Nemo Me Impune Lacessit

Thursday, 31 January 2013

Feinstein DOES Want to Ban All Guns

Filed under: Philosophy, Politics, Self-Defense — Tags: , , , , , , , , , — mikewb1971 @ 3:59 AM (03:59)

How many times have we, the advocates of the right to own and carry weapons, heard this from the hoplohpobes and victim-disarming hypocrites:

“We don’t want to ban all guns. All we want are some reasonable controls on guns.”

We’ve been hearing it quite often from all corners of the victim-disarmament crowd – mostly from the useful idiots who carry water for this evil, stupid brand of insanity (“I don’t like guns, therefore no else should have any”), but also from their legislative buddies, the same buddies who often have armed bodyguards in close proximity.

Below is a clip taken from an interview that Senator Dianne Feinstein gave to CBS’ 60 Minutes in 1995. In this clip, the Senator stated that her intention with the 1994 Clinton-era “assault weapon” ban was to require everyone to turn them all in to the federal government:

Feinstein is one of the hypocrites in that she’s had a concealed-weapons permit herself, as well as armed bodyguards from the California Highway Patrol (remember the TV series CHiPs?) assigned to her personally.

What I would like to know is when she’s going to have those CHP officers assigned to her protection detail report to Sacramento for other duties? When is she going to surrender her concealed-weapon permit?

After all, if she were honest and had any integrity, she wouldn’t have any problem rendering herself as defenseless as she wants to render everyone else.


  1. Reposted –
    1. Personal micro-blogs – Facebook / Google Plus / Twitter
    2. Personal blogs – Xanga
    3. The Weekly SeditionFacebook / WordPress

Copyright © 2013 Mike Blessing. All rights reserved.
Produced by KCUF Media, a division of Extropy Enterprises. Webmaster Mike Blessing.
This blog entry created with Notepad++.



  1. She isn’t going to surrender anything as I’m sure you already would assume.  That would mean she is at OUR LEVEL.  No, these people have’nt lost touch with the American people, they have lost touch with their sanity.  They were NEVER working for us, and the proof of that fact is the result they’ll be handing to us peons, who they consider to be so much cattle. 

    Comment by saturnnights — Thursday, 31 January 2013 @ 9:47 AM (09:47)

  2. the bottom line on the issue?No one will be confiscating my guns until such a time as I no longer need them.There’s only one instance I’ll consider myself to no longer need them.

    Comment by DougX831 — Thursday, 31 January 2013 @ 8:53 PM (20:53)

  3. Everyone is equal, only some are more equal than others is all. The new equality. 

    Comment by mtngirlsouth — Friday, 1 February 2013 @ 12:44 AM (00:44)

  4. Looking at this from the way you put it, I think she’s going more towards the ideal of only the government having weapons. That’s scary. I’m not posting my stance on pro-gun or pro-none on here, I’m trying to keep my community as leveled as possible. 

    Comment by WorldWideWatchman — Friday, 1 February 2013 @ 12:51 AM (00:51)

  5. Something I think you will notice is that gun control advocates aren’t against guns. They’re indeed pro-gun. They’re for the centralization of guns in the hands of the government only. Which is something our founders were vehemently against for good reason.

    Comment by firetyger — Friday, 1 February 2013 @ 1:24 AM (01:24)

  6. Feinstein needs to up her meds and retreat into her quiet, happy place. I am sure she would feel right at home on the Big Rock Candy Mountain. She can take her political hacks with her. They are no longer needed. 

    Comment by wordwarrior39 — Friday, 1 February 2013 @ 2:33 AM (02:33)

  7. @WorldWideWatchman – That’s exactly right. She has no problem with people carrying weapons to protect her and fellow politicians. The rest of us have to be happy with dialing “9-1-1” and hoping the cops are able to respond quickly enough. How does the saying go – “When seconds count, the cops are minutes away” ? For what it’s worth, I’m unabashedly in favor of private citizens owning and carrying the military arms of the day. Just as James Madison talked about in The Federalist Papers (specifically #46).

    Comment by mikewb1971 — Friday, 1 February 2013 @ 1:21 AM (01:21)

  8. @mtngirlsouth – Is the new boss the same as the old boss?

    Comment by PlatotheSmurf — Friday, 1 February 2013 @ 6:37 AM (06:37)

  9. Maybe Senator Feinstein’s need for CHPs speaks to the grave crazy driver problem in California and future legislation mandating double ot fully automatic uranium depleted bumpers.

    Comment by PlatotheSmurf — Friday, 1 February 2013 @ 6:40 AM (06:40)

  10. @PlatotheSmurf – Yep. As for the CHP officers, I think it’s standard operating procedure for most states to provide that kind of service to the Congressional delegation. Still, if Feinstein insists that the rest of us should be limited to dialing “9-1-1” and cowering in the closet while waiting for the cops, then the very least she can do is lead by example by going about unarmed and unguarded herself.

    Comment by mikewb1971 — Saturday, 2 February 2013 @ 11:20 PM (23:20)

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Create a free website or blog at

%d bloggers like this: