Bob Owens

The saddest truth in politics is that people get the leaders they deserve

Losing it: Dianne Feinstein compares common firearms to child pornography

Written By: Bob - Mar• 14•13
Brookie. 13-years old. Photo by Oleg Volk.

Brookie, a 13-year-old Dianne Feinstein thinks is equivalent to a child molester for being competent with the sort of firearms most useful for defending herself against alleged child molesters like New Jersey Democratic Senator Bob Menendez, one of Feinstein’s peers. (Photo by Oleg Volk).

After getting ripped to shreds by Texas Senator Ted Cruz for her gun laws attempting to gun the Second Amednment, the questionable sanity of Dianne Feinstein took another blow as she compared semi-automatic firearms to child pornography.

Senators Ted Cruz and Dianne Feinstein during a Senate Judiciary Hearing on Thursday got into heated exchange while discussing the California congresswoman’s proposed ban on so-called “assault” weapons.

“The question that I would pose to the senior senator from California is,” Cruz said, referring to Feinstein, “Would she deem it consistent with the Bill of Rights for Congress to engage in the same endeavor that we are contemplating doing with the Second Amendment in the context of the First or Fourth Amendment, namely, would she consider it constitutional for Congress to specify that the First Amendment shall apply only to the following books and shall not apply to the books that Congress has deemed outside the protection of the Bill of Rights?”

“Likewise, would she think that the Fourth Amendment’s protection against searches and seizures could properly apply only to the following specified individuals and not to the individuals that Congress has deemed outside the protection of the Bill of Rights?” he added.

The California senator eventually got around to answering Sen. Cruz’ question on how she reconciles her proposed “assault weapons” ban with the Second Amendment.

Her eventual answer? “Assault weapons” are kind of like child pornography. She argued that although we have a First Amendment right to free speech, that doesn’t mean child pornography is protected by the Constitution. Likewise, she continued, so-called “assault weapons” can be legally banned.

It’s past time the aged, tired, and mentally infirm California Democrat considered retiring.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.


  1. Rob Crawford says:

    I think Feinstein has either taken up huffing or auto-erotic asphyxiation.

    • Bill says:

      Oh, lord I did not need that second image. It’s hard enough trying to get those jowls from being seared into my mind.

  2. Kevin says:

    I don’t like to say things like this, but I really hate that woman. If you looked at her personal stats (CCW holder, gun owner) you would think that she would be with us, not against us. Unfortunately in CA (she is my rep, albeit not by choice), those in power hold the cards. Do as I say, not as I do…

  3. NotClauswitz says:

    Her actual brain is in a jar, floating in a puddle of transmission fluid and illuminated by a 60-watt bulb…

  4. Mudlark says:

    I thought Feinstein’s husband loved child porn.

  5. Bill says:

    Out of her depth on a wet road.

  6. angrymike says:

    Its really sad to see someone as they lose all touch of reality on a public stage, besides term limits, I think we should be looking at curving the mental stability of congress and Senator’s once they reach a certain age…………

    • Klingonwork says:

      angrymike, that is not a bad idea. With all do respect to our seasoned citizens, at some point they cannot drive safely, and decision making becomes the subject of eratic and impulsive emotions.

      In post below, I am serious when I say her statements are becoming surreal, crazy, nonsense. IF she is seriouos about her statement…for me, that is mentally impaired.

      Molon Labe

  7. Neo says:

    DHS is buying semi-automatic firearms
    Are they aware that they have the equivalent of child pornography ?

    • Nate says:

      The FedGov has most of the full-auto stuff. What does that equate to, snuff porn?

      …..Waitaminute…that comparison is too….apt.


  8. Thomas says:

    Seem about right for a liberal argument. Say something is bad because of reason x. Have reason x destroyed by logic and facts. Dont admit reason x was wrong and resort to randomly associating the thing they dont like with things like child porn and so on.

  9. Klingonwork says:

    This is getting way too surreal. DiFi must get her statements and opinions from the source as Clueless Joe.

    Seriously, this is getting way too nuts, and ya can’t argue with nuts.

    Republicans, Democrats, liberals, conservatives, dogs, cats, yeti, leprachauns, toe nail clippings, aliens, and EVERYONE in the Middle East agree….

