Senate Gun Hearings Too Fair, DiFi to Hold Her Own Dog and Pony Show

Dianne Feinstein courtesy fellowshipofminds.files.wordpress.com

Today, the Senate Judiciary Committee heard testimony on the subject “What Should America Do About Gun Violence?” The goal was to figure out what steps the government should take to increase gun control (if any). The witness list so far has actually been fairly balanced, inviting both NRA Veep Wayne LaPierre and Mark Kelly (Gabby Giffords’ husband and gun control advocate), as well as some people who actually have skin in the game such as Baltimore’s chief of police. But an equal airing of views isn’t really what Dianne Feinstein and in mind, so she’s planning on holding a hearing of her own. Or, in the words of Eric Cartman, “screw you guys, I’m holding my own hearings” . . .

Via Politico:

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), unhappy with the witnesses slated to testify at Wednesday’s Judiciary Committee hearing on guns, will hold her own hearing on her proposed ban on assault weapons.

“I’m concerned and registered my concern with Sen. [Patrick] Leahy yesterday, that the witnesses are skewed to the anti-gun, anti-assault weapons position,” Feinstein told POLITICO. “He agreed that I would be able to do my own hearing on the assault weapons legislation which I will proceed to do.”

DiFi’s legislation is drowning. Her attempt to relive the crowning achievement of her political career, the implementation of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban, is slipping further and further from her clutches. There’s little chance of it getting out of committee, let alone going to a Senate vote or being passed by Congress. So, out of options, she is trying to coordinate a “kangaroo court” of Senate hearings where the only opinions expressed will be those that she agrees with. An echo chamber of gun control propaganda.

It’s doubtful that anything will break the current deadlock against her bill. It has been described as “political suicide” by many Democrats, and rightly so. But there’s always the chance that some of the toxic sludge will seep out of DiFi’s special hearing and attach itself to one of the other dozen or so bills being considered that would restrict American’s gun ownership abilities.

In short, keep calling.

avatar

About Nick Leghorn

Nick Leghorn is a gun nerd living and working in San Antonio, Texas. In his free time, he's a competition shooter (USPSA, 3-gun and NRA High Power), aspiring pilot, and enjoys mixing statistics and science with firearms. Now on sale: Getting Started with Firearms by yours truly!

97 Responses to Senate Gun Hearings Too Fair, DiFi to Hold Her Own Dog and Pony Show

  1. avatarBrian S says:

    she looks like gollum eating potatoes

    • avatarBrandon says:

      Epic.

    • avatarMilsurp Collector says:

      The second I saw that picture, this immediately came to mind:

      Let’s be logical, how could she NOT have that kind of an attitude about her proposed awb after so many years (and hopefully more) of failing to get it passed.

      • avatarChris Dumm says:

        I saw her repulsive mug and thought of the famous “I’m melllltingggggg!!!” death scene from The Wizard Of Oz. That’s what happens when anti-gun fanatics get water splashed on them, I guess.

      • avatarDon says:

        Are you saying she is a demented old troll with an insane fixation on an inanimate object? Cause that sounds pretty accurate…

      • avatarLance says:

        Where did you get Difi’s home video at her lair?????

    • avatarensitu says:

      What was the name of the Evil Emperor in Star Wars?

      “Embrace The Dark Side!”

    • avatarpat says:

      A face to melt a thousand gun barrels.

    • avatarBill F says:

      “she looks like gollum eating potatoes”

      Actually it’s her latest glamor shot. Just when we thought she couldn’t look any hotter. The 1940′s hairdo really helps her pull it off.

    • avatarVermont Guy says:

      Really, people? As many unflattering pictues that have been published of Sarah Palin and you haven’t figured out the game here? Everyone gets caught on camera in a bad light and publishers with an axe to grind can pick and choose. I’m opposed to the Senator’s proposals too but on lot stronger ground then her looks. Let the other side have that field. It suits their ‘arguments’ better.

      • avatarCarrymagnum says:

        Sounds like everyone’s just having fun. Don’t be a killjoy. To everyone rippin on her mug: keep it up.

      • avatarJake says:

        I like Sarah Palin as little as I like DiFi, as she helped co-opt the original, liberty oriented tea party movement and was one of the driving forces behind making it into the neocon mockery it is now, basically sidelining actual liberty supporters as flunkies for the GOP. The enemy of my enemy is not my friend if they stab me in the back.

