on Youtube
on Breitbart
on Info Wars
on Right Wing News/
Those are just a few of the major sites which perpetuated this lie. Dozens of small time gun blogs picked it up and repeated it as often as possible, knowing that's how to lend credibility to a falsehood.
Kurt, the guy whose integrity and honesty are indisputable (according to him) said this:
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.
Now I ask you, for a guy who reads and writes about guns every day, is it credible that he "hadn't realized there was any question that she was referring specifically to so-called "assault weapons?" "
Info Wars, Mikeb? I don't read that silly shit. Not much of Breitbart, either, and I've never heard of Right Wing News (and I prefer news sources that at least make an effort to appear objective, rather than to represent one "wing" or the other). And as it happens, there are a great many YouTube videos--I haven't gotten around to seeing them all.
ReplyDeleteSo yeah--it's quite credible.
That's what you do when backed into a corner, respond with sarcasm and evasion. As I said these were just 4 of the many big-time sites that pushed that bullshit. The smaller ones were many. And the references in comments by gun nuts who love to jump on a bandwagon like this are countless.
DeleteBut, you never heard of it. You hadn't "realized there was any question" about it.
Liar.
"Did Dianne Feinstein Really Want to Ban All Guns? "
ReplyDeleteI believe that her quote regarding "turning them all in" was at the time referring to assault weapons. That being said, the next question is would she LIKE to ban all guns? My guess is that the answer is yes.
Her philosophy seems to be that the Second Amendment is about hunting as do most members of the DFL party. Its a commonly heard refrain from those promoting "common sense" gun laws. One that a politician running for reelection in my district also uses. Whenever someone says you don't need such and such a gun to hunt a deer, it betrays a philosophy that the right to bear arms isn't a right, but a privilege.
As for Senator Feinstein, you often hear her using that line. I personally think she would ban any firearm possession from civilian ownership if she could get away with it. As for evidence, lets look at something she seems proud of,
"When I became mayor, I succeeded in passing a measure banning handguns in San Francisco, and we instituted a 90--day grace period for pistol owners to turn in their handguns without incurring penalties."
http://www.ontheissues.org/Domestic/Dianne_Feinstein_Gun_Control.htm
And in her quote regarding her assault weapon ban, she herself said that the only thing restraining her is the will of the people.
"if she could get away with it"
DeleteBut she can't and Americans would never put up with a total ban so why are you gun loons so worked up over something that will never happen? I guess that's what fear filled, paranoid, gun loons do.
ss, it's not like you to do so much mind reading.
Delete"ss, it's not like you to do so much mind reading."
DeleteNot a lot of mind reading involved Mike. I just look at what she's done in the past, some of it being pretty recent, and then you look to see is she has done anything to suggest that she's changed her opinion on the issue.
At one point she rated getting her own carry permit in an extremely discretionary environment to protect her from one of those apparently very rare left wing extremist terror groups.
She seems to be quite proud of facilitating an outright ban on handguns in the city she was Mayor of. Just last year, she introduced another version of the assault weapon ban in which she uses the old hunting with an assault weapon meme and also attempts some misdirection by "allowing" some firearms that she currently deems "sporting".
She's done or said nothing to even suggest that she is changing her stance on this issue. This mind reading as you call it is something voters do all the time.
"But she can't and Americans would never put up with a total ban so why are you gun loons so worked up over something that will never happen?"
DeleteAdvocates of gun rights aren't much different than advocates of First Amendment rights of the right of women to an abortion. All of them fight vigorously against any erosion of what they hold to be important in the belief that these small restrictions will eventually add up to result in something unacceptable.
What do you suppose the result would be if advocates of a woman's right to abortion had the attitude you just voiced?
So waste your time on something that will never happen. Another loon trait.
Deletess, didn't the AWBs always include long lists of guns that were allowed. Or, was it that they listed the prohibited weapons and all those not named were allowed?
DeleteEven if combined with that rare, city-wide ban on civilian handguns, how could you call any of that a total ban on guns?
"didn't the AWBs always include long lists of guns that were allowed. Or, was it that they listed the prohibited weapons and all those not named were allowed?"
DeleteThe 1994 AWB, which was also authored by Senator Feinstein contained what is referred to as a two feature criteria and had a list of firearms that were considered assault weapons no matter how many features it had.
Senator Feinstein's most recent proposed bill has a list of permitted firearms and a list of banned models. It also goes from a two feature criteria to a one feature criteria. Also included are belt-fed semi-auto firearms. And on the by name banned list is a semi-auto version of the M2HB. Yep, the light and often used Ma-Deuce.
http://www.whiz.to/~tnwfire/proddetail.php?prod=M2%2FM3HB&cat=12
I haven't been able to find a list of the allowed firearms yet, but here's an interesting item. A Ruger Mini-14 that comes from the factory with a folding stock is on the list of banned firearms, and the same rifle with a regular stock is on the allowed list. Keep in mind that the stock is something that can be replaced in about 5 minutes.
