Senator Dianne Feinstein's (D-CA) outrageous "assault weapons" ban bill is no assault weapons ban. It's objective: to ban guns. This, coming from the woman who was packing heat in her purse with a concealed weapons permit in San Francisco before she ran for the United States Senate. Ah, yes, do what I say, not what I do. I am the liberal elite and I know what's best for you. . . .
Feinstein's bill is a misnomer, no doubt. It vastly expands the definition to the point of absurdity. Now included in the definition of "assault weapons" to be banned will be the most popular weapons purchased for self-defense: semi-automatic pistols. Anything with a detachable magazine holding more than 10 rounds will be classified as an assault weapon. Now, I'm no expert, but as a woman with very little arm strength and a tendency to shake when I'm freaking out, I want more than 10 rounds when I need to defend myself and my children against whatever unforeseen threats may present themselves. If Congress determines self-defense isn't protected by the Second Amendment, well, I don't know what is.
The bill would bans 120 "specifically named firearms." Yet those 120 firearms are yet to be named. Word is the senator and her staff have been sifting through gun catalogues to determine which ones look scary enough to ban.
There's so much about this inane bill that offends me, I can't fit it all into a blog post. (The NRA has the best summary, of course.) The $200 tax per firearm. Owners having to present fingerprints to none other than the Fast and Furious perpetrators, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. Prohibiting the transfer sale of weapons.
But this one, in my opinion, says it all: upon an individual's death, their "assault weapons" must be forfeited to the federal government. A gun owner may not pass down their weapons to their children and grandchildren. The family must hand them over, no doubt without compensation, to the feds. What's next? What else will have to be turned over to the authorities upon death? They already take our farms, fortunes built up over a lifetime, our businesses upon death. But to think a family would have to hand over their family's weapons. That sends chills down my spine.
The Founding Fathers' intent was clear in the Second Amendment, though few in the public arena will talk about it. They believed an armed citizenry was essential to the preservation of liberty. Period. That a man has the right, and obligation, to defend himself--his person, his property and his liberty--from clear and obvious threats and danger. Dianne Feinstein and the liberal elite want their own protection, but they want to take it away from the rest of us. A bold step toward tyranny.
Here is my tussle with a leftist on the topic from Hannity last night, courtesy of Mediaite.