        • avatarpat says:

          If you like her as little as DiFi, your a libtard….or worse. Palin never claimed to be anything more than she was. The libtards crucified her from the start (nobody believed she was the 2nd coming of Margaret Thatcher). DiFi is a monster. Teaparty as mockery is liberal talking point….unless your a truther or Ron Paul nutter.

      • avatarpat says:

        Vermont: Lighten up Francis. BTW, you aint comparing that creature to sweet Sarah. Of all the negative things people have said about Palin, few have claimed she’s ugly.

  2. avatarpk in AZ says:

    difi..

    FOAD!

  3. avatarAnonymous says:

    > “What Should America Do About Gun Violence?”

    If they really believe that guns cause violence, then disarm the 13% of the demographic group that is responsible for 1/2 to 2/3 of the violent crime. * Make it illegal for members of that demographic group to own a gun.

    It wouldn’t end all gun violence, but focusing efforts on a minority portion of the population would have a disproportionate effect of reducing gun violence. For a small cost, the payoff would be big.

    And since they really believe that owning a gun is not a right, then nobody’s rights would be violated.

    * It’s been many years since I’ve crunched those numbers so (1) I’m going off of memory, and (2) assuming that the trends haven’t changed since then.

    • avataruhoh says:

      Men make up 49% of the population and account of the 90%+* of gun violence.

      *pulled out of my @ss, but probably accurate anyway.

    • avatarAnonymous says:

      > Men make up 49% of the population and account of
      > the 90%+* of gun violence.

      In my example, a group that makes up 13% of the population is responsible for 50% – 66% of violent crimes. That’s 4 to 5 times their representation in the general population.

      In yours, a group that makes up 1/2 of the population is responsible for nearly al violent crimes. That’s a little under 2 times their representation in the population.

      The cost-to-benefit ratio makes it more logical to focus efforts on the first group.

      Also, assuming that what you said is true of the 13%, then about 1/2 of that group — or 6% of the general population — is responsible for violent crime. That’s 8 to 11 times their representation in the general population.

      Focusing scarce resources on that sub-group — the men of the 13% — would result in a much more sensible cost-to-benefit ratio for society.

    • avatarAnonymous says:

      > Men make up 49% of the population and account of
      > the 90%+* of gun violence.

      But as a thought experiment, what would a society where only women were allowed to own guns be like? More violent? Less violent?

      Given that women weren’t allowed to vote for over 100 years, maybe some turnabout would be fair.

      • avatarDoug says:

        Just an FYI universal male suffrage didn’t occur until the Vietnam war. Men have only been able to vote universally in the US for 40 years or so.

      • avatarrosignol says:

        Given that women weren’t allowed to vote for over 100 years, maybe some turnabout would be fair.

        Perpetuating an injustice, particularly on people who were not responsible for the original injustice, is never ‘fair’.

    • avatarHal J. says:

      Individuals are responsible for their actions, not groups…therefore your proposal is not acceptable.

      BTW, why are you being coy about the racial makeup of the 13% of the population whom you propose to disarm? If you have the strength of your convictions, simply say so.

    • avatarAnonymous says:

      > Individuals are responsible for their actions, not groups

      Not to to the gun-control crowd.

      • avatarHal J. says:

        >Not to to the gun-control crowd.

        Quite true…one of their many failings, and one which should not be emulated.

    • avatardirk diggler says:

      Amazing that you hide behind being anonymous. And here I thought racial biggots had the balls to man up about their identities

    • avatarAnonymous says:

      > Amazing that you hide behind being anonymous.

      Is “dirk diggler” your real name?

      Don’t gun-rights advocates have the balls to man up about their identities?

    • avatarCA_Chris says:

      Most of the guns used in crimes were not legally acquired. Ban them all you want, it won’t change the illegal behaviors of criminals.

    • avatarBeninMA says:

      Some Massachusetts pols are trying to further deprive minorities of their second amendment rights with mandatory gun insurance. Their bet is that they can get around Constitutional scrutiny by just privatizing gun control.

      Regarding women with guns:

      • avatarKat says:

        My Mossberg 500 20 gauge has a pink camouflage forend,
        bad ass dark gray stock with pistol grip and a pretty lime green front sight,

        Ladies, if you don’t want your man using your shotgun, girly it up a little. To be fair, let him have a 12 gauge manly, black shotgun.

