Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who said on CBS's 60 Minutes:
[size=5][red][b]"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them, Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in, I would have done it."[/b][/red][/size=5]


[size=4][green][b]Does this crazy bitch know or understand she would have triggered an all out civil war?.
I know this is old but everytime I read it I get madder then hell.
If I had seen it broadcast I would have thrown the remote through the TV. [/b][/green][/size=4]

Urban legend, it sounds good, but it just didn't happen...

Much like that much quoted Hitler quote that people like to put out...

I highly doubt it would.  I would bet that 93% of America would grumble but turn in their guns.  Leave the other 7% as terrorists who would be hunted down as terrorists for trying to take out the government.  Just look at the civil war that broke out in California when their registration plan took effect.

Simmer down my friend. Yes she said it, so what?

Do you personally want to do something about it? Go volunteer to campaign against an anti-gunner in your local area , ie city council, state house or senate etc, in the next election cycle. Go walk the precints, get your friends involved. Join the NRA. How about join the Coalition of New Jersey Sportsman, they are really politically active. Remember their battle cry to get rid of Jim Florio? "Florio free in 93!"

Yes, it did happen. I saw the interview with Mike Wallace in 1994. She leaned forward for dramatic effect and annunciated her words with her thumb just like Billy Blythe did when he said "I did not have sexual relations with that woman!"

Yes she said it,
[url]http://www.nraila.org/LegislativeUpdate.asp?FormMode=Detail&ID=644&1=View[/url]

There is a very big difference between the rest os the country and kaliban,there is also a very big difference between reg. and banning some guns and what she said,
[red]"picking up every one of them"
"Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in"[/red]
Now if you can't see the difference then maybe you will give the [insert govt. agency here] all your guns when and if they knock on your door.

I stand corrected...

The good part about them pushing an outrageous ban, is that it highlights their goals of total gun control, and actually lowers its chance of success.  Perhaps the Elmers of the country will wake up and finally cast their vote properly.  (T'aint no point to dat AK-TwartySeven, but don't touch my diddy's Gee-Rand)

Why do you think this? Gun Owners have shown not one ounce of revenge or even anger, so ofcourse the anti's think and do walk all over our gun rights.

Well, it's because I was speaking for myself I guess, you know that line we are always talking about "if crossed"?
Well, that's my line, if they have an all out ban and confiscation on all guns I will have to say this is it, no more I retreat no farther,PERIOD!
This will be a sad day, I gave this a lot of thought and from what I know of history It might be better to go out in a blaze of glory taking a few gun grabbing commies with me then to witness what will follow.

Roughly 7%? May be a bit high, but I won't quibble. As we have already seen. Many members here will continue to vote for those who take their gun rights, as long as it's "republicans" doing the taking....
The socialist agenda has been incrementally implemented, with success through our govt. schools. Look at Bush, and senior drug prescriptions as an example...

My line was crossed in 1986.
Still waiting to hear from the other gun owners who are outraged and were going to take a stand in Washington DC [rolleyes]

Look, I am all for using force to defend our gun rights if need be, as a matter of fact I think its long overdue. But unfortunately There are very few of us (including you and me) who would actually be up to it [v]

Just making an observation.

M4_Aiming_at_U
Thats where you are wrong,I thought long and hard about this and I made my decision,i will defend my right to keep arms with those arms if need be.
It's not something I am looking forward to, it's something that if it happens I have already made my choice.
Dying is the easy part ,deciding to make the  stand is the hard part,right?

Where am I wrong?
I was saying that both you and I [u]WOULD[/u] stand up and use arms to protect our rights....... I dont understand why you tihnk I am wrong....

My sincere apology M4_Aiming_at_U
I totally misread what you wrote, I am studying for an exam and I haven't had to study in 20 years so I should probably study and not post.

BAN STUDING AND POSTING FOR THE CHILDREN!