    Bieber gets it first.

    Molon Labe

  10. agimarc says:

    As much as I would like Feinstein bashing, we already have federal laws strictly regulating automatic weapons ownership, which may be the functional similarity between the two arguments.

    The opening Cruz should have taken – and it was wide enough to drive a classic 18-wheeler thru was Feinstein’s contention that congress could pass whatever the hell it wants, completely abdicating their individual oath to uphold the Constitution and simply rely on the black-robed tyrants to tell them what is constitutional and what is not. He could have then gone on and told here that 29 years in elective office not understanding that basic responsibility demonstrates she has known and learned nothing over a generation in office.

    But hindsight is the only exact science. Still, a nice exchange with that old bat. Cheers –

  11. simms520 says:

    When I start to drule on myself and need to wear diaper would one of you have the decency to put me out to pasture so I do not embarrass myself like poor Diane!!!! Thanks. Molon La

  12. Steve D. says:

    I think Sen. Feinstein “misspoke.” What she meant, I believe, is simply that in the same way there are commonsense exceptions to the First Amendment, it should be accepted that there are commonsense exceptions to the Second. And she’s right about that: it’s not legal to use speech, for instance, to foment a riot. And it’s not legal, or Constitutionally-protected, to use a firearm to rob a liquor store. Afterward, when the cops have you down on the sidewalk, and are extracting the .38 you have hidden in your waistband, you can’t start screaming about your Second Amendment rights. Just as speech must remain within responsible limits, so must gun ownership.

    Am I right, Senator? Is that what you meant? No? Oh, you were talking about moral equivalency? So, owning the efficient means of self-defense (against your goons, Senator, that’s who) is morally equivalent to sexually abusing minors? Then why is it you don’t go after, say, NAMBLA (headquartered in your own city of San Francisco) with the same zeal you exhibit in your quest to destroy the NRA? And yes: I’m aware that child pornography is already illegal. But possessing children isn’t. What’s illegal is mis-using them. And the NRA isn’t lobbying to create a federally-protected right to bring your black rifle to the mall and hunt humans. It just wants simple possession to remain legal.

    Why? Because ownership of an AR-15 or similar rifle sends a statement: as the snake says, “Don’t tread on me.” That means you, Di. Just sayin’.

    • Chuck says:

      Yeah, but DiFi says it IS legal to hunt humans with 30, 60 or even 150 round mags. Just sayin’

      • Steve D. says:

        And as soon as she said that, everyone should have stopped listening to her. There should be recall petitions, and somewhere a court order mandating psychiatric treatment.

        Di should be in a nursing home. Instead she’s in the Senate. This mess isn’t fixable…it simply needs to be swept up and hauled to the dump. Call me when work starts.

  13. theBuckWheat says:

    At what point are Dems like Schumer and Feinstein just evil?

  14. Comarde X says:

    The main problem today is reflected in this conversation; that problem is that we don’t live anymore by the constitution that was given to us by our forefathers.

    It is about limited government but today we have unlimited government!

    The 1st & 2nd amendment are about the same thing; not sex! (the word sex never came up), those and other amendments are about how we avoid tyranny!

    The big question is why would anyone including Feinstein want to make this an argument about sex and not tyranny unless their goal really is tyranny?

    Death before slavery!

  15. Poshboy says:

    Fifteen years ago, Reason magazine coined the perfect description of this deranged woman’s politics: the “lethal center.”

    Feinstein is a true believer of the anti’s. A friend of mine who works on the Hill recently did a TV segment on gun control that included the Senator. He had a chance to speak beforehand at length to her and her husband. My friend came away with the impression that she was one of these issue fanatics whom refuse to listen to logic, reason, facts, and arguments. Something proven on the national spotlight yesterday in her exchange with the erudite and talented Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX).

    Personally, I think she suffers from the same self-centered fear and cowardice Bill Clinton suffers from. Clinton’s fear of guns came from personally witnessing his step-dad take a shot at his mom when Clinton was five years old. Feinstein is still wigged out that her (worthless) life could have been snuffed out during the 1978 assassinations she witnessed happen to the two S.F. Board of Supervisors.

