so what did Dianne Feinstein say?

[iverglas]

And what did she say it about?

We all know what I'm talking about.

The old claim was made again in a thread today ... I can't ask that poster because the thread is locked. But I've already had to deal with two in the last couple of weeks making the claim.

It's been refuted several dozen times in this forum over the years. It isn't even propagated by the NRA itself. It's been pointed out that perpetuating lies about elected Democrats is not what this forum is for.

But still it goes on.

Who knows -- or doesn't know -- what Dianne Feinstein said, and what she said it about?

Who wants to maintain plausible deniability so they can just go ahead and repeat the falsehood again?

Who wants to go on record as knowing the truth -- or take this opportunity to learn it -- and then pledge on their honour not to repeat the falsehood here or anywhere else again in their life?

Any volunteers?

[iverglas]

1. oh, all right

plausible deniability begone

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=445772&mesg_id=445796

"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."

Offered only as the most recent example of this. Google and you'll find dozens in this forum.

What was she talking about?

[aikoaiko]

2. Hold on, please. I'm looking for the video of the quote in context.

If I remember correctly she was talking about the popular rifles, shotguns, and pistols in popular configurations and popular accessories described in the so-called 1994 AWB that expired in 2004.

But I think your point is that she wasn't talking about confiscating all guns.

edited to add: I'm having trouble finding the original 60 Min clip (proper use of the word clip in this forum!).

[aikoaiko]

6. I can't find the 60 Minutes clip, but I'm fairly sure she was talking about all '94 AWB guns

And even though its not in reference to all guns, it is still very disturbing hear a US politician wishing she could confiscate who classes of firearms.

[gejohnston]

3. My understanding is that

she said it on 60 minutes in 1995. Most likely she was referring to semi automatic carbines often referred to by the VPC coined buzz phrase "assault weapons". Looking at some of votes she made, supporting the PATRIOT Act, dropping US tarrifs, Flag Desecration Amendment, internet censorship
The word authoritarian seems more accurate than progressive.

[Hoyt]

7. History indicates gun marketers coined phrase to excite buyers. Nowadays they use "tactical" often.

"Assault weapon", "tactical weapon", and similar phrases are designed to entice gunners to pull out their wallets while they drool and imagine what they'll feel like owning one or more. Dang funny.

[RSillsbee]

8. Care to cite your history? NT

[aikoaiko]

9. As much as it pains me to say it, Hoyt is correct that the term "assault weapon" as advertising

preceded the anti-gun movement's use of the term. Some one did a piece on it and I read it with a bit of shame.

Still, some hinky advertizing doesn't justify the AWB.

[friendly_iconoclast]

10. Oh, yes it does! Those things cause serious moral harm and are bad for social cohesion.

Can I have "Catch Phrases With Nebulous Definitions" for $1000, Alex?

Easy yuks aside, Josh Sugarmann was more than willing to use it, and was surprisingly candid about intending to deceive
the public with it.

[PavePusher]

14. Tacky! Cowboys! Cowards! Immature!

The progression of the Memes...!

[benEzra]

50. The only piece I've seen attempting to justify that claim is Tartaro, 1995

As much as it pains me to say it, Hoyt is correct that the term "assault weapon" as advertising preceded the anti-gun movement's use of the term. Some one did a piece on it and I read it with a bit of shame.

I knew I have seen that claim before, so I did some digging in some old threads, and for readability will rehash some of that discussion here. In my opinion, that claim is largely bunk.

I strongly suspect that the article you're thinking of is Tartaro, "The Great Assault Weapon Hoax" (1995), written years after Sugarmann's screed "Assault Weapons and Accessories in America" (1988). Not only does Tartaro fail cite a single instance of a pre-Sugarmann use of the term in gun marketing, but he doesn't come across as particularly well informed on guns overall, IMO.

Here's Tartaro's claim:

The idea of calling semi-automatic versions of military small arms "'assault weapons" did not originate with either anti-gun activists, media or politicians. The term "assault weapon" was first corrupted by importers, manufacturers, wholesalers and dealers in the American firearms industry to stimulate sales of selected "exotica"--firearms which did not have a traditional appearance.(10)

And here is Tartaro's sole citation for that claim:

(10) See SHOTGUN NEWS and other firearms publications beginning in the early 1980s.

Shotgun News, at that time, was a tabloid-format weekly of mostly classified ads posted by individual gunsmiths/collectors or mom-and-pop businesses---and he can't even seem to cite an instance ("see half a decade's worth of WEEKLY classified ads, or maybe some other magazine, but trust me on this"). Maybe he recollected accurately, and maybe he didn't, but it looks like he pulled the citation out of his head, and if he's a lawyer you'd think he'd own a copy of the MLA Style Guide.

