Shared publicly  - 
I have voted against Feinstein every chance I've had since I became eligible to vote. California is one of the bluest states in the nation, and deserves two senators who reflect our values.
William Lee's profile photoDiane Robertson's profile photoLarry Groh's profile photoSteven Palmer's profile photo
If they're "protecting America" show us a list of criminals who've been arrested because of the evidence they were able to obtain under these spying provisions.

Oh right, "it's a secret".  You know what "it's a secret" means?  "Go fuck yourself".  This is what our elected officials are saying to us.
That's a load. You could simply require comm companies to maintain that data for 7+ years and then get a court order as needed. 
No, I think it's called "spying on America"...
No it's not protect America! It's Invasion Of Privacy!!
She wants to take away American gun owners' right to own firearms but she had a conceal-carry handgun herself.
“We understand — I understand privacy. Senator Chambliss understands privacy. We want to protect peoples’ private rights.”

Actually, no.  I don't think they understand privacy at all, or for that matter the Fourth Amendment.
It just goes to show what little choice we have between Demublicans and Republicrats.
Plus it contrasts widely with what was in the democratic campaigns in 2008, but I guess it's not surprising. Once data is obtained there's no way the practice will be abandoned as "what if something bad could happen and we don't have the data any more?!!!!"
No +Fred Ora it's called Elected Official! I don't matter what party they are from! They are no long interest in the people!
I am glad you spoke out on this. Hardly anybody has been talking about this and everybody needs to know that this is going on. 
Obama's Verizon Phone Records Collection Carries on Bush's Work
By Richard Seymour, Guardian UK
06 June 13

arack Obama built up much of his electoral base as a critic of George W Bush's policies, from war to surveillance. In office, he has pursued many of the same policies even more vigorously, and nowhere is this more true than in his hoarding of executive power. The administration's collection of phone records data, and its legal defences thereof, illustrate the problem acutely.

In opposition, Obama criticised Bush's policy of spying on citizens' phone calls – under the rubric of the so-called Terrorist Surveillance Programme – and threatened to filibuster a bill being pushed through the Senate in 2008 to retroactively legalise the practice. He voted for the bill, but protested that he was doing so reluctantly. He claimed to oppose the attempt to give legal cover to the previous administration and the companies colluding in its actions.

Yet, once in office, Obama continued the policy of intrusion on a vast and indiscriminate scale. The same can be said for his attorney general, Eric Holder, once a firm critic of the Bush administration's spying, now a firm practitioner of the same. Perhaps most alarmingly, the Obama team has continued with the same legal doctrines.

Prior to the 2008 amendments of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (Fisa), the law stated that the government could not spy on domestic calls unless a court believed there was probable cause to believe the target of surveillance was an agent of a foreign power. It would be a mistake to underestimate the Bush administration's legal virtuosity, however. Just as it displayed considerable creativity in legalising Guantánamo and torture, its justifications for warrantless wiretapping inventively cited the post-9/11 Authorisation for the Use of Military Force as an implicit repudiation of sections of FISA.

It used to be said that the Nazi legal scholar Carl Schmitt was the true éminence grise of the Bush administration: that the principle of a "state of exception" was being invoked, post-9/11, to bestow führer-like power on the president. Certainly, there was a sense in which they treated the law as – in the words of the title of John Yoo's memoir – war by other means.

Belying the "state of exception" analysis, however, Obama has adopted the Bush administration's legal definitions, and tried to block any judicial ruling that any laws were evaded or broken under the Bush administration. He has also sought, with some success, to invoke the doctrine of state secrecy to prevent any judicial review of potentially criminal actions in the Bush era.

In the case of wiretapping, this includes the scandalous instance in which the government spied on communications between lawyers and their clients, the Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation, in the context of a federal action against the charity. Though the charity had documentary proof of the Bush administration doing this, the Obama administration moved to prevent the document from being considered by a court, citing state secrecy. And while promising self-restraint in the use of this doctrine, it has continually had recourse to it.

The doctrine of state secrecy even extends to the legal justifications for collecting data on phone calls. Glenn Greenwald refers to "numerous cryptic public warnings by two US senators" who warn of "secret legal interpretations" to justify a staggering expansion of the surveillance remit. They say: "There is now a significant gap between what most Americans think the law allows and what the government secretly claims the law allows."

Technically, one could argue that there is no need for this surveillance. The inspector general of five federal intelligence bureaucracies published a report in 2009 indicating that FISA's requirements had in no way hindered intelligence-gathering efforts. That may be missing the point, however. Expanding the state's ability to gather information on citizens, no matter what the justification, always increases its options – be they repressive or productive. Further, the convergence of spying on the one hand and secrecy on the other is just characteristic of the state's tendency to monopolise information.

The conventional liberal critique of such practices is prudential. As the liberal writer Stephen Holmes argued, secrecy undermines security by allowing the state to conceal and perpetuate errors. It removes the necessity to have plausible reasons for one's policies, so that eventually one stops having plausible reasons. These strictures apply even more in the case of emergencies. Holmes evoked the image of an emergency room, in which medical staff are having to cope with life-threatening situations; unless their behaviour is governed by certain rules, medical staff will be prone to error.

This metaphor may work, if we assume the patient is a crisis-stricken American capitalism and its global authority. Obama's hoarding of executive power can only be understood in the context of his mission to restore American global power, rationalise its productive base, and expand the state's capacity to process dysfunctions. In this respect, his agenda is not fundamentally dissimilar from that of his predecessor, which is why he needs many of the same means.
If we keep voting against her how does she keep winning?  Ugh.
Wouldn't help if American citizens themselves were less schizophrenic about risk? Politicians are given plenty of irrational risk aversion to feed off. One of  the phrases I've coined in my short time here is: Land of the free, the brave and the pathologically safety conscious. Just look at the over-reaction in Boston: self imposed curfew. Terrorism will always be easier in a free and open society 
Blue, red, they are all fascists.
California deserves far more than two representatives anyway. It's ludicrous that Wyoming, with some 500 thousand inhabitants, get two Senators as well. America is a very wacky place. 
Clarify for us, Meister Wheaton. You've voted against Feinstein in every primary race she's had, right? You haven't voted for Republicans to snub her, have you.  Say it ain't so, Wil! big eyes
Thank you for trying to keep her out of office. 
+Eric Cheng 
She wants to take away American gun owners' right to own firearms but she had a conceal-carry handgun herself.

