Dianne Feinstein Gun Control Hypocrite

Dianne Feinstein wants to take our guns ahead of the financial collapse of the dollar, when she conceal carries for her own protection.

Free men own guns.
Slaves don’t.

Senator Feinstein, I am not your slave and you are a hypocrite.

“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms . . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes . . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”
–Thomas Jefferson

Democide or death by government, is the leading cause of unnatural death over the past century.

The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to
keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect
themselves against tyranny in Government.

Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826)

26 comments to Dianne Feinstein Gun Control Hypocrite

  • Meathead

    I’ve owned firearms for 67 years and during that time, Ted Kennedy’s car killed more people than my guns did. Proof: A liberal with a car is more deadly than a conservative with a gun.

    You really believe that you want “gun control” by the government? You’re wanting Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Schumer, Sharpton, etc., who have armed guards, to have total control over you? Here’s some gun control history for you:

    * 1929 the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, approximately 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

    *In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915-1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

    *Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, 13 million Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, the mentally ill, and others, who were unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

    *China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up
    and exterminated.

    *Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
    exterminated.

    *Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
    exterminated.

    *Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million “educated” people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

    *That places total victims who lost their lives because of gun control at approximately 56 million in the last century. Since we should learn from the mistakes of history, the next time someone talks in favor of gun control, find out which group of citizens they wish to have exterminated.

    When the defense of liberty becomes a crime,
    tyranny is already in force. At that point,
    failure to defend liberty
    makes slavery a certainty.
    John Perna

    • Jim

      Excellent post meathead. We all need to understand the game being played. This bill is so horrible that it has no chance of passing. The bill that will be intoduced after it just might get passed.

  • Anthony Bartlett

    Tom Woods has a fantastic section in his book about gun control. The same quote you supplied from Jefferson is used.

    “The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History” Tom E. Woods

  • James Tetreault

    You have to understand that in the world view of senators there’s nothing inconsistent about restrictions applying to the serfs that don’t apply to them. These are people who routinely exempt themselves from the laws they force on us. They don’t include themselves under the umbrella of the obamacare (really Pelosicare) system. They’re not lumped into the social security system with the proles. Theirs is a world view that doesn’t include talking about it publicly but which embraces a caste system without reservations.

  • Smile and say Silver Stacker

    Great Video capturing the “hypocrite” and yet the obvious Marxist is reelected to office by the same brain dead sheeple…amazing…could it be that the elections are rigged or what is the deal?

    Perhaps, worse still, is that Feignsteen is supposed to take of a solemnly sworn oath of office with an allegiance to the Constitution…her attacks to the Constitution are tantamount to treason among the least of laws she breaks while being insincere and dishonest to the patriotic oath taken…Is she repeatedly given a pass because she has been crossing her fingers while swearing allegiance?

    Maybe it’s time for a little Tar and Feathers – old fashioned style?

  • JC Thomas

    Senator Feinstein

    Let it be known that I also refuse to register any firearms that I rightfully own, in the case this Bill is passed. It is not the place of Government to intrude into my life, make decisions for my family, or myself or to influence in any way, how I choose to live my life, nor will it ever be! Your Bill is a direct assault on the very freedoms the Constitution guarantees “We the people” and your eagerness to infringe upon those rights while at the same time exploiting them for yourself, is not only hypocritical but also treasonous. I am a legal alien of this great country, have no criminal record, or affected driving record for that matter, have worked hard my entire life without ever receiving Government assistance, paid back any and all debt, and lived my life in obedience to the principles of loving your neighbor as yourself and doing what is right and good in the sight of God. I don’t know what regulates your moral code but it is obvious that whatever it is, you are willing to abjure your fellow countryman, in a hasty and nescient response to the evil that exists in this world, and then erroneously use your position, as an elected servant, in an attempt to compromise our freedoms on behalf of an ideology that is obviously anti-American and therefore, contrary to the good and benefit of the people.
    Furthermore, I am certainly not your servant, possession, beneath you; in fact, I am a free man and will die that way, if necessary. You have absolutely “no jurisdiction” in regards to my liberty Senator Feinstein and your bill is an attempt to restrict and/or eliminate those rights altogether, and that simply, is not acceptable.
    It appears that you have forgotten or rejected the basic fact that you, Senator Feinstein, are a servant of the people, and as such, are to do the will of the people, not your own and certainly not those within your political province who share your distorted views. Accomplishing the will of the people Senator Feinstein is your sacred and Constitutional duty and you, along with many others, have failed in this regard. In quoting the letter from Joshua Boston, “I will not be disarmed to suit the fear that has been established by the media and your misinformation campaign against the American public.
    We, the people, deserve better than you.