He wrote that article in 1995; Josh Sugarmann had been popularizing the term in the pro-bans literature for years by that point. Color me skeptical.

Another passage from Tartaro flatly contradicts much of what he implied in the first cite:

First, the term "assault weapon" is erroneously applied. Assault weapons are by military procurement definition "selective, fire (full auto continuous or burst fire plus autoloading) arms of sub caliber." Since fully automatic and selective firearms have been severely restricted, taxed and licensed---and owners screened by local and federal law enforcement---since 1934, real assault weapons have been strictly regulated by federal as well as state laws for sixty years. The firearms which are targeted by recent laws and current legislative proposals are mostly semi-automatic (requiring a single trigger pull for each shot) or, in the case of the Street-Sweeper type shotgun, functional revolvers. They are indistinguishable in operation from other semi-automatic firearms used for self-defense, pest and vermin control, sport hunting and recreational shooting since the turn of the century.

He here applies the term "assault weapon" to NFA Title 2 restricted full autos (contradicting the other cite); the National Firearms Act restricts assault rifles, not "assault weapons." He also conflates the term "assault weapon" with "assault rifle" (Sturmgehwer); the definition he cites is the DOD definition of assault rifle, not "assault weapon."

I also see this passage that suggests Tartaro was way out of his depth when he wrote that:

The ballistic data for the .30-06 and M1 carbine cartridges, the .45 ACP used in World War II and Korea, and the .308 (7.62 X 39) M-14 individual infantry arm used by some units in Vietnam are substantially more powerful than the 5.56mm (.223) U.S. small arms cartridge of the M16 or 5.45 X 39mm Soviet Russian cartridge fired in current AK47 military small arms and their semi-automatic civilian derivatives.

Now, he's right that a .30-06 is twice as powerful as the little .223 Remington. But .45 ACP is a pistol cartridge, even further down the power spectrum; .30 carbine is also less powerful. The M14 was 7.62x51mm, aka .308 Winchester and similar to .30-06; 7.62x39 is a much lower-powered Soviet-era round similar to .30-30 Winchester. Not to mention 5.45x39 is the AK-74 cartridge, not that of the AK-47. In short, he apparently isn't terribly familiar with twentieth century military calibers, and appears to be talking out of his posterior.

And it is indisputably Sugarmann's 1988 pamphlet and subsequent rehashing by the gun control lobby that popularized the term. It is *possible* that Sugarmann lifted it from an obscure antecedent, but I have never seen any such antecedents cited. I had personally never heard it until it was used by the proponents of a ban circa 1989. It's also indisputable that today, "assault weapon" is a term used to demonize popular civilian rifles with handgrips that stick out, or firearms that exceed 10 (or sometimes 5) rounds capacity.

Once the term entered the media, you can find occasional gun owners and sometimes even gun sellers using the term, but I have never seen any that predate Sugarmann 1988.

[russ1943]

11. From a gun enthusiast leader,

As authored by Joseph P. Tartaro ,

President Second Amendment Foundation, http://www.saf.org/default.asp?p=saf_faq
& Executive Editor Gun Week, http://www.manta.com/g/mm5dvc3/joseph-p-tartaro

in a University of Dayton Law Review Symposium, Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994,
vol. 20, no. 2, 1995: 557.

...................The idea of calling semi-automatic versions of military small arms "'assault weapons" did not originate with either anti-gun activists, media or politicians. The term "assault weapon" was first corrupted by importers, manufacturers, wholesalers and dealers in the American firearms industry to stimulate sales of selected "exotica"--firearms which did not have a traditional appearance. The fact that even some of the semi-automatic versions of the military-style firearms retained their bayonet lugs, extended pistol grips, "banana-clip" magazines, folding stocks and even threading for silencers and muzzle brakes has been used to erroneously define "assault weapons." But these design features were part of the Walter Mittyesque "romance" of what some like to call "ugly guns." All of these features are merely cosmetic and there is little if any evidence that their inclusion on a gun has been essential to some specific criminal use.".........
http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/Tartaro1.htm

[Hoyt]

12. Thanks for posting that. Now gunners - tell us again why you covet those weapons and other weapons.

That desire goes to the very heart of why most gunners purchase such weapons and carry guns in public.

In any event, gun marketers are those that get paid to analyze what gunners really want. And they nailed it.

[rl6214]

16. Try to follow this

They are lighter weight therefore easier to carry.