Gun control is not the same as taking away all guns. You are confusing two of them. Gun control is about keeping guns away from hand of criminals and crazy people. If you are neither you have nothing to worry about.

You can be a gun carrying person and ask for stricter gun controls to make sure guns remains only in hands of citizens who have clean background
Just because someone in the administration perpetuates the belief that it is "a critical tool in protecting the nation from terrorist threats," doesn't make it constitutional. The #Constitution doesn't say the government can do whatever it wants in the same of security. The framers feared that unrestricted and unchecked powers could lead to tyranny. We have to allow for the possibility of some evil not because we can't stop it or even welcome it, but because the tools to stop it lead to even greater evils. That's why the #FourthAmendment doesn't allow for broad searches and seizures: "...particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Does she look like Imelda Staunton in the role of Dolores Umbridge?
+Fred Ora It was called "Bush'd" up until Obama was inaugurated. After that, it is called "OBAMA'd".
He's had plenty of time to close this crap down, but it is looking like they have extended and expanded it.
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
They collect information "only on bad guys", so I guess we are all bad guys. 
I first blame the cell companies for keeping the data and second this damn "War on Terror". The war will never end and anything the government wants to do will always be justified as a means to keep us safe. Obama just spoke out last week about finding a way to end the "war". Now this week the government pulls this. I am fed up with the duplicity of politicians. Give me a dictatorship any day at least then we would know where we stand. 
+Chris McDonald I won't actually blame cell companies so much again. If they don't keep data for long terms, the lawmakers will make the laws forcing them to keep data for longer periods. The core of the problem is lawmakers abusing their powers
Just add this to the list of freedoms being restricted and violated at an ever increasing rate. Campaign finance reform is the only answer to letting us take back our Republic. Larry Lessig is 100% right.
+Kimmo Jaskari every state has 2 Senators, It is the house of representatives that is based on Population.  CA has 53, WY has 1
Sorry, +Wil Wheaton, but it sounds like California's Senators are as blue as a Smurf could ever hope to be.  Remeber, you fellow blue/liberal Californians elected them.
It's time to find a primary challenger for Feinstein, I agree with +Wil Wheaton California deserves better!
Feinstein is very savvy at kissing up to important special interests--most liberals see her as pro-environment, and that's true, up until Agribusiness speaks.  What kind of Democrat co-sponsors a anti-flag-burning Constitutional amendment?  Why the kind that thinks it's okay to spy on average citizens, just in case.   Restrictions on speech, separate rules for the rich and the poor, but most of all, grand-standing when it will get her name in the press.  At least Reagan was charming at it.
Blue/Red doesn't matter, they're pro-establishment and pro staying in power. They bend to the will of the founders who keep them in power. They bend toward controlling the outcomes. Knowledge allows them to control the outcomes.
We all get the government we deserve. People keep voting to elect nanny state, federal control, progressive candidates...... Well, this is what you get.

Just turn over your rights, surrender your free speech, and pray the government and criminals (who are becoming the same thing) will be merciful.

We're posting personal infornation on a daily basis on sites like this... I'm no DiFi fan, but if you think a new senator is the answer then I'll remind you that the devil you know is better than the devil you don't. 
Protecting America? Really Feinstein? Ok fine, The American people will start collection of personal data from all you asshole Senators and your master Obama. Just protecting America bitches!
+Adam Maas I'm sorry. I would have said Liberal but true liberals stand for freedom. And anyone who claims to be Conservative that defends these policies is simply a liar. Previous administrations included.
Feinstein is such a joke, and she has been holding that seat for way too long.
When your Senator is basically agreeing with someone like Saxby Chambliss (R-Douchebag) on this issue, then they are no, proper Democrat...
Time to bring in the libertarians.
Well, "This is nothing particularly new" is true.
Wow, maybe this will be enough for me to convince my mother to vote against Feinstein.
Nice +Fred Ora . Right out of the gate with name calling. Well i guess when your ideology has turned on you and your political darlings start stripping away YOUR rights and not just the rights of your enemies it must be tough to come up with a coherent argument.

Libertarians..... Determined to take over the world. And then LEAVE YOU THE HELL ALONE.
Unfortunately, Saxby Chambliss is my senator. I vote against him every time I see the weasel's name on a ballot. Despite what many people think there are plenty of Democrats and Libertarians (of which I am one) in Georgia. And yet, somehow he's still there.
It should not come as a surprise to anyone that Feinstein and her ilk are making apologies for this: people who don't value your civil rights DON'T VALUE YOUR CIVIL RIGHTS.
+Adam Bigge Pardon me, but as a liberal progressive I feel like you are just a little off with your terminology there.

Politicians may call themselves Liberal or Progressive, but if they support any measures such as these, they are neither in truth. "Democrats" they may be, but real progressives want things like human rights for all humans, regardless of race, gender, creed, sexual orientation etc. We want things like a functional healthcare and social welfare system, rather than what we have now. We definitely do NOT want phone tapping. So even if you and I don't agree on some things, rest assured we do agree on this.

Suffice it to say I won't be voting for anyone who supported this, especially if they initially ran on a platform that included eliminating things like this. I am beyond disappointed with this administration, among others. I hope that clears things up.
No it's called being delusional.  The hard but true thing is we need more spies.  We need assets in the caves, not needle in the haystack, privacy invading searches of innocent Americans.  These kinds of searches help delude us into thinking we are working the problem. We are not. Hoping for 1 thread in 10 million vs. having 1 of 10 in the room be one of yours.  Do the math.
+Chris Fowlkes There is a very big difference between voluntarily (known or unknown) providing information to companies and your government collecting information about you in the interest of "national security." Last time I checked, Google couldn't arrest you or classify you as an enemy combatant.