Let's see now.  There is a conservative estimate  of 65,000,000 households with firearms.  If 7% did not turn them in for an outright ban, 4,550,000 would be left to start whatever trouble they wanted.  Especially if they are organised.  Also, a ban would be only effective on tracible firearms.  How many households have ubtracible arms?  That 93% might turn in most of their firearms, but God knows how many millions will not get turned in.

Bilster

No problem brother, also the New Joisey water you have been drinking might have something do to with it [:D]

After the cancer scare in south jersey in the 70's we don't drink this water here ,it's been bottled water for us ever since.
This test by the way means an extra 100K every 8 months so you can see how I would be distracted  [:D]

Paul ,you think that commie [size=6][red][b]bitch[/b][/red][/size=6] ever even read the Consitution ?

Whereas you voted for an "independant" who wanted to take everyone's guns! Now THAT'S much better! [rolleyes]
"Pick a night and cordon off a section of South Dallas. Send hundreds of police officers--however many it would take-into the area to 'vacuum it up.' Shake down everybody on the street. Search every house and apartment. Confiscate all drugs and weapons." Ross Perot. The Washington Post, June 6, 1992

A-hem.   Studing is how we GET children.

Keep in mind not all independant's are anti gun.

But, only a very small portion of these people(gun owners) are willing to standup and be counted, outside of voting for the RKBA cause. How many people are a memeber of the NRA(at last count around 4 million) and how many estimated gun owners?

You can join all of the gun organizations you want but the only thing that will matter is which side YOU are going to be on when lead starts flying.

it only  takes a couple of people to start a snowball effect................

and lord knows we need to somehow show these assholes that there is indeed a line in the sand that they'd best not cross

The reason I am not a member of the NRA is because they give too much away.  Well, we will let you have all of this if we can have this little item.  Sorry, it don't work for me.  I used to be a member and cancelled after they went along with the 3 day waiting period.  Constitutionally, I should be able to walk into any gun store with cash in hand and buy any type of gun that I can afford and walk right out the door with it.  What part of infringe do you all not understand?  It means to limit or restrict incrementally by force of law.  Every single time that a "gun law" is passed, it is unconstitutional.  There has only been one gun law ever written in this country that is valid and constitutional.  That law is the second ammendment.  Perhaps reading the constitution might help you a little.  It starts with "We the People of the United States of America".  (remember this line)  Also, "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state," (this is the why portion to what follows) "[b]THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED[/B]"  There is no stated limit to what type of arms.  There is no stated limit to where, when or how those arms are kept (To keep means to own, to bear means to carry on your person) or borne.  Since the purpose of this ammendment was to assure the availability of a militia, this would include military weapons.  Although, at the time, there was no real difference in the rifles carried by the military and those carried by hunters, the intent is for the common citizen to be able to handle military weapons when the need arose to defend the country from foreign agressors or a national government (our own) from violating the civil rights of the citizens through use of force/martial law.  Immediately after the signing of the constitution, private ownership of cannon was not uncommon.  What kind of hell would you have to go through now to park a 155 howitzer in your front yard?  What about setting an M1A Abrams in your driveway?  

Wyatt Earp was the original gun control violator of the constitution.  His policy of turning in all guns when entering town (to control drunken cowboys coming off the trail and partying a little too hard) was the first direct violation of the second ammendment.  Several state constitutions are also a violation of the US constitution.  TN, for example, states that although we believe that the people have a right to keep and bear arms, we have the right to restrict where and when they can do so.  (not exact quote, but the gist of the statement)  Since all states are bound by the US constitution, any section of a state constitution or state law that violates the US constitution is illegal and invalid.  So, if you happen to know your states constitution, and it is in violation of the Bill of Rights, you could actually defend yourself against any state constitutional crime.  I.E. any part of the constitution is illegal, then it is illegal in its entirety being that it is a considered a single document/law.

Well, fuck me sideways and color me damned.  I finally agree with Imbroglio.

Sorry for the "me too" post, but...she did say it (or something very similar), and I too have seen the tape.

