Saturday, January 26, 2013

Refuting the Arguments of Dianne Feinstein


Before proceeding, please go here:, as this will provide the definitions.

Let me refute her facts on a point-by-point basis:

1. "Weapons, designed originally by the military, to kill large numbers of people in close combat, are replicated for civilian use"
Replicated is the keyword here. These guns that she's campaigning against are not military firearms, they are simple semi-automatic rifles that look similar to their military counterparts.

2. "They fall into the hands, one way or the other [of criminals], they are sold out of trunks and back-seats of automobiles in cities as well as gun-shows with no questions asked."
This is a straw-man argument if I ever heard one. Because this bill that she is proposing has no operational logic behind it (see point #1) she has to rally the emotions of the people to support this. Hence this silly argument. Guess what? There are lots of things sold out of the back of trunks in back-seats of automobiles. We bought a camera that way off of craigslist, should cameras be illegal?

She's trying to put AR- 15s in the same light as illegal drugs.

3. [list of shootings]. The common thread  in these shootings is each gunman used a semi-automatic assault weapon, or large capacity ammunition magazines.
The only common thread? Here's a few more items that the shootings had in common:
1. They were committed in public places.
2. They were all done by males.
3. All the shooters were atheist.
Therefor, we should make public places illegal, outlaw all men, and get rid of all atheists. Once again, this doesn't hold water when you examine it.

4. Military-style assault weapons have but one purpose, and in my view that's a military purpose, to hold at the hip if possible, to spray fire, to be able to kill large numbers.
Once again here she tries to blur the line between AR-15's and true military firearms. To go back to point #1, she's attacking firearms that are scarcely more deadly than a Ruger 10/22 or a semi-automatic shotgun, and so they do not have a military purpose.

When I got to the part about holding "at the hip, if possible" I couldn't contain myself. She must watch too much Rambo, for no soldiers were ever trained to fire from the hip. You couldn't hit a paper plate at 20 yards that way! Also, you can only spray-fire if you are using a fully-automatic firearm, which is illegal to own in the US.

I'll let you draw your own thoughts from the rest of the clip, and drop them in the comments section below!

~ Caleb Grove

1 comment:

  1. While everyone else is arguing over the gun control issue I'm holed up safe and sound with my bow and arrows.


I'm Caleb Grove

Yep, that's me. I'm a 17 year old web unicorn and own OnRamp Web Design. My skill base is quite broad, though my real focus lies in UX and UI design for the web. When it comes to designs, I'm a perfectionist, scooting 1 pixel at a time.

My main blog captures all my web-related thoughts that exceed 140 characters. Anson S is my personal blog, where I pander in politics and religion. You can tweet me on Twitter at @SirCalebGrove, circle me on , or friend me on Facebook.

About this site

This is my playground. harnesses the power of HTML5 and CSS3. It was built using my web design weapon of choice, Freeway Pro, using a inline flexible system. Responsiveness was hand-coded. The blogs are hosted by Blogger, whose template code was generated by the Blogger actions. Website hosted by GJX Hosting. Creativity provided a disturbed mind, and not much else.

No unicorns where harmed in the making of this website, except through caffeine overdose.