One if our founding fathers stated that any people who chose to give up their freedoms and privacy to be safe would be neither free nor safe. It is time we started to fight to get back our freedoms, rights, and privacy from the government that should be subject to the people, not over them.
+Mike DiMuzio point taken. And thank you for making a coherent statement without the rabid name calling that usually is directed towards Conservative folks such as myself.
+Kimmo Jaskari How does this not make sense? The Senate exists as a balance to the House of Representatives' power. By giving every state equal representation in the Senate, larger states can't subjugate smaller states. If we ONLY based representation on population, larger states could force laws into place essentially destroying small states.

If you think about it, it actually makes perfect sense. Our entire federal government is based on the concepts of compromise and checks on power. 
During the Sovjet era, this was the sort of thing that was used as an example as to why American freedom was worth fighting for. Nowadays it's called protecting the people.
That surprises me Wil. I though Feinstein was one of the more liberal Democrats. I myself am a conservative but she always struck me as "true blue."
Defend it all you want, Senators, but it needs to go away and now.
I have several Conservative friends, few of them are as bad as the memes would have me believe. While we don't always agree on how it seems clear that we want our country to be a better place for all citizens. I wish public discourse, in general and especially between politicians, could be this civilized...but then what would distract us from the crap that most of the elected officials support and most of the citizens don't? All the drama in Washington is just another Circus to entertain the plebs.
She says it's a "routine renewal" of the act.  If somebody "routinely" smacks you in the head with a golf club, that doesn't make it right either.
Protecting "America" by eroding the rights of its citizens.
Fairly risible to suggest that this is just a Feinstein issue - the statements from the White House in response to the revelations have been just as dramatically Bush-era in content and in tone. Seems Obama's plan for Change was just another case of "All hail the new boss, same as the old boss"
When they say "people who want to hurt America", what they mean is "people want to hurt her and her fellow bloody handed cronies."  They rightly fear the people closest to them, the people who are paying the price for their bloody campaign to protect the Corporate Agenda. The people literally ARE the enemy, from their perspective, we're the ones they are milking and then discarding, and the ones that will eventually rise up. 
Van D.
Reminds one of the Bush days, doesn't it?  This is supposed to be something that is classic USAPATRIOT Act GWB.  Yet here's Feinstein, the arch liberal, doing exactly the same sort of thing.  And just like Republicans lined up obediently behind Bush, Democrats will line up obediently behind Feinstein.

The two-party system is a one-party system.
+Manish Sinha then why do gun control laws only effect law abiding citizens? Why is my buying a rifle in California make me a felon? I have absolutely no criminal record but if i buy the wrong rifle I'm automatically a felon. At the same time criminals can own whatever they want because they don't waste time worrying about laws. BECAUSE THERE CRIMINALS. 
The worst way to argue is to state an opinion as fact, in such a way that it implies that anyone arguing or pointing out problems is an idiot for not "knowing" it.

E.g - “It’s called protecting America.”
I am confused what about Feinstein is not "blue"
Van D.
+James Finstrom Exactly! Two parties, mostly 1 agenda.  They only argue on a couple of things, to pretend difference.
So if the statement “This is just meta data. There is no content involved. In other words, no content of a communication." is true, how can this one “It has proved meritorious because we have gathered significant information on bad guys, but only on bad guys, over the years,” also be true?
Elitists. "We know what's best for you." I think I know why so many of these elected officials want guns removed from law abiding citizens....
" we have gathered significant information on bad guys, but only on bad guys, over the years" cannot be true anyway, unless they're stating that they have literally  never made a case of mistaken identity, or had a suspect who turned out to be innocent.

This is what's referred to in the UK as an "absolute bag of shit"
+Wil Wheaton, what do you mean by "deserves two senators who reflect our values"?  What are the values?  How does she not reflect the state now?
It's things like this phone record scandal that continue to prove the "Patriot Act" started under Bush then renewed by Obama was one of the worst pieces of legislation penned by the Federal Government in the last hundred years
There may come a day when Americans realize it is the government's job not to protect our safety, but to protect our freedom...but it is not this day.
So, in addition to being a raging hypocrite (Against Concealed Carried Weapon permits for the proles, has one herself) and having blood on her hands (read The Band Played On ), she couldn't give a rip about the rights of the people she 'serves'. Now I have yet another reason to vote against her and Boxer. #votethemallout #votethirdparty #thisiswhywecanthavenicethings 
+Adam Heywood good point. California is the most hyper extreme liberal state in the Union. Dianne Feinstein is exactly what California deserves. That's why she no longer even campaigns. She knows she's automatically won the election before it even happens. Michelle Ankan was way better than her and Dianne Feinstein refused to even debate her. And she still won. lol
Van D.
Realistically, since the revelations of the NSA's Room 614A at the major AT&T network access point several years ago, it's silly to think that any phone call, email, or other communication today isn't already compromised on any carrier.

This is at least 5 years old, people.

The NSA's Secret Spy Room at AT&T

Shows how much the American sheeple care, they've already ignored this sort of story before.  It came, there was some grumbling, it went.  Lawsuits were filed, AT&T was given retroactive legal immunity by the POTUS, the few people paying attention were like "WTF?!", and that was the end of it.
Totally with you on this one, +Wil Wheaton. She's a wolf in sheep's clothing if ever there was one. So tired of her brand of unliberalism.
Van D.
Feinstein has been a liberal necon all her career.  She has made tens of $millions voting on the various intelligence and budget committees for "defense" contracts which went to corporations owned by her husband.  Pure military-industrial complex and crony-capitalism.  Yet you don't hear any liberal voices ever complain, and you never will.

California liberals are perfectly willing to elect and endlessly re-elect a war pig, so long as she occasionally throws them a gay marriage bone.
ron d
The only 'bad' guys they'll catch are the ones dumb enough to get caught.

I'm sure the average criminal has already learned how to use disposable cell phones. Good luck finding those among the millions of generic calls made by your entire country on a daily basis.

Seriously, let's forget the privacy issues for a minute.
It's like trying to find that one black pebble on a beach the size of planet Earth ...

Just look at the amount of servers that Google needs to run its search engine.