        • avatarMatt in FL says:

          My (male) scuba instructor had a pink dive light and dive knife, on the theory that it made them less of a theft magnet. His theory was that women would generally return it because they were honest, and men would return it because it was pink.

        • avatarJarhead1982 says:

          Matt, that is in reality sheer genius!

  4. avatarWilliam says:

    At least she had the decency to cover her face.

  5. avatarready,fire,aim says:

    she kind of looks like a female cartman…very hansom

  6. avatarJeff the Griz says:

    I think Fienstien is skewed and anti gun, does that mean she will boycot her own hearing lol

    • avatarneo297 says:

      I’m confused, If the witnesses are skewed TO the ANTI gun, ANTI assault weapons agenda then that would seem to be whom she would want testifying. Unless… she just wants to grandstand and argue with the pro gun contingent maybe shes afraid she won’t make any TV worthy soundbites just agreeing with witnesses. A nod of the head and an “I agree” may not even get on CBS.

      • avatarAlphaGeek says:

        It’s not polite to make fun of Alzheimer’s patients. Especially when they’re, um, US Senators.

        (Also, I’m glad to see I’m not the only one who paused to mutter “WTF?” at that completely inverted mis-speak.)

        • avatarJMS says:

          Yeah I don’t understand how everyone is missing that. It seems like people are just reading what they expected her to say, and not what she apparently did say? What she said was that the hearing was too skewed IN HER FAVOR. Maybe it’s just grandstanding so sheeple will think “wow, she’s so fair” and then they’ll believe that the panel she puts together will be legit when, of course, it’ll be anything but.

  7. avatarAlphaGeek says:

    Feinstein can fsck off. And so can anyone who agrees with her, for that matter. They’re certainly welcome to huff each others gaseous emissions as long as they do it where we don’t have to watch. An airtight room would be a good start.

    • avatarMy Name Is Bob says:

      Only if they then proceed to remove all the oxygen from the room, lol

      • avatarAlphaGeek says:

        At the rate these hysterical confiscation advocates bloviate, I would guess that the first person would asphyxiate about 10 minutes after the doors were sealed.

  8. avatarTV says:

    I watched these hearings, and Gabby Gifford’s husband kept using Jared Loughner as an example for why we need universal background checks. I thought this was strange, since he passed a background check. No one pointed this out to him.

  9. avatarRandy Drescher says:

    Well sign me up for the difi/brady suicide pact. Do you get extra points if a person punches themselves in the face when being shot to death? You’ve heard of suicide by cop & now we have…drumroll.. suicide by criminal. Its one thing for those losers to crash their car into a bridge abuttment, its another to head on a nice family. difi really should be first in line for those necessary mental health checks, Randy

    • avatarMichael C says:

      Her and the rest of the ‘guns cause violence and crime’ group. Anyone who thinks that getting rid of guns will get rid of crime is obviously touched in the head. If gun control worked, then we would not need gun control. Criminals, by their very definition, DO NOT obey the laws.

  10. avatarUSMCVeteran says:

    Nick, that picture of Feinstein, you really know how to make a man go blind!

  11. avatarSammy says:

    I wish for the end of this whole thing so I will NEVER see that “face” again, ever. Too bad she doesn’t have the same zeal for closing the boarders. Or for prosecuting Holder, maybe.

  12. avatarMotoJB says:

    Good lord…she’s like the evil troll I read about as a kid…only worse…and uglier.

  13. avatarOld Ben turning in grave says:

    Damn, I can’t wait for the old moonbat to retire. Confine her to her natural habitat, San Fran, which is so messed up that she can do no further harm.

  14. avatarSGC says:

    She looks like a female version of Emperor Palpatine from Star Wars…or maybe the Wicked Witch from Wizard of OZ. “I’ll get you my pretty, and your little AR too!”

    • avatarjlottmc says:

      Dear lord, that is the funniest thing I read today. I almost lost a finger though, I was touching up a blade when reading, and fyi Coke through the nose hurts. Too true.

  15. avatarAlan Moffitt says:

    In my own personal opinion i believe that any elected official who takes part in any type of judiciary action or legislative action that directly goes against the constitution should be removed from his/her political position. Any one who goes against the constitution has failed themselves as a politician and beyond that they have failed the country to whom they took the oath to stand up for.All retirement or any other monies that may be owed should be stripped from them because they did not do the job they were elected to do.But it is our responsibility to see they these people are removed from the public offices remember people you do not have to vote for them.