"One model of that firearm, the Ruger .223 caliber Mini-14, is on the proposed list to be banned, while a different model of the same gun is on a list of exempted firearms in legislation the Senate is considering. The gun that would be protected from the ban has fixed physical features and can't be folded to be more compact. Yet the two firearms are equally deadly."
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Latest-News-Wires/2013/0217/Proposed-assault-weapons-ban-would-protect-more-than-2-200-firearms
"Even if combined with that rare, city-wide ban on civilian handguns, how could you call any of that a total ban on guns?"
DeleteSCOTUS seemed to consider it a ban, and unconstitutional. See Heller and McDonald. And again, the arbitrary list of features gives away their overriding philosophy. That being they still don't believe the Second Amendment is an individual right. They merely pay lip service in order to garner votes by muttering the standard implications about hunting.
I tossed my copy of the 2013 bill once there was no more threat of it passing, but it had plenty of contradictions like that--M-1 carbine appeared on both lists depending on the stock on it. I think the M1A was explicitly banned, but the M-1 Garand was allowed since it didn't use big scary magazines--forget that the rounds are of equivalent power and the en blocs allow fast reloading of the Garand without even needing to pull them out like M1A magazines.
DeleteYou didn't answer my question. "SCOTUS considered it a ban," does not help us. I asked you,
Delete""Even if combined with that rare, city-wide ban on civilian handguns, how could you call any of that a TOTAL ban on guns?""
They tried that argument in Heller Mike. They didn't buy it.
Delete" It is no answer to say, as petitioners do, that it is permissible to ban the possession of handguns so long as the possession of other firearms (i.e., long guns) is allowed. It is enough to note, as we have observed, that the American people have considered the handgun to be the quintessential self-defense weapon."
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html
Because it wasn't just for handguns. Again, the actual text of the bill:
DeleteSection 2. Ban on Sale, Manufacture, Transfer or Distribution of Firearms in the City and County of San Francisco: Within the limits of the City and County of San Francisco, the sale, distribution, transfer and manufacture of all firearms and ammunition shall be prohibited.
TS, please provide a link to that argument-winning quote.
DeleteHere is the link I provided back in 2010, but it appears to be dead now. I’ll look for another when I get a chance. But you agree this is an “argument winning quote”, yes?
Deletehttp://www.sfcap.org/proposition.htm
I think we'd need to see where it came from and in what context it was written and by whom before we award it the lofty title.
DeleteDone.
DeleteThe link below is straight from the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. It even has Gavin Newsome’s signature on it. Let’s call it the “Smoking Gun Ban”, if you will:
http://www.sfbos.org/ftp/uploadedfiles/bdsupvrs/ordinances06/o0055-06.pdf
Page 2 lines 18-21 is where the excerpt is from, but read the whole thing. Especially the penalties section at the end, where the police are authorized to confiscate and destroy any firearms or ammunition found to be transferred after the law is in effect.
So, what we've got is that gradual, eventual far-in-the-future ban on ALL firearms.
DeleteYet, even that's not clear, is it?. Let's say the law went into effect and stayed. The family shotgun, originally owned by dad, continues to be in the possession of the family after dad dies. Right? Since there is no registration of long guns, who's to day exactly who the owner is and when he dies?
What about black powder guns, antique guns and competition firearms?
At best, TS, what you've got there is a partial ban on SOME guns within the limits of ONE county, a far cry from the exaggerated nonsense you guys keep claiming.
Mike, the bill text uses the word “ban” as its action. The subject of said action is “all firearms and ammunition”. How can you still be so obtuse when it is right there in front of you in plain English?
Delete“Gradual”, you say? For one, it is not gradual for anyone new to the city, young people, or anyone who doesn’t already own a gun. It is immediate. The acquisition of any new guns, or even ammo to feed what you have is banned. It affects everyone in the city right away. And why is gradual supposed to matter anyway? Just about every law is written to take place in the future, some of it gradual. Does that change what it is? Did Obama not actually reform health care because it takes place gradually? You are grasping at straws. To my point in the other thread, would you consider a ban on abortions to not be a ban on abortions if there was a grandfather clause where those currently pregnant at the time the bill passed can still have an abortion? Is a grandfather clause supposed to make it acceptable to those who advocate for a woman’s right to choose?
No, the family shotgun cannot stay in possession of the family when dad dies. It becomes an illegal transfer at that point. There are no exceptions to section 2 of the bill. If the gun wasn’t registered, and the family keeps it hoping they won’t get caught, they would become “hidden criminals”. You aren’t advocating such a thing, are you? It’s an illegal transfer all the same, whether the gun is registered, or not.
There are no exemptions for black powder and competition firearms. Did you read something about an exemption in there? No. If it is a firearm, the ban applies.
Why can’t you come to the same conclusion you did last time you looked at the SF ban? “Yes, it’s a total ban, but it’s not what I want” (though you oddly said you would have still voted for it if you lived in SF at the time).