All the data in the world isn't going to help if you don't know who or what you are looking for.

oh and stop voting for lizards.
Seems true on the surface +Van D. , that people just shrug it off. But though there may be no viable alternative to stop the Fascist movement, the anger doesnt go away, it gets shoved down and at some point we'll see a different reaction. That is why they are ramping their domestic control machine. 
The Occupy movement was like a brush fire when it happened and they used a lot of firemen to put it out. It isn't out and it was a minor flare-up imo.
+Manish Sinha not only a felon, with the newest laws just passed...they are collecting your medical records (if you happen to be a gun owner) and placing them under review to determine if you've gone through anything, be it how significant, that they could use to come and take your firearms.

In fact, they now currently have 40,000 victims...i mean...citizens on a list for immediate confiscation.

Google it

That's just the amount that they are starting with... how many firearms owners live in California?

Gun guntrol only makes it safer for the criminals and tyrants. Look back through history...
+Richard Lincoln

Gun guntrol only makes it safer for the criminals and tyrants. 
Maybe only in US.
The rest of the world disagrees. How about you look outside of US and learn something how to fix the problems
+Manish Sinha that's not true. In fact 80% of people in Britain want there guns back. Its statistical fact that gun control only makes gun crime worse. Just look at the states with gun control compared to the ones that don't. The gun murder rate is almost non existent in arias without gun control and the places with the most gun control have the highest gun crime rate. Detroit has the most gun control in the country and is nicknamed the murder capital of the world. The murder rate in Detroit last year was higher then Afghanistan. 
+Jesse G  If the governmnet want to track down associates of terrorists why don't they get a warrant to monitor the terrorists phone? That would result in some useful information rather than a unimaginably vast amount of irrelevant data.
Wil on his way to becoming a libertarian?
Actually, +Jesse G , a SHITLOAD of people had a problem with this 10 years ago - like me.  If the government has probable cause to believe someone is a terrorist, they can get a warrant to search their phone records.  An unchecked government, however, is FAR, FAR more dangerous to our lives than a "terrorist."
Living in Germany, we have the same thing per EU order, called data retention. But it doesn't cover a particular provider or timeframe, but all providers all the time. A member of the German parliament has successfully filed a lawsuit in which he forced his provider to hand over all his retention data to him. Following that, he created an application revealing a gapless movement profile within six months: (German language).

While it's obvious that data retention cannot be constitutional, several studies have already revealed that this method does not help anyone and that the copyright lobby also had its influence in this topic (they wanted it to hunt down filesharers and used terrorism as a welcoming carrier).

+Wil Wheaton one hint about T-Mobile though: Even after the constitutional court has stopped the data retention in Germany, it became public that T-Mobile had continued with it nontheless. Furthermore, they are actively lobbying against net neutrality right now and caught a major shitstorm because of that in Germany. Certainly not a company to support.
I challenge anyone, who can remember the republic we lost in 2001, to name a single member of the current government whom our Founding Fathers would not shoot as a tyrant.
If anybody who is a solid democrat challenges Feinstein in a primary election they have my vote and whatever campaign cash I can scrape up. 
In fact 80% of people in Britain want there guns back.
Citation needed

Its statistical fact that gun control only makes gun crime worse. Just look at the states with gun control compared to the ones that don't.
Look at Japan. Now look at any place in US with lax gun laws. Your logic fails there.
+Manish Sinha I'm sorry I guess you don't have Google. The 80 percent figure comes from an article like a week ago. Search for it if you want to learn more. The fact that you have to compare American States to other countries just to prove your point proves that I'm right. Also in Japan you're a lot more likely to get stabbed to death. lol.

Gun control is the equivalent of trying to stop drunk driving by making it harder for people with no record to get a car. It's ridiculous. 
+Rich White You made the claim, you provide the evidence. It is not my responsibility to do it. If you need any evidence for my claim, I am ready to do it.

Also in Japan you're a lot more likely to get stabbed to death
Again citation needed. As, I told you, stop pulling claims out of your ass.

Have a nice time. Maybe you just don't want to have any kind of debate. This is the kind of blind obsession which is responsible so mass murders in US. No other developed country has so many mass murders every year

Third, stopping stabbing is way easier than getting shot. Someone can shoot me from 50 ft and I can't do anything. For stabbing me they have to come closer to me. Preventing being stabbed is way easier than preventing being shot. Maybe you need to know the difference
Sean W
Everyone complains about our politicians and how bad of a job they are doing, but yet, these incumbents still get re-elected time and time again.  I am baffled that they are still getting votes.  These incumbents are spending too much time in Washington, putting them on the wrong side of their constituency.

don't even get me started on our CA state gov't ...
+Manish Sinha   Don't you love it when people make claims and when you call on them to back it up, they say "the proof is in an article I read on the Internet"?    
+Bill Stender True. Looks like I need to start learning from them. I will make a website full of crackpot ideas and claims and use it as evidence.
+Manish Sinha you're right I don't want to have a debate because this isn't a debatable issue it's a partisan issue. This is the kind of issue that keeps us distracted wile the current administration walks all over us.

Like I told you you can look at every individual state and you can see the ones with the most gun control have the most gun crime. There have been multiple papers written on the subject and multiple books written on the subject. It's not a secret that gun control does nothing but restricted honest law-abiding citizens from owning firearms it does not at all stop gun crime. In fact states that have less gun control and a more armed populous have less gun crime because the honest people own guns. This is common sense and common knowledge. The fact we're having this argument at all is ridiculous. It's like having an argument about whether water is wet. 
+Manish Sinha "its statistical fact that gun control makes gun crime worse".

It is fact...and not only gun crime, all crime.

Crime has significantly gone down in the past 10 years. Why you ask? Well, I'll tell you...its because the amount of firearms owners have dramatically increased. More guns in the hands of law abiding citizens.

You see, a criminal goes for the easy in/ easy out approach. Not knowing if your target is a firearms owner, heightens the risk of getting killed stealing a tv, jewels, etc. A very low percentage of criminals are willing to take that risk. Would you?

On the other hand...if the criminal knows that the home owner is unarmed, its an easy target.

