Delete
    2. So it is now your position that a "total gun ban" must be confiscatory? I wonder if anyone else on Earth holds that view.

      Delete
    3. Hey, speaking of misuse of the word "ban" in reference to firearms, it would seem that you have a bone to pick with The Hill:

      Major chains, such as Starbucks, Chipotle, Sonic, Chili’s, Panera Bread and Target have all recently banned firearms from their stores.

      We all know, of course, that not one of these businesses has done any such thing, because corporate leadership knows that the smart course of action is to toss the Demanding Mommies a bone of a consolation prize, without doing enough to provoke widespread boycotts by gun rights advocates.

      Go tell Hill writer Ramsey Cox to stop using the word "ban" so inappropriately--I know how much it bothers you when people do that.

      Delete
    4. These companies CEO's have asked you not to bring your guns in to their stores. But you don't recognize common courtesy, or following rules; you would rather bring your gun and scare little girls eating pie. The idea of families eating must scare you to death, since you can't go in there without your gun, even after having been asked not to.

      Delete
    5. Actually, Anon, I don't carry openly, because I think concealed makes more sense for me, so if your poor, persecuted, pie-munching little girls don't have x-ray vision, they see no threat in me, and judging from their (utter lack of) reaction, that is clearly the case.

      As for "following rules," those businesses have no rules against concealed--or even open--carry. A request is not a "rule."

      Delete
    6. Thanks for proving your inconsiderate position towards people and children. I always laugh at the idea that you gun loons think no one can tell you are packing a gun just because it's behind your jacket, or whatever.

      Delete
    7. Well, either they can't see it (the safest guess, given the rarity of the x-ray vision superpower), or they do, and it doesn't bother them, because they pay me no undue attention whatsoever.

      Either way, reality ain't doing your narrative any favors--something you should be accustomed to by now.

      Delete
    8. Again with your delusion that no one can tell you are packing because your gun is behind your shirt, laughable.

      Delete
    9. It's "behind [my] shirt"?

      The "laughable" part is some idiotic swine like you presuming to know how I carry and conceal my life and liberty preservation equipment.

      Delete
    10. What's laughable is some idiot gun loon like you thinking he can carry concealed and no one can tell. HA HA HA HA

      Delete
    11. What's laughable is [one of the trillions of organisms vastly more intelligent than Anon] like you thinking he can carry concealed and no one can tell.

      I carried for years in Illinois, long before that state legalized concealed carry (or open carry) for any private citizen (yes, yes--I'm a "criminal"--we've been through that already). When I was taking some course work at the local university, I very often encountered campus cops (not "security guards"--real state cops, with arrest powers and firearms), sometimes engaging in conversation with them. Never had any trouble whatsoever.

      I suppose cops just aren't as skilled at spotting concealed firearms as your intrepid, pie-eating little girls (who have also displayed no sign of alarm at anything I am carrying). Is that it, Anon?

      Delete
    12. Kurt, did you ever get involved in the campaign Linoge ran against me?

      http://www.wallsofthecity.net/2009/10/mikeb302000_lying_criminal.html

      Delete
    13. I don't know that I'd call that a "campaign against [you]," unless your victim complex is acting up badly again. And I don't know how to answer your question without risking being accused of "lying" yet again.

      I have commented on the hypocrisy of you having been a "gun criminal," and now wanting guns even vastly more strictly regulated than they are already.

      If that means I got "involved with the campaign" against the poor, persecuted gun criminal Mikeb, then yes, I suppose I did.

      Are we taking this stroll down memory lane for the sheer nostalgia of it, or is there some point you're hoping to make here?

      Delete
    14. Nostalgia it is, apparently. Well, Mikeb, I for one have enjoyed it greatly . . . ah--a trip down memory lane. I'll quote you here--I think it's my favorite part:

      When I called him a liar, I had a vague sense that it was an ambiguous statement which could be taken as a denial of my original admission, but I was getting so annoyed at his ridiculous comments that I just wrote it. I admit, in doing so I was violating one of my own rules, name-calling.

      Isn't that hilarious? You had a rule--against name-calling, of all things. You, of all people, had such a rule. And what name did you break your rule with back then? "Liar," of all things!

      Now you get crabby if you go more than 12 hours at a time without calling me a "liar," even in the utter absence of any lies on my part.

      Ain't that a hoot?

      Delete
    15. Thanks for the memories, Kurt. My blog certainly has evolved.

      About the campaign against me a few years ago mainly conducted by Linoge, but not limited to him by any means, one of the prevalent precepts used by the attackers was that they themselves had never violated any laws. From that platform they were eligible, apparently they thought, to criticize me for my admission. Not a one of them, at least that I can recall, ever admitted having violated laws themselves. Now, here you come, boasting of it.

      Is this not hypocrisy? Having criticized me for something that you later admitted you yourself had done?

      I know you're a big believer in the "bad laws be damned" philosophy, hence all the comments by one of the Anonmyous commenters about your criminality. So, I'll admit that you're consistent, but you're also a hypocrite.

      Delete
    16. Having criticized me for something that you later admitted you yourself had done?

      That's not what I criticized you for. My criticism was over the hypocrisy of a "gun criminal" advocating gun laws even more draconian than those currently imposed on a once free people.

      If others criticized you simply for the lawbreaking, rather than the hypocrisy, that's on them. I'm certainly not responsible for their criticism.

      Yes--I, like Thoreau, Gandhi, and King, feel no moral compulsion to obey unjust, evil laws. I'll take it further, and claim a moral compulsion to disobey such laws, for to submit to them is to condone them, and to condone them is to tacitly accept them as legitimate. I won't do that, and won't ask anyone else--including you--to do it, either.

      I don't think it unfair, though--and certainly not hypocritical--to denounce anyone who disobeyed those laws when it suited his purposes, and now demands those laws' strict enforcement, and for their supplementation with even far more oppressive gun laws, now that his purposes have changed.

      Delete
    17. That's rich criminal thinker. Did King, or Gandhi take arms against their governments because of laws they thought were unjust? The BIG difference is they were men of peace. You have stated you would be willing to take arms against the government and kill. That's criminal especially given there are ways to change law peacfully, which is what King and Gandhi did. For you to compare yourself to them just shows how sick and criminal your thinking is.

      Delete