    • avatarTotenglocke says:

      Removed from office? I say they should do 20 years in general population with a felony conviction.

      • avatarMark says:

        I wrote my senator and congressman weeks ago requesting that she and any co-sponsors be confined to await trial on charges of treason and violation of oath of office if she introduced this legislation.

    • avatarMatt in FL says:

      I kinda like the idea someone proposed the other day (perhaps not for the first time) that if you vote for something that’s later found to be unconstitutional, you get to go bye-bye.

      • avatarAlphaGeek says:

        I’m going to put on my “annoying 1A defender” hat and point out that this would have an unacceptable chilling effect on political speech.

        Besides, you’re not thinking crafty enough. Perjury charges for knowingly making false representations to the public while in office are certainly something worth discussing. Likewise, enhanced personal disclosure requirements relating to any legislation introduced, co-sponsored or voted for would be quite revealing across the political spectrum.

        TL;DR: you can’t have an ejector seat, but can I interest you in this sunlight-powered political death ray?

        • avatarMatt in FL says:

          Fair enough.

        • avatarrosignol says:

          Let’s combine it with barring Members of Congress from holding any securities or investments other than United States Treasury Bonds.

          Feinstein has worked in public service for her entire career, and has somehow accumulated a net worth of “between $43 million and $99 million”*.

          She’s not that smart. Something stinks.

          *http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dianne_Feinstein#Personal_life

        • avatarAlphaGeek says:

          rosignol: I can explain Feinstein’s fortunes in just a few words… “dead ex-husbands”.

  16. avatareugene says:

    they are right though – pursuing this further is going to be political suicide.

    if any of this creeps into 2014 toward november, we will very well remember this and finally vote some of these idiots out

  17. avatarDyspeptic says:

    Am I the only one who thinks DiFi looks like a Romulan? Are extraterrestrials eligible for public office?

    • avatarTim says:

      An insult to Romulans everywhere!

    • Klingon, maybe. Romulans tend to have pointy ears, remember?

      And Romulans have the capability of being halfway not ugly. This thing is awful.

      ***NOTE TO RF/DAN***
      Captcha seems to not work on mobile versions of the site. And all my comments get spammed out. I just noticed this now that I’m on my computer at home.

    • avatarJarhead1982 says:

      I was thinking Ferengi!

  18. avatarAPBTFan says:

    She’s exactly like a little child that asks one parent for something, doesn’t get what they want then immediately goes to ask the other parent.

  19. avatarDaveL says:

    Today, the Senate Judiciary Committee heard testimony on the subject “What Should America Do About Gun Violence?”

    Did anybody bring up the possibility of ending the War on Drugs?

  20. avatarJoseph says:

    SOMEBODY kept electing her for decades…I guess you get what you ask for.

  21. avatarjwm says:

    It looks like a “face hugger” got her. I wonder if an alien with acid for it’s blood and lobstershell armor can survive inside Difi? We should put her in isolation in area 51 til we know for sure. If there’s no space in 51 we could move her to Gitmo.

    • avatarAlphaGeek says:

      What you fail to realize is that this picture was taken AFTER the facehugger died and fell off. Apparently the bile roiling in her gut was too caustic even for an organism with nitric acid based blood chemistry.

  22. avatarRalph says:

    America does not have a gun problem. America has a crime problem and a mental health problem. And Congress has an idiot problem.

  23. avatarStrizzo says:

    “But there’s always the chance that some of the toxic sludge will seep out of DiFi’s special hearing and attach itself to one of the other dozen or so bills being considered that would restrict American’s gun ownership abilities.”

    I thought they already drained that swamp?

  24. avatarneale says:

    In answer to DI FI Statements and the whole libtard idiots thinking of GUNS KILL PEOPLE I am offering $50,000.00 ( yes fifty thousand american dollars cash ) for each and every gun that anyone can prove to me will kill on its own i will gladly stand in front of the gun to make sure it can kill with out a human operator of any type. just lay the gun on the table and tell it to shoot me . if it does you will get your $50,000.00 cash on the spot I have informed my attorney to take care of payment in case the gun will kill all by its self. I will put this offer in wrighting if need be before we test the evil killer gun. i am a firm believer there should be no killer guns in anyones possession taking away all of these evil killer guns as I have described them should be top priority for every law enforcement officer in the country. AGAIN IT’S$50,000.00 TO ANYONE WHO CAN PROVE TO ME THAT A GUN CAN KILL ALL BY ITS SELF WITH NO HUMAN OPERATOR. LIBTARD IDIOTS SHOULD LINE UP FOR THIS AND TAKE ALL MY MONEY DI FI SHOULD HAVE HER KLINGON EMPEROR LOOKING ASS IN THE FRONT OF THE LINE IF GUNS KILL PEOPLE