Japan is in a category all its own...look at the rest of the world, especially europe.
+Rich White As I said above. It is not a state issue but the mentality issue in US. People in US just don't want to admit that gun-control works like it has worked in most of the industrialized nations.

There have been multiple papers written on the subject and multiple books written on the subject
Just to make it clear. Those books are claims not evidence. Evidence is hard numbers, not someone crackpot writing a book.

It's not a secret that gun control does nothing but restricted honest law-abiding citizens from owning firearms it does not at all stop gun crime
True, Fox News always agreed to it. Just like Fox News thinks Obama is Kenyan and Fox News thinks that evolution is a lie.
Evolution  being a lie is also a well know "not a secret"

This is common sense and common knowledge
Common knowledge is not the same as correct. Empirical evidence at times matter. You know what else was considered common sense - earth is flat, earth is center of universe. Common sense doesn't equate correct knowledge.
+Rich White  I honestly do not mean to suggest that the anonymous papers/books your referring to are not there or that you aren't summarizing them accurately, but papers and books are routinely written to prove all kinds of points and usually on a hot topic like this one, there's just as many or more "proving" the exact opposite.
For example: "researchers found that states with more gun control laws, on average, experience less gun violence and fewer firearm deaths than states without similar regulations."
+Richard Lincoln You are simply telling lies. Nations with effective gun control have far fewer gun deaths and much less violent crime. 

You can't source your claims to anything but fantasy and right wing websites who don't source their claims either. The NRA is so afraid of the truth that they put riders into Center for Disease Control and Census Bureau  funding bills forbidding them from studying the causes and prevalence of gun crime. 

You're a liar who is afraid of the truth +Richard Lincoln just like every other NRA muppet. 
On behalf of Georgia, I would like to apologize for Chambliss ever getting elected.
You know the fact is gun control is a partisan issue. Just like global warming gun control is only supported by Democrats. Its irrational and based on emotion not fact. Another fact is Democrats believe what they believe. there's no point in trying to convince you otherwise. You don't have to believe me you guys can go out and do your own research and come to your own conclusions. If you use credible data you will find a gun control doesn't work. However, as with most partisan issues you're not concerned with facts but rather you're more concerned with defending an agenda. That's fine, but at least be honest about it. You guys hate guns and think they should be banned. Its okay to believe that. But to try to say the gun control reduces crime is ridiculous because the statistics show the exact opposite. So at least be honest and just say you hate guns. 
+Rich White Let me guess what other  issues which Democrats agree with - Climate Change, Evolution, Embryology. All three of these are solid science and is based on evidence. The other side doesn't believe this and believes in magical things like creationism blah blah.

ts irrational and based on emotion not fact.
I am still waiting for facts from your side.
The Extreme right believes in those things. The far Left is just as wacky (can you say the Weathermen Underground (one of the president's influences)). The majority of americans are centrists and policies tend to not reflect that segment of the voting eligible population.

Red states are enjoying economic upturns, while blue states are not and continue to tax its citizens into the same socio-economic level - the so-called "Middle-class" which it really isn't any more. I live in Maryland, a Blue state. Industry has fled due to coporate taxes. Beer is taxed 9%. The newest tax? The Rain Tax. I am not kidding.
+Manish Sinha I'm not sure why your trying to pick a fight with me. Maybe I have mentioned something that pinches a nerve. Ether way I'm right. Gun control does not, nor has it ever reduced crime. 
+Michael Nolen First, you need to stop reading that fundie website. Nothing much comes out of Glenn Beck's mouth of pocket is of any use to the society anyway.

Now, read the article yourself.  That tax is to fix the damage caused to the environment. I love how conservative tout that they take responsibility for their work, but when it comes to take responsibility for the damage caused to environment, they show their hypocrisy.

It is funny how conservatives are not conservatives at all when it comes to protecting the environment. For their own money, they have no shame in destroying the air, water and land
+Rich White Fight? Whoa!

Basically I am shocked how you can keep on making claims without any evidence.

Ether way I'm right
Pompous self-righteous conservatives. There is no shortage of people like you
+Ken Watson
Every time you use a thought terminating cliche' your argument fails.
Yeah no doubt she is a control freak and does not believe in our freedom, your rights and the justice that comes with it. She can't let you know that so she has to con voters into thinking she does when in fact she doesn't.
+Manish Sinha that's ironic. You call me pompous and self-righteous in a pompous and self-righteous comment. Lmao. ;-)

Go ahead and keep believing that guns kill people. You better not walk into a gun store they might all go off at once when you walk in. lol
+Rich White says: Another fact is Democrats believe what they believe while Republican's don't? if you believe that, you must be a proud Democrat. (or maybe there's a study on the internet proving this "obvious fact":) Fact: the Republican agenda serves a tiny percentage of the population, it is a party that wants to remain extremely rich. Everything they do has that as the guiding principle. So, in order to build a base to have a chance of winning elections, they built a strategy of going after the least educated and appealed to their emotions; family values, abortion, Christianity, xenophobia, and swore to fight for these values. They explain the falling standard of living, caused by their policies, with similar hand-waving that you are trying here but their base just swallows it whole. This base is generally is not well educated, they dont have the tools to check it out, they tend to respect authority and well, they just hope these guys will come through on the moral issues.

You are still just asserting stuff, basically making yourself guilty of everything you just accused Democrats of doing. You have no proof, just want to assert your own agenda, admit it!  (at least I gave you a study that 'proves' your anonymous studies wrong)

and you're not going to seriously try and say that climate change is not based on fact are you? find a credible, qualified scientist who disputes the evidence that human activity is driving this catastrophe, go ahead, try.  There are facts and there is assertion, I'm not a Democrat or a Republican myself, I know Dems have a lot of wild ideas about reality, but at least education and logic is respected for the most part.
+Rich White 
Go ahead and keep believing that guns kill people
I don't believe disbelieve something. I go by evidence. Belief is for people who don't care for evidence.

