Is anyone familiar with Feinstein's backstory on why she is so anti-gun? I just hit Wikipedia, and it turns out two of her colleagues were shot by a guy in City Hall in San Francisco. And they weren't shot with an assault rifle. They weren't even shot with a 15 round Glock or something. They were shot with a revolver! The guy even reloaded during the incident. Yet somehow taking away all but 10 round mags and scary black rifles is supposed to stop incidents like that.

I know a lot of folks that vote democrat who aren't happy right now. I think the dems are in for a rude awakening if this passes. The threat of this may have already done its damage.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moscone%E2%80%93Milk_assassinations

I haven't been very optimistic about the fate of our country the last 4-5 years or so, but I have some hope in the next presidential election.

I just don't see anyone in the Democratic party that is going really sway voters like king Barry. Hillary is old and it will show in another 3 years. Meanwhile, the Republican party is undergoing a painful transformation in leadership with guys like Rand Paul and Ted Cruz stepping up and criticizing the Dems and the Repubs.

Rand especially is blazing a trail right now and he seems to be doing the right things for a serious run in 2016.

Those Democrats can go to Hell, I'm going to Texas.

(Currently military in Ok....)

You might want to stay in OK

If laws that will not be obeyed are passed, secession or revolution are near. I do not think this will pass for now.

IslandAg76 has great perspective on his post.

My father, who was a great history teacher, taught me almost the exact same thing. He was not a date/name history teacher only. He taught the "here is what they did, what led them to this decision, their choices, and decisions they made and how it affects us now" kind of history teacher.

His discripton of socialism/communism/statist governmnt was this: Governments and the rights of its people were very close knit, but were easy to topple like a domino. When a government wants to take rights, if they try to knock all the dominos over at once they would create a mess. However, if the government wants to take control and knock all the dominos over but not make a mess they have to clean up, then they just knock one over and one at a time they knock the other over one at a time until they all fall into a neat little pile. Not much mess and quite easy to put away.

The progressives (they used to openly call themselves socialits and communists) know full well this theory, and are enacting the same thing now.

They know they cannot ban "guns". There would be a revolution. However, if the just ban this and that, a little more here and there with an emotional issue to garner support and chip away a little more...

You get the point. If they take one inch of the Second Amendment away, the next domino falls, then the next, into a nice little pile.

I think we need a Constitutional Convention. Why assail only the 2nd Amendment when the argument being used against it is not being applied to other Amendments or worse yet, set precedence to gut the rest of the Bill of Rights? Ted Cruz raised what seems to me like a valid argument against the limits being proposed to 2nd Amendment rights, that is, are we then to limit the rights of the 1st or 4th Amendment in the same manner? We need to put it ALL on the table and cut through all the interpretive BS. Who thinks the framers of the Constitution imagined that 226 years later the Congress would be arguing over limiting the Citizens' right to keep and bear arms? The limits established by many of the Amendments serve to limit government and preserve the natural, unalienable rights of liberty and property. Too many politiciians have either lost sight of that or have no concept of the idea.

Feinstein should suck start a 12 gauge. F her.