Feinstein Says Gun Owners Need to Weigh “Personal Pleasure” Against “General Welfare”
---- Ready to combat Facebook's censorship? Click here to join the Grassfire Social network now! ----
It reminds me of when Hillary said they were going to take things away from us for the greater good:
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said she believes a Wednesday Judiciary Committee hearing will “make the case” that her assault weapons ban is constitutional.
The witness list for the hearing is United States Attorney for Colorado John Walsh, Milwaukee Police Chief Edward Flynn, Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter, and two lawyers.
Also at the witness table will be Neil Heslin, father of a Newtown, Conn., shooting victim, and a Newtown EMS medical director.
Former GOP Rep. Sandy Adams (Fla.), a onetime police officer, rounds out the witnesses.
“I think we will make the case that these weapons do not belong on the streets of our cities, that many of the parts of these weapons make them into weapons that are specifically designed to kill large numbers of people in close conflict,” Feinstein said today on MSNBC.
“I’ve tried to do it carefully. We have 22 co-sponsors. I recognize it’s an uphill battle. But I also know that there — these events are going to continue and America has to step up. The mothers, the women, the men of America have to make a decision as to whether their personal pleasure is more important than the general welfare.”
So that’s how we curb rights? Just weigh a person’s liberty against the “general welfare.”
What else falls under this litmus test? Gay marriage? Immigration? Health care? No fault divorce? Being an absentee father?
I mean, I think we would all agree it’s better for a child to have a father in their life. Why should a man be allowed to just walk away from his responsiblities?
“…the men of America have to make a decision as to whether their personal pleasure is more important than the general welfare.”
Are we ready to tell men they can’t engage in sex outside of marriage?
I’m pretty sure I could make the case that it results in more damage than a liberal view of the Second Amendment.