You claimed yourself to be correct even after I asked many times for evidence.
+Bill Stender so that's what its came down to? Since you can't defend the subject at hand you just claim I'm stupid. lol. Think whatever you want but you comment says a lot about the kind of person you are. 
+Manish Sinha what evidence are you going by then? Some poll on MSNBC? The evidence clearly shows gun control doesn't work. In fact the statistics show the exact opposite. Gun control kills more people. Just ask anyone who lives in Detroit. 
Republican President with a Republican House started Patriot Act in 2007, 6 years later Republicans act shocked & angered as they blame PBO. Personally I have nothing to hide... not even my 420 use in WA State... LIVE W/ IT!
+Rich White Every other goddamn developed country which has gun regulations has shown it to work.

MSNBC? I don't even watch that channel.
+Manish Sinha there is no reason to cuss at me. I have not used foul language with you, I would appreciate the same respect.

The fact is, gun control doesn't work no matter what country its in. However, we are not talking about other countries. We are talking about the USA. If you like the way those other countries work maybe you should consider moving there. The USA is a free country with gun ownership as a constitutional right. If you don't like that then maybe the USA is not the place for you. The facts are still the facts. Gun control doesn't work here. That's the debate. If you would like to debate gun control in other countries then maybe you should find someone to debate with from one of those countries. This is the USA and it can be proven just by looking at statistics that the most dangerous city's also have the most gun control and the safest city's have little to no gun control. You can't ignore facts that are that relevant. 
+Richard Lincoln actually, gun ownership has been on the decline.  Most people just aren't interested in them like they used to.  I guess most people prefer playing video games or playing the latest game on their cell phone than say sitting around in the mud at the crack of dawn so they can shoot some animal.  Here is my citation:

Couple this with the lowest crime rate in 50 years and you could weave a tale.  I don't think the tale is accurate, I think a lot of the anti-crime laws in the early 90s might have something to do with it.  But that is speculation on my part.
Gun control doens't work because there is hardly any gun control in US. Other countries have shown that gun control can work. 

Asking someone to move to other country because their are successful in making gun control work just shows that this country has its failures but you are still not willing to admit it.

Secondly, you still haven't provided any evidence. I am not going to debate any furthur unless you stop pulling out claims from your ass and start providing evidence
When it comes to "gun control", it seems like almost everyone is an idiot. It isn't a linear subject. You can't measure it in a linear manner. Still, that is exactly what EVERYONE seems to insist on doing.
+Drew Heyen Sadly yes, but one side does ignore empirical evidence. They should look at the rest of the world and learn how it worked out in rest of the developed cuountries
+Manish Sinha
"No other developed country has so many mass murders every year."

These events do seem to be more common in the US, but they are heavily publicized, and it is hard to be sure how much of my own perception is due to confirmation bias. A per capita mass murder/domestic terror rate study would be extremely useful in taking an objective view of this topic. If anyone has come across such data, I'd be very interested in seeing it.
There is no additional power or priviledge she has ever, or will ever, do less than bend over backwards to grant law enforcement without question or limitation just because they say they need it.

Hey, Senator Feinstein.... "it's called 'fascist'".
+Manish Sinha gun ownership is in the Constitution. Other countries can take gun rights away from their citizens. The United States of America can't. That's the whole point of this discussion. Representatives taking rights away from people that they have no right taking. Gun control is downright unconstitutional. The right to the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Gun control is infringing on those rights. I'm not making this up its the 2nd amendment. Take a look for yourself. 
Gun control is downright unconstitutional. The right to the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
All gun-nuts miss the second part which mentions "well-regulated"
+Manish Sinha in the 18th century the term well regulated meant well trained. However, you guys also disagree with the NRA which happens to be the number one source of gun safety training in the country. When the Constitution mentions a well regulated militia it means a well-trained populous. That's according to the usage of the English language at the time of writing. 
If the second part means something else in 18th century and means something else not and the first part of 2nd amendment also means something else now.

Why did I get in this conversation with this guy! :(
+Manish Sinha you can't ignore facts because they are inconvenience to your argument. Well regulated in 1776 meant well trained. That was the definition of the term in the time. You're the one that used the argument and now you're criticizing me for the definition of it. Really? 
It is you who are ignoring facts and redefining the meaning to suit yourself.

Last time, give your evidence for all the claims   you made. Else you are nothing more than  troll (or conservative, same thing)
Eric R
Feinstein sits on the Senate Intelligence Committee, I believe.  So its not terribly surprising to see her defending something she probably knew about and approved of well in advance.
+Manish Sinha
Oh it is worse than them missing the second part. Forget the second part entirely. They are missing crucial elements found elsewhere entirely, within the constitution.

The Founding Fathers didn't just give us a set of rules to live by. They gave us an entire system of government. One which, among its other duties, is given the job of deciding EXACTLY what the Constitution means. That system has said, for the past 100ish years, that the Second Amendment IS NOT ABSOLUTE! All three branches, for 100 years. That's a pretty clear message from the Constitution.

Our government is not allowed to disarm its people. Our government IS ABSOLUTELY ALLOWED to set terms and limitations who can own firearms, and where they can take them.

Beyond that, I think Feinstein is an idiot. I have read her Bill, and it ABSOLUTELY legislates firearms based solely on cosmetic appearances. I am not universally against firearms regulations, but I am absolutely against stupid firearms legislation.
+Drew Heyen the bill of rights says what the government can't do. It does not say what the people can do. That's the point of a constitutional republic. We don't live in a democracy. We live in a constitutional republic. The government is limited in what they can do based on the bill of rights. Unless you wish to change the constitution the government has no right restricting gun ownership. 
Pr0tip for Fienstein, or anyone really. If you find yourself agreeing w/ something Chambliss says,  question what it is that you are saying.
Collecting everyone's phone call meta data is NOT protecting America.  Taking down a known active hostile terrorist cell is.

As Benjamin Franklin termed it, he who gives up liberty for security deserves neither.  Feinstein can't hold a candle to Benjamin Franklin.