    To this, I resolutely concur!

  • Gareth

    Don’t let them take your guns or you could end up like moi with a catapult, cricket bat, and knives for your defence.

    If you’re from the UK look up the bill of rights 1689. It states quite clearly that as ‘protestants’ we have the right to be armed to defend ourselves from malevolent govt entities.

    We too have a constitution made up from the Magna Carta 1215, the bill of rights 1689, and the right to petition.

    Folk are working towards an additional constitutional document to be launched circa 2015 as this is deemed a good date to do so. If DTOM is still up and running i’ll post the addition – note not ‘new’ but additional – constitutional document here.

    Peace and G’luck

  • Cunning Linguist

    “This year will go down in history. For the first time a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient and the world will follow our lead into the future.” —Adolf Hitler, 1935

  • JG

    You should research your quotes a little better ….
    “Laws that forbid the carrying of arms . . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes . . .
    Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”
    –Thomas Jefferson
    This is not something Jefferson wrote, but rather comes from a passage he included in his “Legal Commonplace Book.” The passage is from Cesare Beccaria’s Essay on Crimes and Punishments.[1] It appears in Jefferson’s commonplace book as follows:
    http://www.monticello.org/site/jefferson/laws-forbid-carrying-armsquotation

    I am not anti-gun, or anti second amendment, but it seems today that you have to be 100% one way or the other.
    Ms. Feinstein is not interested in taking away your concealed handguns, she wants to take the “Assault” (whatever those are) weapons off the street.

    My question is even if you could legally own fully automatic machine guns, do you think you are even going to put a dent in a tyrannical government ?
    The only way It could work is if there were no standing armies during peace time, which is another thing Jefferson suggested.
    The people form the militia, and in times of need the people take their arms to protect the nation. But then no Pentagon, worldwide naval patrols, etc…
    Slowly through corruption we have become identical to the nation that we fought a revolution against to be free. The American empire.

    JG

    • Silver Shield

      So a brilliant man quoted another brilliant man…

      Let me answer your question with another quote from a man that lived under a tyrannical regime.

      “And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?… The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin’s thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If…if…We didn’t love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation…. We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.”

      ― Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn

      I have stated that this is not a financial or physical battle as much as a battle of consciousness.

      We are actively or passively supporting a debt and death collective paradigm that empowers the worst in our society and fighting them physically only stays in their paradigm.

      My answer to this battle of consciousness…

      http://iSecede.com

      That being said the rifle is the only equalizing force of the individual over the collective and that should never be infringed upon.

      • David Richardson

        “I have stated that this is not a financial or physical battle as much as a battle of consciousness”.

        OK; perhaps in most instances. However…

        All law-abiding citizens need to be thinking about would they turn in their firearms if a law was passed requiring this [while the controlling elite will be exempt or have the right to armed bodyguards, and criminals will not turn in any firearms]. Also if “the authorities” can door-to door for a search after such laws were passed would you then turn them in?

        The Brits and Aussies capitulated. Many are sorry; the criminals know they are more defenseless. I have seen federal law enforcement studies where chronic incarcerated criminals were interviewed and stated the fear of an armed home or individual made them more cautious about who they targeted.