The pistol grip is a more natural and comfortable way to shoot on the wrist and arm.

The collapsable stock enables it to fit any body size.

The flash suppressor eliminates the momentary blinding of the shooter in low light situations.

[RSillsbee]

17. I don't own a single weapon that would be considered "Tactical"

Unless you consider a Mini 14 "tactical" I only have one pistol that has a > 12 round magazine. No GLOCKS , No AKs and damn sure no ARs.

What I really want is a quality firearm that won't fail when I really need it .

Why is that so hard to understand?

[Atypical Liberal]

19. Because they are the weapons most appropriate for militia use.

Thanks for posting that. Now gunners - tell us again why you covet those weapons and other weapons.

That desire goes to the very heart of why most gunners purchase such weapons and carry guns in public.

In any event, gun marketers are those that get paid to analyze what gunners really want. And they nailed it.

I own an SAR-1, a civilian version of the AK-47, because it an example of the kind of weapon that most closely matches military small arms that is available for civilian ownership without a lot of expense and red tape.

I would have preferred an AR-15, but when I bought my SAR-1 for $350, AR-15s were $1000 or more.

The primary reason I bought this weapon was as a "shit hits the fan" weapon. In case of civil unrest. It is reasonably accurate, rugged, (was) inexpensive, and can hold 30 or more rounds.

It is my belief that everyone should own (but of course, not be forced to own) a pistol, a shotgun, and a rifle, preferably an assault rifle. The pistol is optional. With such weapons, you can hunt any kind of game, and they also provide for personal defense.

I did not buy any of my weapons because of some sense of machismo.

[hack89]

20. Low recoil easier to teach my kids to shoot.

good ergonomics (pistol grip and adjustable stock) makes it easier to tech them good shooting posture and habits.

[spin]

26. As a result of the assault weapons ban ...

black rifles became popular.

Before the ban, none of the shooters that I knew had any interest in owning a "ugly plastic rife" that looked like a Mattel toy gun. The feeling was that they were inaccurate and shot an underpowered round. The semi-auto AK-47 clones were less expensive than an AR-15, but still were supposedly inaccurate.

Some of the shooters I knew did own pistols with a magazine capacity over 10 rounds before the ban. Glocks were becoming more and more popular, but many other shooters owned Colt .45 autos or similar semi-auto handguns that held less than 10 rounds.

Then the ban was implemented.

If you ban something, human nature often causes people to be come interested in acquiring and using it. The shooters at my range started to buy the supposedly banned rifles and hi capacity pistols. Such weapons were never really banned and once the manufacturers changed some cosmetic items on the firearms they made, they were legal to produce and sell. The manufacture of hi-cap magazines after a certain date was banned, but the companies that make magazines went into overdrive producing a large quantity of hi-cap magazines before the cut off date that were sold throughout the ban for a highly inflated price.

As shooters started owning the black rifles, they discovered just how versatile and accurate they really are. They are easy to customize and can fire more powerful ammunition that make them excellent hunting weapons.

I would suggest you read the entire following article at the link to help you understand the answer to your question:

"Now gunners - tell us again why you covet those weapons and other weapons."

I will provide a excerpt.

F&S Picks the 25 Best AR-Style Rifles

Photo Gallery by Michael O. Humphries. Uploaded on May 13, 2009

An Intro to the AR-Style Rifle

Black guns often get a bum rap. They can look a bit menacing, and their configuration and controls are radically different than those found on traditional sporting firearms. But the hunter who automatically dismisses AR-style rifles as legitimate sporting guns would be doing himself a major disservice. Why? Because the AR is one of the most capable, adaptable, and appealing firearm platforms on the market today. And these characteristics are helping it gain traction in the civilian market in its semi-automatic-only form.

***snip***

When the first AR rifles were introduced they were radically innovative compared to popular guns of the day. The classic Winchester Model 70, for example, with it’s wood stock and blued carbon-steel barrel, looked great, but it also had an action based on a 19th century design. The AR was something completely different: It combined advanced aluminum-alloy forgings and synthetic materials. It featured a modular design with a two-piece receiver that allowed users to easily swap out upper assemblies of different chamberings or configurations. The two-piece stock design let users reconfigure the AR with different stocks and fore-end systems. That kind of versatility has allowed the AR (which was born as the AR-10 and adopted by the military as the M16) to become the longest-serving rifle in our country’s history.

Over the past 50 years manufacturers have taken advantage of the gun’s modularity to attach optics and accessories, add new operating systems, allow larger chamberings, and even create civilian-legal semi-automatic-only versions. These guns have proved capable and popular with shooters of all stripes, especially varmint hunters. And recent developments have expanded the platform to big-game hunters as well.