She's defending it because she's a party to it.  Let's hope Californians know enough now to vote her out.
Now watch - all those rednecks who were vehemently defending the second amendment are going to be staring glossy-eyed into the sun while the fourth amendment gets taken away. They need their guns to protect their rights... irony.
+Rich White
1. "Constitutional Republic" and "Democracy" (representative or otherwise) are not mutually exclusive.
2 . The government IS limited to what they can do, based on the Bill of Rights. What seems to be getting missed here, is that two of the things our government is allowed to do are Change the Constitution and Interpret the Constitution. The second the Constitution not only allows, but in fact directs our Government to do.
3. "Unless you wish to change the constitution the government has no right restricting gun ownership. " WRONG! See Above, or better yet, read the WHOLE Constitution, and stop cherry picking scriptures that you think support your argument.
Thank you! As a Democratic Party activist in Oregon, I think she needs to go!
They are "tools of the government, and industry too" to paraphrase FZ
They are reading all our comments now! We must be terrorists!!
Does the NSA to stand for "National Storage Association" now?
We've got Lyndsey Graham (mis)representing these unconstitutional record searches from South Carolina.  I thought these folks took an oath to uphold the constitution??
Sandy P
The last decade or so, it's felt like "protecting America" has become code for "we're reading your e-mail" or "we're taking pictures of your junk."  That's not the Constitution I learned about in school.
Let's not forget that Feinstein was the same person who basically said "Hey John Brennan, our Drone guy, let's ask you rhetorical questions about an American citizen you assassinated and I'll pretend to ask incriminating questions about the guy post-execution and you can respond by saying "I'm can agree with you, but can provide no evidence. because it's classified"

Now that's the American justice system at work. Executive executions of American citizens (let alone non-citizens) without any trial or evidence, and then the Congresses' check on power is saying "Hey, he was a bad guy right? Okay, case closed!" 
This isn't a "blue" or "red" issue. People need to wake up. Our federal government has so far exceeded it's expressed limitations that we can no longer determine what is legal, illegal or just the whim of those in power enforced by fear, intimidation and coercion.

"Unfortunately, you’ve grown up hearing voices that incessantly warn of government as nothing more than some separate, sinister entity that’s at the root of all our problems; some of these same voices also doing their best to gum up the works. They’ll warn that tyranny is always lurking just around the corner. You should reject these voices. Because what they suggest is that our brave and creative and unique experiment in self-rule is somehow just a sham with which we can’t be trusted." ~President Obama, May 5, 2013

"Tyranny is defined as that which is legal for the government but illegal for the citizenry." ~Thomas Jefferson

Just sayin'...
If they do this then they're NOT protecting America, because if this is allowed to happen then it's not America anymore.
+Jim Bouchard
That Obama quote is what I love about him. I'm not a devout follower. He has done things which I dislike, though I can always see legitimacy behind his decisions. Just a legitimacy with which I disagree, occasionally. Every time everyone loses their minds about something he has done, all I had to do was look beyond the hype and rhetoric, at the facts, and I find the human being he has always shown himself to be. There is a consistency.

+Raymond Andrews

You're soaking in it!
+Drew Heyen lol. You see the legitimately of him targeting conservative groups, wiretapping news organizations, and leaving military men to die. Yet Bush is a war criminal right? lol. 
Bush was a fucking moron who should never have been in office. But if you really want to get to the meat of the problem.. well that's the government as a whole. The whole damn thing is so screwed up these days it's not funny.
+Rich White
What I see is you speaking entirely in rhetorical hyperbole. That makes you a giant waste of my time. Just because Fox news makes a claim......repeatedly, does not make that claim true. Using Fox headlines as the basis for your rebuttal just makes me want to block you.

Want to try again, or are we done here?

+Shawn Rouse you are both correct AND incorrect. The problem with our government is that it is performing EXACTLY as intended. Our representatives COULD NOT BE better representatives of their constituents. The problem is that the people of this nation are broken. We don't need to "fix the government". We need to fix the people of this nation.

Critical thinking and education should be our focus. Our number one priority. I suggest taking the "Defence" budget, and swapping it with our national "Education" budget. All problems solved........eventually.
+Kimmo Jaskari That's why we also have a House of Representatives with Rep's distributed according to the population of the state.  Founding fathers thought about what you're saying, but a couple of hundred years ago.
+Zac Carrell
Thank you for providing such an outstanding example of my statement. I explained, in full detail, EXACTLY what I meant, and you completely ignored it.

Here, let me explain it again.

"Representative Democracy" - government where "the people" choose individuals to "represent" them.

"People Of The US" - Greedy, Self centred, reactionary, bigoted, uneducated, fallacious, and prone to emotional breakdown.

"US Government" - Perfect reflection of the people OF the US.

Were those words small enough for you?

You see, the downside to representative democracy is that you end up with EXACTLY the government that you deserve.
+Drew Heyen you can't use that excuse anymore. Even Chris Matthews one of the most radical liberals on TV has had to report on it. So go ahead and block me. It only proves my point. If you have to block people to protect your imaginary view of Obama as a good president then your living in a bubble. There's nothing wrong with that. You have all the right in the world to believe whatever you want. However, anyone who thinks Obama is even an OK president is lying to themselves. There is one person that isn't lying about how great Obama is. That's Carter, because of Obama Carter is no longer the worst present in American history. 
+Rich White
Are you familiar with the term "fallacy"? You should be, you are using them, prolifically.

For example:
"Even Chris Matthews one of the most radical liberals on TV has had to report on it"
Fallacy - appeal to authority, also sort of bandwagoning. You haven't proven anything, you have just stated that someone else believes what you believe, so it must be true. You haven't even provided any evidence of that, you have just stated it outright, as some matter of universally accepted fact.

"If you have to block people to protect your imaginary view of Obama as a good president then your living in a bubble."
Fallacy - Non-sequitur. Me blocking you, is evidence that I have blocked you, and nothing else. In this particular case, my intent to block you has nothing to do with my perspective, but yours. You are the kind of fallacy spouting idiot that will keep swinging, with nothing, and waste my time. IF you were to provide a sound logical statement, which countered my current position, then I would be happy to engage you. So far, it looks bad.

"However, anyone who thinks Obama is even an OK president is lying to themselves."
Fallacy - No True Scotsman. this fallacy modifies the subject of the assertion to exclude the specific case or others like it by rhetoric, without reference to any specific objective rule.