        If Americans do give in to this we deserve what comes next [like Solzhenitsyn stated above]. Rest assured there will be more gun-free zone killings [schools or theaters], or stories of such [I have to wonder how much is real and how much is for the disarm agenda].

        • Silver Shield

          I would treat the door to door search the same I would if they came for my kids, guns, food or silver.

          I would hide them and play their game, but if push came to shove…

          There are somethings worth fighting for.

          • David Richardson

            I keep little of resale value to a thief in my home. If someone has a gun on me or my family then will take what they find. They have the jump on me.

            Assuming I hear knocking or glass breaking or an attempt to break in my reinforced doors, regardless of their training and experience they lose, unless they toss in grenades of course [which would kill innocent people like children]. They don’t know my home layout or my will to defend my family and my rights I believe are guaranteed by documents from our founding fathers.

            I’m no Rambo or hero but Americans better adopt a similar attitude.

            • methylamine

              I agree, and with Silver Shield too.

              Hide them. But if push comes to shove–we must all resolve that our souls and principles are eternal, our bodies are not, and there are things worth fighting for.

              I am not a slave. I am a free man. And I will not be disarmed.

  • speedspirit

    In India Ghandi lead a sucessful revolution without guns.
    Now that situation was different in that the people werent in danger from their neighbors who do not have food, water or meds. You would think that the Government or higher up the Elite would want us to keep our guns to Let us kill each other over the food and water. Its said and history shows they prefer this method of dividing and letting the people kill each other. It seems then that this is just a ploy to fuel the anger between the people. We the people do not want to kill each other for the Elites benefit We Want The Elite To Go To Hell where they belong. And that goal needs no guns.

    Chris always talks about a higher consciousness. Well there is only two. A dualistic consciosness where everything has an opposite/ a confliction. And then there is Christ Consciousness where everything is One. One planet, one human race, one system all connected. Guns and killing is wrong. Maybe justified if someone wants to take your life or food but two wrongs do not make a right.

    So how do we end the abuse of power of the Governments, Central Banks and yet peacefully. Again Chris is always talking about a non collective solution. Its about the individual. Each individual. Enough individuals need to seek the Whole truth about the history of the world, The Ancient mysteries, the history of All the Religions and why they all contain the same wise truths but why the truths were distorted for who’s benefit and the truth about money and greed and again who’s benefit.

    Anger and a bloody revolution will not solve our problems Knowledge will. The answers are there. And if you want to own Guns fine, Smart. But to focus energy on shooting them, cleaning them hoping one day to use them to save yourself is wrong. It attracts the wrong situation into your life. Thoughts are energy. Thoughts change matter. Thoughts and action manifest results so be careful what you pray for.

    • Silver Shield

      “We don’t use guns because we don’t have guns”

      ― Mohandas Gandhi

      “Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest”

      ― Mohandas Gandhi

    • David Richardson

      Desperate people do desperate things. History is replete with examples of the same from governments. A conscious[ness] solution is always best, but only if it is viable.

      One usually can’t successfully reason with tyrants, despots, psychopaths, sociopaths, or anxiety-ridden desperate people and organizations.

      As a friend of an active-duty Marine currently deployed in Asia [after two tours in Iraq, and then Afghanistan], I can tell you this is a loving family man; very peaceful — until that doesn’t work.

