Saturday, February 16, 2013

Reply From Feinstein

Some time ago I paid for one of those "Fax Blast" solicitations from one of the gun rights groups I get email from.

I don't recall which one, but for a reasonable fee, they send faxes to all the members of both Houses, and your state representatives.

I always figured they get ignored, except by the person who has to keep the fax machine supplied with paper, but this time I received a form-letter reply from Senator Feinstein.

Here's the reply, copied and pasted from her email, and you'll find it typical of hoplophobes in that she attacks the inanimate object, rather than the underlying causes of the person using it to commit crimes.

No mention of trying to help the sick, unbalanced, deranged or terminally angry person who commits the crime, but rather another cry to get rid of the Evil Black Rifles....again.

Dear  Mr. xxxxxx :
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.

Sincerely yours,

  Dianne Feinstein
         United States Senator
At least it only wasted electrons, and not a sheet of paper in my fax machine.


  1. A weasel is a weasel, no matter how understanding or reasonable she comes across in that form letter.

  2. Absolutely a freedom-stealing, nanny-state, far-left LOON!

  3. If you feel like writing her back and telling her she's full of crap, that mass shootings are "trendless" in the last 35 years, you can give her a reference to a guy who studies it for a living.

    I know it's probably useless; I have the same problem with my "other" senator (the one that isn't Marco Rubio). He actually wrote me to say, "I've been a hunter all my life and I believe in the second amendment, but AK-47s are just designed to kill people".

    "I believe in the second amendment" is getting to be one of those "BOHICA" phrases (you know, Bend Over, Here It Comes Again). At the very least, it tells you that pure BS is coming in the next 20 seconds.

  4. It agree it would be pointless to reply to her.

    She is so anti-2A, anti-freedom, and all for the nanny state, that providing her with facts is futile.

  5. For my edification, in general, what court rulings is she referring to?

    Didn't the 1994 AWB expire in 2004 before Heller and McDonald decisions?

    Is she simply talking about those tangential lawsuits that pop up by stupid lawyers for obviously guilty criminals? They in no way validate the cited law.

    If she is so hip about court rulings being equal to a moral and logical result without any political or ideological slant, let me present: Plessy v Fergusen, Roe v Wade, Kilo v Newhaven, Obamacare, and countless other ones that made no sense.


Keep it civil, please....