When I block you, it will not be because you oppose my viewpoint. It will be because you have failed to do so in a rational manner.
Also, don't forget that she co-sponsored SOPA
+Rich White
You see, that is EXACTLY what I am talking about. I made a sound, logical, cogent, well stated counter to your post, and your reply to it is "whatever".

I suddenly have flashbacks of Echelon, which seemed to be widely used to get the rich richer (corporate espionage).
As far as I know the dutch government has been spying a lot on their own citizens just because they had a subscription on "de waarheid", a newspaper for the more communistic people.
The word "homeland" always makes me think of  that filler episode of any given sci-fi series, the one where they go to the "fascist" planet.
I'm glad to see we agree on something politically, Wil. That woman would have our guns faster than a rabbit in heat has babies if she had her way. The more I hear about her, the more I would like to see her gone too.

Find a candidate that can beat her in the primaries, and you have a solid shot. Good luck down there.
Lame wil, you of all people should know that purple-ish-blue-ish-red is right color for most occasions....
What California and the USA need is to get rid of the antiquated 2 party and winner takes all system, and become a modern democracy. Quickest way to get rid of all the shitty politicians.
+Manish Sinha Glenn Beck is a crackpot and I couldn't post everything about the issue. I live in a farm county in Maryland and the rain that falls here mostly goes into the water table. Plus, I have a well and septic so I am not contributing to a public waterworks issue, PLUS, the democratic government here will use the majority of the rain tax for the general fund which will NOT do anything for the Chesapeake - it will just go to fund more social programs which I do not agree with. If I could actually believe the Maryland government that the tax would ONLY go to environmental programs for the Bay, I wouldn't have any problems, but the state government is pretty corrupt.
I fear I must beg to differ. California deserves senators who will defend human rights and uphold the good. As yet, "red" politicians tend to have a fairly consistent record against those (as defined in my view), and as such--despite my many issues with the Democratic party--I cannot support the Republicans. In a better world, I would wholly agree with your sentiment in the spirit of fairness, but I fear I must instead err on the side of what I see as the public--and, full disclosure, my own personal--good.
+Dave Rick so the fact that the Democrats enslaved an entire race of Americans doesn't count. How about the fact that the Democrat party fought against civil rights and women's suffrage. That was less then 50 years ago. I guess that doesn't count as human rights. How about the fact that today Democrats support the senseless slaughter of over 3000 baby's a day out of convenience. I guess those baby's don't deserve human rights because they would be a burden on the country right? Hmm, sounds like the philosophy Hitler had. 
+Rich White After that insane slander, I think I'll avoid the rush and ignore you right now.
A little clarification, +Gordon Vincent: +Rich White makes the claim of 3000 babies slaughtered a day. Planned Parenthood refers to them as abortions performed. For a Conservative, the terms are the same.

I think though we have drifted too far off topic. Let's bring the discussion back to the article above.
+Fred Ora I am not sure if you realize..Bush has not been making decisions for 5 years now. It is now Obama's cross too bear. 
+Michael Spear spoken like some one who, true to "conservative" tradition, has absolutely no understanding of "causality".

+Drew Heyen, does ANYONE understand causality anymore? I see the same problems here, but I'd like to present solutions that don't leave the whole of the populous suspect enough for data mining by the government.
You get a little more awesome every day
+Andrew McClellan
Absolutely, though I believe the study of ACTUAL causality has been declared heresy by the various heads of the assorted different "Conservative" affiliations.

"It isn't Bush's" fault any more.", right, exactly like if someone commits murder, while serving as a mayor of a city, is no longer guilty of that murder, once someone else becomes mayor. You have to SHOW causality, you don't just get to declare it, and most importantly "CORRELATION IS NOT CAUSATION!"

Yes, there are a lot of people who understand causality, sadly, none of them seem to be involved in political discussions any more.
+Drew Heyen: I think both of our factions are in agreement that the Patriot Act was the most damaging thing to happen to our liberties since King George III's tyrannical bent against the original colonies. To say it's not Bush's fault anymore is a misnomer. But to also defend Obama's use thereof is insane. Do you agree?
+Andrew McClellan
I refuse to defend anything about which you have neither made a detailed claim, nor supported said claim with any form of credible evidence.

As for damaging things done to our nation, top of my list is our neglect of education. The more educated your people, as a whole, the less you have to worry about anything else.
So run for senator. That is the only reason she still has the seat, she runs unopposed against unknowns if that. If I lived in Ca I would vote for you.
Agreed, Loretta. He'd be a better choice than that unqualified clod that's up there now.

Back to Mr. +Drew Heyen. What more proof do you require than the flagrant disregard for EVERYONE'S privacy by having the NSA spy on us all. It criminalizes the law-abiding as much as the TSA's invasive baloney at airports. I didn't think I would be triggering such an emotional response with such a logical question.
+Andrew McClellan
Well at least you actually made a detailed claim that time. I mean you have still supported the claim with absolutely, positively NO evidence, but baby steps, right? Am I expected to make the same assumptions from your statement, as you did when those statements were made to you?

Oh I definitely stand by my statement about education needing to be a priority. So, what emotional response, and what logical statement? I see neither. Do you? What I see is an appeal to emotion fallacy, right here "I didn't think I would be triggering such an emotional response with such a logical question.". Of course, as I'm sure you know, fallacies aren't logical, which makes that statement quite ironic.

+Veronica Wilkens What, exactly, do you think a filed class action lawsuit proves, and why?
Feinstein just needs to retire. She supported term limits for California Federal Representatives and Senators that she made sure she was exempted from (because she was already in office). That, and the fact that she has very little knowledge of how guns actually work.
Will Her opponent be any different?
Damn, even libs hate this evil woman! She needs to be removed from the senate, its your state, get it done
She needs to stop running so democrats can at least elect someone that better reflects their positions.
But shit still b stinky from this lady...seems these days all politcos are not trustable(sic).maybe we in trouble soon....
Government always pled's 'security' whatever it does. 
Add a comment...