Feinstein presumes to legislate limits on Constitutional rights


Kurt Hofmann @ The Examiner:

U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) released her much anticipated bill banning so-called “assault weapons” (the Senator has so far shown little interest in the term “regime change rifles“–we’ll keep working on her) Thursday, and thanks to National Gun Rights Examiner David Codrea, we now have the text of S. 150. Carl Bussjaeger has already provided a useful analysis of this monstrosity–and it is every bit the monstrositygun rights advocates have been expecting–perhaps even more so.

For now, though, let’s look at just the title of Feinstein’s bill (emphasis added):

To regulate assault weapons, to ensure that the right to keep and bear arms is not unlimited, and for other purposes.

Hmm . . . “to ensure that the right to keep and bear arms is not unlimited.” Does that mean that absent passage of S. 150, the right to keep and bear arms is unlimited? As in shall not be infringed unlimited, just as the Second Amendment says?

But that’s not what we’ve been told. In response to every Second Amendment challenge, to everyrestrictive gun law, on the books or proposed, we’re told that there are “reasonable limitations” on the Constitutionally guaranteed, fundamental human right of the individual to keep and bear arms. We’re told that, “Just as the the First Amendment does not secure the right to yell ‘Fire!’ in a crowded movie theater, the Second Amendment does not guarantee” the right to armed self-defense in public, or the right to not go to prison for possessing 11-round magazines, etc.

Read more

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Every time I think about Feinstein and her assault on our Constitutional Rights, I get more pissed off. What qualifies her to decide what “reasonable limitations” of our rights are?

Curt, you and I, like thousands of others, have spent our careers protecting the rights as described in the Constitution, even when we didn’t like what we had to do. To watch half-witted politicians make decisions on these rights, especially while exempting themselves is an insult to those of us who have served honorably…

Why do people (Liberals, Dupes) always pick on ‘gun violence’ are other kinds of violence just fine and dandy? Is being shot worse than being stabbed or being beaten? Is ‘gun violence’ worse than the car crash or having your brain sucked out before you can take your first breath? Is ‘gun violence’ worse than starving someone to death or withholding medical care? We will always have violence, wishing it away won’t do a thing to stop it, giving up your right to defend yourself from those that would do you harm won’t stop it. Liberals thrive on ignorance and emotion it’s truly a shame that they don’t recognize that by giving up their right to defense they’re giving up their right to life and freedom both of which can be taken away on a whim from their masters. They fail to learn from history, instead preferring the dream state of empty promises and soothing words.

I have sent a letter to my Senator, which sadly is Feinstein. I did have, at one time just a speck of respect for her, thinking she was more intelligent than Babs Boxer, I’ve since corrected that assumption and have told her as much.

The second amendment is there to protect yourself from out-of-control government, forever.

But Obama, Feinstein et al ignore what should be obvious. Is it that difficult to understand that criminals and deranged individuals do not obey the law?

Why ignore this? Could they have a hidden agenda? You have both the right and the duty to protect yourself. see: http://www.lifestrategies.net/the-right-to-protect-yourself/

I got three calls last week seeking donations to stop the Liberal trashing of the Constitution. I told each of them to call me back when they start asking for ‘Bounty ‘ money.