The quote from Senator Feinstein is regarding “assault weapons”, and those examples you showed indeed misrepresent what she said on 60 Minutes.
ReplyDeleteHowever, if you want to know how she feels about people owning non-assaulty guns, we could just look back to her record as mayor of San Francisco where she pushed for and signed a bill banning ALL guns for its residents. The bill was a “Mr. and Mrs. San Francisco turn them in” for all handguns (without compensation), and “you can keep your long guns but they die with you” for the rest of them- plus no new acquisitions of ammo. Thankfully, the court overturned it. Pretty harsh, even for you, Mike, don’t you think?
"a bill banning ALL guns for its residents"
DeleteYou contradicted yourself in the very next sentence.
I did no such thing. Just because it's worse for handguns (no grandfathering) doesn't mean you get to gloss over what it does to long guns. DC and Chicago had grandfather clauses for their handgun ban (SF is one of the few ‘turn them in’ exceptions tried), but it’s still a ban. For anyone who is new to the city, or didn’t already own guns, it’s a total ban. And given enough time (once those who already had long guns die or move away), there would be no legal gun ownership left.
DeleteCome on, Mike, you even conceded this one to me before.
I talked about our 2010 discussions on the other thread. It was hardly a concession to your exaggerated nonsense.
DeleteYou say "For anyone who is new to the city" and "once those who already had long guns die or move away." Those are a lot of conditions to qualify for a total ban on guns, not to mention it wouldn't be complete for 50 years.
"a bill banning ALL guns for its residents" except for those already living there and those who already own certain guns and have lots of ammo and who will live for another 50 years.
How can you, the precise mathematician, allow such loose definitions? Why do you have to exaggerate things before arguing against them?
Arguing that a ban isn't a total ban because it opted to deal with some existing guns through attrition rather than confiscation is semantic bullshit.
Delete“Loose definitions”? Why, because I’m not using your definition, which you don’t even subscribe to yourself, because you constantly use the term “assault weapons ban” to refer to bans with grandfather clauses? Hell, in your “Proper Gun Control” posts you use the word “ban” to describe what you want. So do you want to round up and destroy millions of guns affirming that gun owners aren’t actually paranoid? Or are you being loose with your own definition because you said you would base it on the California model, which did include grandfathering?
DeleteBut let us take a step back and look at why you make these arguments in the first place. You do this because you think you are being “reasonable” and gun owners exaggerate that you want to “take away our guns”. But we all must remember that to you, it is not a “total gun ban” if it doesn’t happen instantly. If it takes a generation to wipe out gun ownership, it is not a “total gun ban” (will you at least use the term “future total gun ban”?). If a national law ordered the confiscation of most guns in the country, but so long as somebody gets to keep something until they die (no transfers including inheritance), it is not a “total gun ban”. It’s a total gun ban for your kids, you can’t buy any more guns ever, you can’t buy any more freaking ammo for the guns you were allowed to keep, but gun owners are not supposed to be upset over this because supposedly when we said “you want to take away our guns” we only meant every single gun on the planet, and we’re exaggerating if you want anything short of that. Whatever.
It's also not a ban for cops. I'm surprised you didn't point that out as a reason you don't consider it a total gun ban.
DeleteAnd if she signed a bill banning guns for all residents except for her and her political friends, we shouldn't be upset about that. Yeah, I had to give up my guns, but thankfully liberal elites got to stay armed. It's not a total gun ban- whew. (You use this same argument for carry rights, Mike)
If you won't listen to me about this being a total gun ban, will you at least listen to yourself? Here's what you said in 2010 on the subject:
DeleteYounger MikeB: "You're right TS, it's wrong to say "nobody wants to ban all guns." Fine. There have been those who want that and I guess there still are. They are not representative of the gun control movement, however, and certainly they aren't present in the gun control blogging world that I know."
Why are you now saying this wasn't a concession? This sounds like a pretty solid concession- with the "you're right, TS, some people do try to ban all guns" part.
When I made that "concession," I was under the impression that Dianne Feinstein had shot off her mouth in a way that was unusual and unrepresentative of the gun control movement at large. Recently I learned that that wasn't the case at all and you guys were lying every time you used her as an example of folks calling for a total ban on civilian guns.
DeleteStill, I concede, there are probably extremists of gun control who do call for that, but as I said, they are not representative of the movement.
We weren’t talking about Dianne Feinstein’s comment on 60 minutes on that thread. It all started because Jadegold said no one wants to ban all guns. So I showed him an actual attempt to ban all guns. Eventually, after much wriggling, you conceded that is what it was (a total gun ban), but said it is not representative of you or anyone you know (but you would vote for it).
DeleteI did not concede that. The 2010 posts you cited did not include that type of concession. I've explained this already.
DeleteI don't want to ban all guns. I would like to ban many gun loon idiots from having guns and those so stupid they are causing unnecessary injury and death with their guns.
ReplyDeleteMe too.
Delete