This is because the qualities that make AR rifles so successful as a military design also make them highly capable as hunting firearms. Many models boast sub-MOA accuracy right out of the box, with some variants featuring performance that rivals that of custom target rifles.
http://www.fieldandstream.com/photos/gallery/hunting/2009/05/fs-picks-25-best-ar-style-rifles

You use the word "covet" in your question. I don't believe that gun owners covet firearms as you insinuate. They own firearms as tools for self defense and as items to use for sporting purpose such as hunting or target shooting.

Do people covet their new cell phone, or their large screen LCD TV? Do golfers "covet" their golf clubs? Like golfers when a new and improved club hits the market, shooters are interested in new models of firearms and often purchase those that they perceive will work better than the models they own.

For example, many people carry concealed. Trying to carry and conceal a large pistol or revolver can be done, but it is uncomfortable and the weapon often gets left behind. Currently the firearm manufacturers are producing a number of smaller more compact weapons which are very suitable for concealed carry. One is the very popular Ruger LCP. I bought one for my son in law as a present. Does he "covet" it. No, he actually likes his compact .40 caliber Glock 27 better as it has laser sights. He likes the little Ruger LCP because it is easier to carry. It's not as accurate or powerful but it is more convenient.



I will totally agree with your comment:

"In any event, gun marketers are those that get paid to analyze what gunners really want. And they nailed it."

Any manufacturer who wants to stay in business has to produce products that their customers want. Those that don't, fail.

[Hoyt]

30. Correct, gun marketers appeal to "baser instincts" to stay in business. Maybe better if they failed.

[spin]

31. That's your opinion ...

and you are entitled to it.

[X_Digger]

35. Who knew that 'ergonomic' was a 'baser instinct'?

Along with..
-reliability
-ease of maintenance
-configurability
-lightweight
-expandability

Gee, Hoyt, why didn't you tell us that these things are 'baser instincts'.

[Hoyt]

36. "Configurability, expandability"? You arming a militia? Or just going to extremes to feel secure?

[X_Digger]

38. Do try to keep on topic.. it makes the discussion flow ever so much more smoother..

Configurability / expandability- I can take the same gun, in one configuration, and use it to hunt javelinas in NM. Take the same gun with a different set of optics, and I can compete in a 3 gun competition. Take the same gun with another change (an upper with a different caliber), and I have a deer hunting gun. One more change (22lr bolt), and it's a tin can plinker.

Who knew? Got any other things that qualify as 'baser instincts' that aren't in line with what the rest of us would consider "reality"?

[friendly_iconoclast]

37. Perhaps our man Hoyt is a Calvinist? It would fit with what he's been saying...

The claims for depravity of (gun owners/man)
The desire for rigid social controls.
The Cotton Mather/Jonathan Edwards style rants against gun owners.

We should have noticed this earlier. He fits right in with the other "true believers" in gun control.

[Hoyt]

39. For all I know gunners here hold R Weaver, David Koresh, etc., in high esteem. I did notice that.

Especially when the gunners come out in support of poor old Weaver and Koresh notwithstanding their gun crimes, murders and in Koresh's case rapes.

What's your excuse for similar gun carriers of note?

[friendly_iconoclast]

40. Can you cite any links to this alleged "support" of Weaver and Koresh here?

I've surely never noticed any. I certainly don't support either

What I have seen is some strenuous defense of certain law-enforcement practices involved in
their apprehension, which if done by civilians would have resulted in (at a minimum) manslaughter and 'accessory before the fact' charges.

Strange how certain DUers are willing to embrace "the end justifies the means" mentality- at least when it is applied to
"those people"...

[friendly_iconoclast]

41. I give you the first known example of a DUer defending "Operation Fast And Furious"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=365880

Sadly, it wasn't the last...

I think this mindset is best described by System Justification Theory, referenced here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1348316#1348569

[AtheistCrusader]

44. Let me guess, you believe Michael Jackson was guilty?

Because I'm missing the part where Koresh was ever convicted of any rape charge.

Or are you just not 'up' on that whole progressive concept of 'innocent till proven guilty'?

[X_Digger]

13. And it almost looks legit.. till you look at footnote 10..

{10} See SHOTGUN NEWS and other firearms publications beginning in the early 1980s.

..aka, couldn't be bothered to actually back up his claim, but puts the equivocation in a footnote, hoping nobody will check. Sloppy sourcing.

Care to try again?