    Weak political minds will adapt the worst defense mechanisms known to man, metastasizing eventually into outright treason against the Constitution and liberty. I’m sure some people have no problem surmising necessary and proper treatments for such illnesses…

  16. Another Anon says:

    Not my idea originally but maybe Di-Fi has PTSD from the Milk shooting. She certainly has some of the symptoms. She’d do herself and her constituents (varius willing and unwilling Californians) a service by getting it checked out and if its the case, getting some help.

  17. Floyd R Turbo says:

    Once again the libtards come up with a red herring that looks good on the surface but bears no relationship to reality.
    Prior to 1982 POSSESSION of child pornography was not a crime while PRODUCTION of child pornography has been illegal for many years and still is. In 1982 the law was changed to make possession of child pornography a crime – the theory being that if the market for child pornography was removed the number of instances of children being abused to produce the pornography would be reduced. Of course the pornographers found a way around this law – namely they used young-looking adult models and photoshopped the result so that they looked like children. SIMULATED child pornography is NOT ILLEGAL.
    While it has become unfortunately commonplace to read stories about this or that person who was arrested for having CHILD PORNOGRAPHY on their computers, in most cases these images were subsequently found to be SIMULATED and thus NOT ILLEGAL. Of course the newsmedia won’t bother to correct their reporting because that doesn’t sell newspapers. It is much like the way the newsmedia identify ALL semi-automatic rifles as “Assault weapons” – and then doesn’t bother to correct the story when they discover their error.
    Thus the laws against child pornography that were put into place with good intentions subsequently became toothless because the pornographers worked around them – meanwhile the damage these laws did to the public perception of the first amendment remains.
    Feinstein is saying that because the first amendment can be limited in child pornography cases that limitations can also be applied to the second amendment, but that has never been an issue – felons and crazy people are already prevented from owning firearms.
    What Cruz was saying was that Feinstein would never agree to prohibiting publication of some books due to political content (I’m not so sure about that). For example publication of Hitler’s “Mein Kampf” is illegal in Germany because it espouses political ideas that are also illegal, not because it contains child pornography.
    Feinstein’s idea that certain firearms are intrinsically different from others and thus not protected under the 2nd amendment is nonsense. Outlawing a particular rifle because it has a “pistol-grip”, an adjustable stock, or a flash suppressor is ludicrous on the surface because these things have no bearing on the functional ability of the weapon. Outlawing 30 round magazines makes VERY SLIGHTLY more sense because it affects functionality, but that is ultimately not a supportable position because both the police and the military use 30-round magazines. There is no analagous situation for child pornography – police for example do not have a dispensation to carry child pornography while they are on duty, because child pornography is not in the public interest under any circumstances. But IF a 30 round magazine is useful for a policeman to combat criminals HOW is such a magazine NOT useful for a private citizen to combat criminals?
    The Bazooka example is another red herring, Bazookas ARE legal in the US if you have a destructive device permit, but as a matter of practicality HOW would you use one to commit a crime? – how would you hold up a liquor store with a bazooka?
    If the ONLY options are allowing REAL child pornography or banning the 1st amendment we should allow REAL child pornography – but I doubt that these are the only options. I would point out however that MAKING child pornography would STILL be illegal.

    • Steve D. says:

      The First Amendment (along with the rest of the Constitution, of course) was written in a time when freedom of association was respected, as were property rights. If that were true today, possession of child pornography need not be a crime…because whoever was found to have that crap would be hounded out of town by his neighbors. He would become an instant persona non grata, would be refused service at stores, restaurants, gas stations. If he rented, he’d be evicted.

      That’s how things would work, if this were a free country. Instead, we’re a country of “laws not men.” It’s just that they’re the wrong laws.

      • pat says:

        Actually, he would likely be hanged if found. It was very rare until recently so that was unlikely. But until the 1950’s the First Amendment was thought to be about political speech. Ironically, that is what is found to be most offensive now.

  18. Comarde X says:

    The truth will set you free!

    Death before slavery!

  19. pat says:

    Just to be clear. Absolutely clear. Not only does Feinstein own a gun, she has a permit to carry concealed. She also has two armed body guards with her at all times.

  20. Doug Rink says:

    I’m still amazed at Feinstein’s macabre comment on CNN where she spoke of personally putting her finger in the bullet holes on dead bodies as a motivating force behind her gun control push.