We could use a 7% rule, as a opposed to a 10% rule, as was already started.  Now we'll take 7% of the 4,550,000 which is 318,500.  This could represent the core of a rebellion.  I think that is significant to make a prolnged civil war.  However, with an army, leo's, and a bunch of whiney synchophants against them, they might ultimately lose.  It's the percentage of gunowners in the larger catagory that I'm banking on.  We do not know what the percentage of households with the untracible firearms.  It could be all of them.  Let's say for the sake ofarguement that half of them have these firearms.  About 32,500,000.
It is concievable that they have these firearms for the possibilty of a civil war.  Now lets say that 7% of these people will actively participate.  The assumption is, if they have weapons that are unkown, they might be more apt to use them.  Even if it's part time. 7% of 32,500,000 is 2,275,000.  That is an army to fear.  They have a much greater chance of winning.  All of this is speculation.

Bilster

I didn't buy my guns to wipe them down with oil and hide them,I am not a criminal and I refuse to hide my guns ,PERIOD!
I will not cache them, I will not bury my guns in some hidden place.
They are mine and they are guaranteed to me by the United States Constitution, and by my right as a free man guaranteed to me by God.

If God revokes my freedom then they can have my guns.

It wouldn't be just 300,000 isolated people.  It would be entire towns, entire cities, entire states, and entire regions.  People stick by their family, friends, and community.  In most areas, the number of pro-gun people would outnumber the anti-gun people.  It would be the South and Midwest vs the West and North East.  And this time the South would win.  

But I wonder what the rest of the world would do.  Civil war in America!  The world economy would go down the hole.  I wonder if countries like Britain would join sides with the anti-gunners and contribute troops.

Hypocritical bitch!! it was Dan White and his gun that made her whole political career! She was a despised vice-mayor, on her way out, when White shot Moscone and the fag.

You are probably right, the South and West would win this, partly because of the high number of 2nd Amendment supporters and in part they're whole communities in the Northeast that will also support the rebellion.  Cities, where large populations of anti-gunners live will have to depend on leo's and the army for protection.  No one knows how much support they will get, as many police and soldiers are also pro gun, but more importantly, pro constitution.  The cities could find themselves under siege for months on end.  Food will become scarce, since cities are generally not selfsufficiant.

This of course, will be a nightmare for the entire world.  With a large proportion of pro constitutionalist in the armed services, and law enforcement, the government may have to recruit or lower standards to bring in throngs of "brain dead/washed" idealogues, illegal aliens, and criminals to do their bidding.  Another possibility is to bring in foreign troops.  An American civil war will go global.  It will destroy the World's economy.  It will last for years.  So, be careful for what you wish for, you just might get it.  That goes for the gungrabbers as well.

Bilster

Bullshit, I watched it when it aired. She said EXACTLY that along with a bunch of other anti BS.

Call me cynical,  but I think it would not lead to a civil war. At least not a very big one. There would be isolated cases, sure. But no organised resistance. There is a propaganda machine in this country that Stalin would have given his left nut for.  Most Americans are just to stupid, lazy, sheltered, spoiled, and preoccupied with the almighty buck.

The problem is that nobody can say exactly where the line is and when it is crossed.  It has already been crossed in several states- Nothing happened!

I hope I'm wrong.

Quoted:


... the only thing that will matter is which side YOU are going to be on when lead starts flying.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BTW Imroglio- what side are YOU going to be on?
please advise.

... Amen brother, amen

[Head Scratching] Wow...Me too.... [/Head Scratching]

Amen brother!!  If they try to come take them.  They better bring a FN army!!

I saw the original interview and its re-broadcast.  It's exactly what she said.  What really got me going was she said nothing about the  criminals.  So, here we have a senator, supposedly qualified to tell the rest of us what to do (bullshit), ignoring the obvious; the only other possibility is she wants to help criminals.  She is either stupid or crooked, your choice.

It was also amusing that the paragon of journalism/infomercial interlocutor Leslie Stahl repeating that sentence back to her  "You mean  if you had, etc."   just like someone selling a phony weight control pill.