Quote of the day—Dianne Feinstein

Justice Scalia also wrote that, ‘Weapons that are most useful in military service, M-16 rifles and the like, may be banned’ without infringing on the Second Amendment. Do you agree with that statement that under the Second Amendment weapons that are most useful in military service … may be banned?

Dianne Feinstein
U.S. Senator
March 21, 2017
FEINSTEIN QUOTED SCALIA OUT OF CONTEXT TO PUSH AGENDA
[What Scalia actually wrote was:

It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.

I was pleased with Gorsuch response. He handled the deceitful tactics well:

“It is not a matter of agreeing or disagreeing, senator, respectfully, it’s a matter of it being the law and my job is to apply and enforce the law.”

Sebastian has video of the exchange.

As is usual, anti-gun politicians knowingly lie in their attempt to infringe upon our specific enumerated right. It’s all they have to work with. And we will have their lies to work with at their trials.—Joe]

5 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Dianne Feinstein

  1. Feinstein may have duped her constituents back in the land of fruits and nuts, but I’m sure that Gorsuch is very much aware of EXACTLY what Scalia had to say on the matter. Since calling her a lying bag of feces to her face would likely have been counterproductive to his confirmation, his diplomatic answer probably had the best result. Be interesting if he confronted her later – or if a few Republicans cornered her in an elevator, though….

  2. That particular lie about the Heller opinion has been well travelled from the Bloomberg sockpuppets.

  3. Regardless what any titled person may say or think about it; I can read, and I know what it means. The truth may be ignored and it may be misrepresented. It may at times become extremely unpopular, but it’s always right there, no matter what, for anyone to reach out and find.

    The Progressives have built a house of cards for themselves. They live in a cocoon spun of lies, and the only way they can continue is to shut out the truth, to malign, impugn, and ultimately threaten, anyone who speaks it. They cannot last. The truth will out.

    Also; 18 USC 242
    Yesterday I told an NRA representative to write it down (I’m 99% sure he’s nothing but a paid phone solicitor who neither knows nor cares a whit about the issues) and to “look it the fuck up” (I could have been slightly more tactful), and that as soon as I started seeing arrests and convictions I’d resume supporting the so-called “second amendment” groups.

    The constitution is the “Supreme Law of the Land”. If you’re violating it, you’re a criminal. We need not bargain with criminals, convince them to see things our way, nor pay them for their “services”, nor recognize their assumed titles. We need only prosecute them, and get them out of our lives, such that the promise of the law might fulfilled.

    As it is, we have the worst of the worst among federal criminals holding high office and we’re doing nothing about it.

    We’re pretending the criminals have authority over us. With that fallacy front and center, we plead with the criminals to recognize rights which they’re there specifically to violate. It’s like trying to convince a robber, while he’s in the act, that perhaps he’s taking a little bit more than he needs, and perhaps it would help you if he left a little bit behind, and thank you please, Kind Sir.

    You can dress that shit up any way you like, and even spray it with perfume, but all you have is a perfumed turd. It certainly is NOT the rule of law. I’m not donating money for that. Not any more.

  4. As a lawyer, if you ever attempted to do what she did with the wording of Heller, you would get a solid dressing down from the judge. It is NOT acceptable to quote in such a fashion in our business.

  5. Interesting. Is that another one of Dianne Feinstein’s “Super-precedents”? Apparently, those are the only exceptions to the Living Document doctrine.

    http://www.nationalreview.com/g-file/446081/living-constitution-dianne-feinstein-neil-gorsuch-attack

    This is what I hate about liberals. They aren’t lawless, but they are very selective in their interpretation of the law and the enforcement thereof. A lawful person needs no action taken against them, and a criminal can be run through the courts and thrown into jail. But people who skirt the law and cover their asses with authority? I don’t know how to fight them.

Comments are closed.