[PavePusher]

15. Yeah, as X said.

I'll believe it when I see the evidence.

[RSillsbee]

24. In the interests of fairness I concede the point NT

[ProgressiveProfessor]

25. Not even close to true

The term assault rifle goes back to WWII.

The assault weapons meme was developed by anti right zealots who wanted to ban firearms that did not were not assualt rifles, most of which were already illegal in the US.

[Upton]

4. She was talking about the AWB..

Which banned such evil looking (and real scary too!) guns as pistol grip shotguns. And when Feinstein said 'Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in,' I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here." She was talking about confiscation..maybe not of all firearms, just those her and her authoritarian buddies don't approve of..

I can do without Feinstein. She's a big time drug warrior, Patriot Act supporter, and seems to have little regard for any portion of the Bill of Rights..

[TheCowsCameHome]

5. Then don't vote for her.

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[RSillsbee]

18. I don't care if Diane Feinstein was only talking about assault weapons

I'm not convinced she was. Had she succeeded it would have only been a matter of time before she went on to the next thing

[Upton]

21. Yep, Feinstein is no friend of gun owners..

Heck, she tried to ban handguns in the city of San Francisco back in the 80's. She would gleefully get rid of all firearms if given the chance. The AWB was just a first step in the direction of the anti's ultimate goal..

[gejohnston]

23. which got her recalled

started by the far left group the White Panthers

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Panther_Party

White Panthers chapters in San Francisco and Berkeley remained active into the 1980s.<2> In 1984, angry because then-Mayor of San Francisco Dianne Feinstein proposed to ban handguns in the city, the San Francisco White Panthers mounted a successful petition drive that forced Feinstein into a recall election, which she won. Within the next year, the leaders of the local chapter had been jailed, effectively destroying the chapter.

[hack89]

22. "Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of all Americans to feel safe."

Dianne Feinstein Associated Press 11/18/93

[DWC]

28. This failed attempt at hair-splitting reminds me

of the statement "That depends on what is IS."

Playing semantics may be of interest to a few pseudo intellectuals, but here in the real world it is just a waste of bandwidth.

Semper Fi,

[Blown330]

29. Already knew what this was about...

...just looking at the thread title and who posted it. Unrec'd it for self-serving ego pandering drivel with no merit in terms of firearm policy discussion.

[Tejas]

32. She spoke her innermost Fascist wishes?

[SteveM]

33. To clarify, is this the Feinstein who was issued a concealed-carry permit?

"And, I know the sense of helplessness that people feel. I know the urge to arm yourself because that's what I did. I was trained in firearms. I'd walk to the hospital when my husband was sick. I carried a concealed weapon. I made the determination that if somebody was going to try to take me out, I was going to take them with me."

http://www.stentorian.com/2ndamend/dianne_f.html

[friendly_iconoclast]

34. Yep. And one poster here has defended the issuance of that permit on multiple occasions.

Such things are not for the likes of you or I, of course- just members of the overclass who hold the proper political and/or
gender qualifications. DiFi also has gotten a pass on her unsafe gun handling practices from the same poster...

[Hoyt]

43. And then, she grew up and hasn't carried a gun since 1980. Maybe we need an "AA" for gun carriers.

[AtheistCrusader]

45. So was that a relapse in 2000, when she bought her son a firearm?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

42. It seems...

...that trivia ;) is an interest of yours; case in point...

[iverglas]

46. oh, well, you see

I've been watching with interest as the "discussion" went its merry way.

A question was asked and I was interested in answers. I hardly would have jumped in and given the right answer when the guesses were still coming in.

I have a minor eye surgery this afternoon I have to get ready for. I'll check back later, possibly not 'til tomorrow, and let you all know how you've done.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

47. Thanks but....

...I know how I've done. :)

Let me know how YOU do. Hope things go well.

[benEzra]

48. That she would have made her ban on over-10-round magazines and "2-feature" firearms confiscatory?

I've seen it misquoted occasionally by people who erroneously believe she was referring to all firearms, rather than just popular ones. If that's your point, then yes, she would have "allowed" owners of under-11-round guns to keep them, as well as rifles with traditional styling like the Ruger mini-14. But it would bave been confiscatory for tens of millions of guns and magazines.

Heh. If you didn't like the anti-AWB backlash in this country (49-state CCW, AR's becoming the most popular civilian rifles in the United States by 2004, pro-2ndA netroots activism, and the self-immolation of the U.S. gun control lobby), you really wouldn't have liked the political backlash against widespread confiscation.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

49. re: ...political backlash against widespread confiscation.

I'm not sure that the backlash would have been principally political.