Feinstein and McNamara: There you go again!

Posted by admin | Defeat Obama & Feinstein GunGrab 2013 | Friday 29 March 2013 10:12 am

Feinstein and McNamara: There you go again!

Leroy Pyle, San Jose PD (Ret)

Some things never change, and that includes the minds of Dianne Feinstein and Joe McNamara. Dianne at diane@everypossiblelamestreammedia.com and Joe resurrects his tired litany with a rehash of his material at http://alumni.stanford.edu/get/page/magazine/article/?article_id=59957.

Twenty babies are massacred in their classroom at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, CT, by a crazed lunatic and the best these “veteran gun control advocates” can come up with is the same, tired arguments they have used for 25+ years. Is it only me or should we all expect more from those who claim to be the educated leaders of our society.

Diane recently feigned indignation when challenged by Senator Ted Cruz on her Second Amendment stance and claimed, “I’m not a sixth grader, Senator, I’ve been on this committee for 20 years” and studied the issue for a long time. She has openly stated that she wanted to confiscate all “assault weapons” but didn’t have the votes. Not having the votes does not appear to be important to this “representative.”

Joseph D. McNamara, ex-Chief of Police, has every reason to be proud of his Research Fellowship from Harvard Law School and doctorate in public administration from the J.F.K. School of Government. He is often interviewed for his gun control advocacy. He has not accomplished anything in the way of gun control other than the fame associated with his advocacy.

I first became aware of their politics in 1989. At about noon on January 17, 1989, Patrick Purdy went to the school playground of Cleveland Elementary School in Stockton, CA and began shooting at children. He killed five children and wounded thirty others including one teacher.

Dianne was Mayor of San Francisco at the time and Joe was my Chief at the San Jose Police Department. They both garnered considerable notoriety for their call for gun control. Then, as now, the emphasis was on the firearm. A gun is either too small and easily concealable or two big and powerful and black and militaristic to be trusted in the hands of ordinary citizens. Their solutions rely on various methods to disarm the honest citizen. Seriously, will anything they advocate affect the activities of a murderer or robber? A crazed murderer?

The McNamara article referenced above does not mention Adam Lanza. A lot about  his belief that limiting your possession of guns is the solution, but little concern for the murderer. Feinstein is in her glory, again. She talks a lot about restricting your firearms, but not much is heard of Adam Lanza.

It was much the same in 1989. Not a lot said about Patrick Purdy, the murderer. After all, McNamara and Feinstein’s reputations are noted as “gun control advocates.” Not “crime control advocates” or “crazed murderer control advocates.” They are all about controlling your guns.

Obviously, I am an advocate of safe and responsible gun ownership by honest citizens. You don’t have to have one, of course, but you do have the right. I began my career in the 1960s investigating murders, robberies, and rapes. Those crimes continue to be perpetrated on the citizens of our communities to this day. As a career police officer it was obvious that the best way to defeat a person with a weapon is with a firearm. Why else would the police be armed?

I am reminded of one of the many news articles about Chief McNamara. In this one it was reported that he heard a burglar on his roof and “ran out of the house with gun in hand.” I wonder why he didn’t take his Harvard diploma, instead?

1 Comment »

  1. Comment by Howard Galloway — April 20, 2013 @ 9:25 am

    It’s great to see that there are now, at least, 21 California county sheriffs, who have vowed NOT to comply with unconstitutional federal gun laws. I can only hope that their stand, also applies to unconstitutional state gun laws!
    Leroy, you’re spot on when you say, “the best way to defeat a person with a weapon is with a firearm. Why else would the police be armed?”

    Thank you!
    Howard Galloway

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a comment