    • Dave

      Gandi’s philosophy, approach, and methods evolved over time. He was not strictly, the promoter of change through non-violent means that his current public image depicts him to be. The record shows that he determined that non-violent resistance could successfully be utilized as a means to Indian independence, but that he was ultimately a pragmatist. For example, toward the tail end of WWI he wrote the following in an effort to enlist fellow Indians into the army on behalf of the British:

      “To bring about such a state of things we should have the ability to defend ourselves, that is, the ability to bear arms and to use them…If we want to learn the use of arms with the greatest possible despatch, it is our duty to enlist ourselves in the army.” – Gandhi, (1965) Collected Works, Vol 17. Chapter “67. Appeal for enlistment”, Nadiad, 22 June 1918

      The “state of things” he was referring to was Indian Independence…

  • Farmer

    Maybe Feinstein and Bloomberg should call for an “investigation” or summit
    all the CEO’s of Big Pharma to see why these “shooters” have their products in
    their system when they commit these crimes.
    The gun made me do it or the drug made me do it?

  • Bradley

    Chris,

    Seems to me TPTB have blocked this video. I wanted to watch but cannot
    as it comes up removed. I also want to say that I agree with all of you.
    Methylamine puts it simple and I like it. The simple truth is we are not
    going to live forever in these mortal bodies of ours. Our purpose is to spread the Spirit of Truth. That Spirit we are all a part of and that never Dies.
    This is a battle against Evil and Chris, you are doing a fantastic Job!!
    I have learned much from you so far. I love You All. Defend the Constitution
    no matter what. Never give in. Better to die for The Cause than to become a coward and slave to the puny elite. We are The People in huge numbers. Talk with people about these things. I never stop trying to wake them up.

  • Bradley

    The video is back up. Thanks Chris!!

  • Bradley

    Sppedspirit…Love your thinking process. All religions have been warped by evil men to control and gain power. “Santa will not bring you presents if you disobey”.
    It will always be there. I could write my thoughts and it would take pages here.
    But Chris has done much of it already so read his works. The pagan religious days were melded into Christian Holidays. I will never observe these days (Christmas,
    Easter, Thanksgiving, Halloween, etc.) I am getting off the subject I know.
    But Truth is all we have. Gun Control is wrong as it says “We the Government know What is Best for You”. Governments have destroyed Millions of lives and Killed more people than any entity on Earth. How many innocents have they killed??
    People who want to just live and work and Love God and Life. I can rant but will read others thoughts. I respect all that have ideas but will not respect gun grabbers…stupid sheeple the are.

  • Dan'l Boone

    http://www.outdoorsunlimited.net/

    NAPOLITANO: The right to shoot tyrants, not deer
    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jan/10/the-right-to-shoot-tyrants-not-deer/

    NAPOLITANO: The right to shoot tyrants, not deer
    The Second Amendment is the guarantee of freedom
    By Andrew P. Napolitano Thursday, January 10, 2013

    The right of the people to keep and bear arms is an extension of the natural right to self-defense and a hallmark of personal sovereignty. It is specifically insulated from governmental interference by the Constitution and has historically been the linchpin of resistance to tyranny. Yet the progressives in both political parties stand ready to use the coercive power of the government to interfere with the exercise of that right by lawabiding persons because of the gross abuse of that right by some crazies in our midst.

    When Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence that we are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights, he was marrying the nation at its birth to the ancient principles of the natural law that have animated the Judeo-Christian tradition in the West. Those principles have operated as a brake on all governments that recognize them by enunciating the concept of natural rights. As we have been created in the image and likeness of God the Father, we are perfectly free just as He is. Thus, the natural law teaches that our freedoms are pre-political and come from our humanity and not from the government. As our humanity is ultimately divine in origin, the
    government, even by majority vote, cannot morally take natural rights away from us. A natural right is an area of individual human behavior — like thought, speech, worship, travel, self-defense, privacy, ownership and use of property, consensual personal intimacy — immune from government interference and for the exercise of which we don’t need the government’s permission.

    The essence of humanity is freedom. Government — whether voted in peacefully or thrust upon us by force — is essentially the negation of freedom. Throughout the history of the world, people have achieved freedom when those in power have begrudgingly given it up. From the assassination of Julius Caesar to King John’s forced signing of the Magna Carta, from the English Civil War to the triumph of the allies at the end of World War II, from the fall of communism to the Arab Spring, governments have permitted so-called nobles and everyday folk to exercise more personal freedom as a result of their demands for it and their fighting for it. This constitutes power permitting liberty.

