"Daddy, why does Dianne Feinstein have a statue? She's not dead, is she?"
A friend has written a letter to Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and gotten a response (sort of).
Hat tip Squid
Dear (name withheld)
Thank you for contacting me to share your opposition to assault weapons legislation. I respect your opinion on this important issue and welcome the opportunity to provide my point of view.
Mass shootings are a serious problem in our country, and I have watched this problem get worse and worse over the 40 years I have been in public life. From the 1966 shooting rampage at the University of Texas that killed 14 people and wounded 32 others, to the Newtown massacre that killed 20 children and 6 school teachers and faculty, I have seen more and more of these killings. I have had families tell me that they no longer feel safe in a mall, in a movie theater, in their business, and in other public places, because these deadly weapons are so readily available. These assault weapons too often fall into the hands of grievance killers, juveniles, gangs, and the deranged.
I recognize that the Second Amendment provides an individual right to bear arms, but I do not believe that right is unlimited or that it precludes taking action to prevent mass shootings. Indeed, in the same Supreme Court decision that recognized the individual right to bear arms, District of Columbia v. Heller, the Court also held that this right, like other constitutional rights, is not unlimited. That is why assault weapons bans have consistently been upheld in the courts, both before and after the Heller decision. I believe regulation of these weapons is appropriate.
Once again, thank you for your letter. Although we may disagree, I appreciate hearing from you and will be mindful of your thoughts as the debate on this issue continues. If you have any additional comments or questions, please do not hesitate to contact my Washington, D.C. office at (202) 224-3841.
Dianne Feinstein
United States Senator
Further information about my position on issues of concern to California and the nation are available at my website,Feinstein.senate.gov. You can also receive electronic e-mail updates by subscribing to my e-mail list. Click here to sign up. And please visit my YouTube, Facebook and Twitter for more ways to communicate with me.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How about your cell phone number, Dianne?
6 comments:
Nobody with several million constituents would give out their cell phone number. I don't believe you've posted it for the several dozen people who frequent your blog Gary.
I generally have a dim view of Dianne Fineswine, and I'm not sure I would write gun legislation the same way, or for the same reason, as she would.
But those who consider this really important need to sort out:
1) Constitutional questions, which are jurisdictional in nature, and,
2) Policy questions, as in, how should congress exercise, or refrain from exercising, such powers as the constitution does confer on it.
Incidentally, Feinstein doesn't do a particularly good job of sorting this out either. She basically says, constitutional rights are not unlimited, this is a significant concern, therefore we should act. On that logic, constitutional rights are flexible to the point of nonexistence.
I believe that "viewpoint neutral time, place and manner restrictions" could be applied to the right to keep and bear arms, to about the same extent as they can be applied to freedom of speech.
For instance, it might be appropriate to prohibit carrying guns in crowded urban areas, just as it would be appropriate that people carry three rifles on their roof rack in a sparsely populated rural area, but whatever the rules, they apply to EVERYONE.
Limiting private ownership of high-capacity magazines could be considered analogous to prohibiting anyone from exercising their freedom of speech via an 80 decibel loudspeaker at midnight in a residential neighborhood.
Limitations on gun ownership by the certifiably psychopathic, convicted felons, etc. are also reasonable and viewpoint-neutral, but federal laws need to allow for, e.g., state parsons and commutations in considering whether to prosecute convicted felons.
This letter from Feinstein reveals her Progressive ideology and the need to gather up as many weapons as possible. Remember, she made no effort to investigate the Fast and Furious killings, showing that her effort is to get the guns of the law abiding U.S. citizens, for the wrong reasons. She wants to influence the "useful idiots" with her dribble.
We must look at the facts to disarm (pun intended) Ms. Feinstein:
In 2010, 31,000 individuals were killed by guns in the U.S. Of those killed, 18,000 were suicides, 12,000 were homicides, 3000 were children and teens, where 748 0f those 3000 were suicides.
Of all the shootings, 95% were one-on-one incidents, not "mass" murder.
The majority of gun violence was committed by handguns, not rifles and handguns are a small percentage of the weapons owned by citizens. There are far less rifles not used in gun violence, especially "assault weapons".
Feinstein should focus on reducing suicide by guns. She should focus on accidental death by guns. Restrict criminals and mentally ill fro getting guns.
Hollywood needs to restrict guns in movies as there are studies showing an association between sex/violence and aggressive behavior in teens.
But, Feinstein would rather restrict metal boxes with springs than focus on the real problems, such as mental illness, suicide, Hollywood gun violence, gun safety and using the gun laws that are already in place to reduce gun violence
Sorry Ms. Feinstein, we are not useful idiots.
Squid
The problem with Feinstein and other liberals, or progressives, or whatever Siarlys would name them, is the disconnect/illogic with whicn they approach rights.
Feinstein is certainly correct that gun rights, like other constitutional rights, are neither unlimited nor absolute nor unalienable. The corollary to that, then, is that government may restrict those rights to some degree or other.
In that regard it is interesting that antis have no problem with partial/total bans on gun ownership while supporting agendas such as instant registration/voting essentially without benefit of ID or other background efforts, as well as abortion on demand, for any reason or no reason, up until the moment of birth.
The latter two potentially, even actually, adversely affect a much larger percentage of the population than does gun violence; successful voter fraud in a presidential election would constitute a negative impact on all 300-plus million of us. Abortions involve the loss of something over a million potential, even actual, lives annually. Feinstein, et al should take her own advice in these areas.
How do I know what to name them elwood? You haven't told me who they are.
Feinstein... yes, she's a liberal. Just don't try to tell me she's a leftist.
She is most certainly a pretty good ways left of center. That essentially makes her a leftie (close enuf) in my book, whether or not you consider her an "official" leftist, whatever that is.
Definitions vary, depending on whether you are reading your WNCD or your Oxford or your Funk and Wagnall's or your Wikipedia, or your whatever.
I suppose it depends on what you call "center." If you consider anyone who would vote to keep Bill Clinton in office as a "leftist" she qualifies, by definition, your definition.
As an advocate for the working class, she's right wing.
Post a Comment