  25. avatarneale says:

    I GUESS YOU GOT THAT GUN MATT COME AND GET YOUR CASH If not anyone with the brain power of a bee would know how absurd the idea of guns killing people is just like my description of the gun for the reward. I was pointing out how the libtard idiots look at guns. It was intentionally made absurd to drive home a point of the insanity of Di Fi and her gun grabbing liberal friends. I guess they don’t teach satire in Fl.

    • avatarMatt in FL says:

      That wasn’t satire, that was Stupidity Level: Facebook. Please take your caps lock key and scuttle back there. The adults are talking here, and they’re using their inside voices.

      • avatarAlphaGeek says:

        I disagree, Matt. It seems to me that we’ve plummeted past Facebook comments, past NBCnews/CNN/FoxNews comments, and have in fact bottomed out at the “YouTube comments on Justin Bieber videos” level of discourse.

      • avatarneale says:

        Matt the caps were used to get your attention. I could care less about your view of my post. Many libtards are opposed to satire when it directly affects them. You obviously are one who is affected by the satire I posted. As for your ” inside voice ” comment you can kiss my american born patriotic a$$ right in the middle. Not on the left where you seem to linger . It is called freedom of speach. That also is an ammendment that is under attack So lets just leave each other alone You attacked my post first and then pretend to tell me how to speak and how loudly . Oh no, not in A M E R I C A .

        • avatarMatt in FL says:

          I think it’s funny how my “You’re not helping” comment means I’m a libtard and a leftist. It really amuses me how vitriolic some people are, such that as soon as you disagree with them even a little bit, you instantly become a libtard Obama-loving socialist.

          Know what else amuses me?

          You couldn’t care less…
          It’s called freedom of speech.
          …an amendment that is under attack…

          I didn’t “pretend to tell you how to speak and how loudly.” I didn’t pretend to do anything. I think you meant “presume.” But that aside, I didn’t tell you how to speak, I just told you to do it elsewhere. Because, as I said initially, “You’re not helping.”

  26. avatarWilliam says:

    Essentially, she is saying: Well, I’ll have my own hearing, with blackjack,…and hookers!

  27. avatarJames1000 says:

    I grew up in Cali (unfortunately) and she was like 83 when I was 10. I’m 37 now…why won’t she just Die already!!

  28. avatarBeninMA says:

    Anyone notice the Beretta carbine in the Politico picture? Is it supposed to be more dangerous with all those accessories?

  29. avatarLance says:

    Love it when the fact hit her ugly face. Like nick said keep the pressure up!!! Watch NRA news Sen Grassley had a good time telling Cam Edwards on how dumb Di Fi’s ban is.

  30. avatarM J Johnson says:

    ?????? I’m confused. Did someone misquote her or did she actually say anti-gun, anti-assault weapon position? Isn’t that what she wants? Or did someone leave out the word “ban?”

  31. avatarBerzrkr50 says:

    Toxic sludge; that pretty much sums up Diane Feinswine. I wish she’d head back to California and get hopelessly lost along the way.

    • avatarAlphaGeek says:

      Yeah, about that… We don’t much want her back. Why do you think the voters keep sending her to DC?

      • avatarjwm says:

        After the Holy Water we were going to douse her with curdled and the cross burst into flames we figured it was the only way to be rid of her. Send her to DC where she’s surrounded by her kind.

        • avatarLongBeach says:

          For the love of God please don’t send her back here. We’ve got enough people who take pride in minding others’ business as it is. Perhaps her stagecoach will fall prey to some of the Constitution-loving bandidos in Arizona en route to CA and we’ll never hear from her again. That would still be too soon.

  32. avatarWill says:

    She reminds me of that alien in the movie “Predator”… only thing is she’s more dangerous as she doesn’t do her harm just for sport.

    Now… you can guarantee that her little inquisition will only have anti-gunners testifying, other than maybe a few real buffoons for the pro-gun side just to make gun owners look bad. All will be cherry-picked of course as being “balanced” is too “pro-gun biased.”

Leave a Reply

Please use your real name instead of you company name or keyword spam.