    The American experience was the opposite. Here, each human being is sovereign, as the colonists were after the Revolution. Here, the delegation to the government of some sovereignty — the personal dominion over self — by each American permitted the government to have limited power in order to safeguard the liberties we retained. Stated differently, Americans gave up some limited personal freedom to the new government so it could have the authority and resources to protect the freedoms we retained. Individuals are sovereign in America, not the government. This constitutes liberty permitting power.

    Yet we did not give up any natural rights; rather, we retained them. It is the choice of every individual whether to give them up. Neither our neighbors nor the government can make those choices for us, because we are all without the moral or legal authority to interfere with anyone else’s natural rights. Since the government derives all of its powers from the consent of the governed, and since we each lack the power to interfere with the natural rights of another, how could the government lawfully have that power? It doesn’t. Were this not so, our rights would not be natural; they would be subject to the government’s whims.

    To assure that no government would infringe the natural rights of anyone here, the Founders incorporated Jefferson’s thesis underlying the Declaration into the Constitution and, with respect to self-defense, into the Second Amendment. As recently as two years ago, the Supreme Court recognized this when it held that the right to keep and bear arms in one’s home is a pre-political individual right that only sovereign Americans can surrender and that the government cannot take from us, absent our individual waiver.

    There have been practical historical reasons for the near universal historical acceptance of the individual possession of this right. The dictators and monsters of the 20th century — from Stalin to Hitler, from Castro to Pol Pot, from Mao to Assad — have disarmed their people. Only because some of those people resisted the disarming were all eventually enabled to fight the dictators for freedom. Sometimes they lost. Sometimes they won.

    The principal reason the colonists won the American Revolution is that they possessed weapons equivalent in power and precision to those of the British government. If the colonists had been limited to crossbows that they had registered with the king’s government in London, while the British troops used gunpowder when they fought us here, George Washington and Thomas Jefferson would have been captured and hanged.

    We also defeated the king’s soldiers because they didn’t know who among us was armed, because there was no requirement of a permission slip from the government in order to exercise the right to self-defense. (Imagine the howls of protest if permission were required as a precondition to exercising the freedom of speech.) Today, the limitations on the power and precision of the guns we can lawfully own not only violate our natural right to self-defense and our personal sovereignties, they assure that a tyrant can more easily disarm and overcome us.

    The historical reality of the Second Amendment’s protection of the right to keep and bear arms is not that it protects the right to shoot deer. It protects the right to shoot tyrants, and it protects the right to shoot at them effectively, with the same instruments they would use upon us. If the Jews in the Warsaw ghetto had had the firepower and ammunition that the Nazis had, some of Poland might have stayed free and more persons would have survived the Holocaust.

    Most people in government reject natural rights and personal sovereignty. Most people in government believe that the exercise of everyone’s rights is subject to the will of those in the government. Most people in government believe that they can write any law and regulate any behavior, not subject to the natural law, not subject to the sovereignty of individuals, not cognizant of history’s tyrants, but subject only to what they can get away with.

    Did you empower the government to impair the freedom of us all because of the mania and terror of a few?

    Andrew P. Napolitano, a former judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey, is the senior judicial analyst at Fox News Channel. He is author of “It Is Dangerous to Be Right When the Government Is Wrong: The Case for Personal Freedom” (Thomas Nelson, 2011).

    • All site contents © Copyright 2013 The Washington Times, LLC | 3600 New York Avenue NE | Washington, DC 20002 | 202-636-3000

  • […] Dianne Feinstein Gun Control Hypocrite (dont-tread-on.me) […]

Leave a Reply

  

  

  

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Support our fight with a one time donation.

colloidal-silver-hydrosol-banner-175x263

Over 300+ Videos