"No one has yet to show me where an assault rifle is better for self defense than a handgun." -Dianne Feinstein (paraphrased)My initial reaction was something along the lines of, who made you the final arbiter of what is or isn't acceptable for self defense? Does my car or deodorant or toothpaste have to pass the Di-Fi test before I'm allowed to buy them as well? This was the point Ted Cruz made in comparing the First Amendment to the Second: Are there only 2,200 books the government will allow us to have? Part of her tirade against Ted Cruz this AM was her blustering that she "respects" the Constitution:
"I have great respect for it... I've studied the Constitution myself. I am reasonably well educated..."
Well, again, let's recap: Dianne's handgun ban in San Francisco was overruled as...wait for it...un-Constitutional. Respecting it apparently means something different than "adhering to it" to Ms. Feinstein.
But, then, as I got to thinking about her statement, she implies that handguns are just fine and dandy with her, at least for self defense, it's just those nasty, black scary guns we need to get rid of! Except that, when she thought she had the power, she banned private ownership of handguns from the city where she was mayor. So is she saying, "No one has yet to show me where an assault rifle is better for self defense than a handgun, but we plan on taking them away, too!"
And last, but not least, Di-Fi telling an interviewer, that if she'd had the votes she would have banned all guns, period:
Dianne Feinstein Caught Lying About Her Past Gun Ban Intentions
Dianne Feinstein keeps trying to put lipstick on her gun control pig, but her record indicates that she is in favor of banning all guns. If she has to do it one at a time, that's okay, too. I've detailed elsewhere some of the moronic gun bans passed in California, just because they could. If Dianne Feinstein's "reasonable education" can't bring her any understanding or enlightenment about the Second Amendment, why should we trust her with any of the thousands of pages of laws these dim witted do-gooders crank out every year?
*On the day Di-Fi's handgun gun was passed, I was listening to KCBS radio out of San Francisco. The first story after announcing the handgun ban, was a story about a man who held up a liquor store with a sawed off shotgun. Let's recap: It's illegal to make a sawed of shotgun. It's illegal to possess a sawed off shotgun. It's illegal to transport a loaded shotgun in your vehicle. (Let's presume for the moment our crook didn't use an unloaded gun.) It's illegal to use any kind of shotgun in the commission of a robbery. That's a minimum of four felonies committed by this outstanding citizen of SF. What makes Di-Fi think that one more law on the books will deter the commission of violent crimes?
Bonus points if you can figure out WTF Di-Fi is talking about "imploding bullets":
I’ve seen the bullets that implode.
Cross posted at Proof Positive