Why does dianne feinstein hate guns

Feinstein said that one of her proudest moments was handing a cross made of melted-down firearms, including her own revolver, obtained through a San Francisco gun buyback program to Pope John Paul II while on a trip to Rome in the early s. Feinstein later authored the since-expired federal assault weapons ban signed into law by President Bill Clinton in As the chief sponsor of a proposed ban on many semi-automatic weapons, she was unable to guarantee the 60 votes necessary to overcome a Republican filibuster.

Reid has promised the provision will later be submitted as an amendment to a gun control package, to be voted on separately. Feinstein blamed much of the reticence of lawmakers to come out in favor of gun control squarely on the outsize influence of the National Rife Association.

Feinstein has pushed to renew the assault-weapons ban ever since it expired in , but the murder of 20 children and six adults last month at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, Conn.

The issue has made her a frequent opponent of the National Rifle Association, a group she says goes "out of their way to develop hate toward anyone that does have a different view than they. This year's effort will be as hard, if not harder, than the last time the bill became law, particularly because Republicans control the House.

She never used the gun, she said, and eventually had it melted down with other weapons and forged into a cross to give to Pope John Paul II as a gift. Greg Dalton: It's in the House to try to get the federal government to sort of pledge in advance. Dianne Feinstein: Yeah. Dianne Feinstein: Well, that's right, and it shouldn't be that way. I mean we have to do that. Now, you know, I know there's debt.

I know there's deficit. But you can't let people have their homes wiped away and everything they own destroyed and not provide some help. I mean what do we have a government for? Greg Dalton: There's a possibility that states and cities won't do some things to protect against sea level rise and extreme weather if they think the feds will come to their aid.

Dianne Feinstein: Oh, you have to do this anyway because the climate has already warmed at least one degree over a hundred years. And, you know, people I think don't really understand. They think we can't destroy it, that it's here to stay and it's always been this way. It's not so. You know, some plus million years ago, there's geologic evidence to say that maybe there was only one land mass on earth and it all split apart. I don't know whether that's true or false.

I've read a lot of science on that subject. But ever since the Industrial Revolution, when we began to pump carbon dioxide through fuel into the atmosphere -- the atmosphere is very limited.

It's maybe seven miles up and that's it. And it's like a shell. And so every bit of this that's pumped into the atmosphere stays. It doesn't dissipate. So as we fill the atmosphere with pollutants -- methane, carbon dioxide, other things, what happens is it warms the earth and it begins with animal habitat disappears. It begins with the ocean beginning to rise.

It begins with more violent hurricanes, tornadoes, funnel clouds in the Pacific, where in my youth, they never used to be. They are now on occasion. And lightning strikes. I remember one June where there were a thousand lightning strikes that started hundreds of small fires in California. When it rains, the drops are bigger. Drought is more prevalent. So I think, actually, what's going to be the ultimate changer is weather. People see weather. They see hurricanes. They see the devastation.

And so I think eventually, people are going to come around to support restrictions on carbon dioxide. Maybe a fee on the use of carbon that goes in to replace or replace our deficit or debt. So it accomplishes something. Greg Dalton: Is there much support for that incentive? Dianne Feinstein: I wouldn't say there's much. I would say this: people are coming to realize now and we have a little caucus that meets and discusses.

We've had, I think, three global warming bills up. They didn't get -- I think they got 36 or so votes. But everything is getting worse. The weather is getting worse and the climate change is getting worse. And actually since , good energy has doubled. That's the good thing that, you know, electric cars are being more prevalent. Hybrids are being more prevalent. People are saving money. So, good things are happening. The question is can we really bite the bullet and make the decision that we're going to save the planet.

Because if it warms, and I heard your opening spot, four to seven degrees, it's too late. If we can confine this warming to one to two degrees, then there's big change, but it's handleable and that's where we should strive to go.

China, in particular, has a terrible, terrible problem. Deaths are now up from pollution. People are wearing masks virtually all winter long in Shanghai and Beijing. Greg Dalton: There have some recent reports putting price tags on all of that, the price of the health, loss of life, et cetera.

And President Obama in his inaugural address and his State of the Union pledged stronger action on climate. Do you think he is doing enough?

Specifically, what should he do? Dianne Feinstein: Well, you know, here's the -- the president has so many things and everybody says, "Do you think he's doing enough on this or that or the other thing? The EPA now has the ability to move ahead. So it's very important that the EPA director be strong and be willing to take the action that's necessary to help us all save this planet.

Dianne Feinstein: It's a good question. Everything is questioned these days. I mean it's the first time I have ever seen a president go through years of his presidency without being able to confirm members of his own Cabinet. Greg Dalton: And the judiciary? Dianne Feinstein: And the judiciary.

Well, the judiciary is a sort of place apart, but for the executive branch to work, having your Cabinet in place, I mean, is a no brainer. And, you know, everybody says, "Well, elections matter. Whoever is president has to be able to govern, and the way you govern is through your executives, which are your Cabinet secretaries. Greg Dalton: Do you think that the U. Dianne Feinstein: I have just been reading a National Geographic article on tar sands.

And everything that I saw from that article is bad. Now, tar sands This tar sand project is up in Alberta. I'm told that the area is bigger than the state of Florida. I'm told that there -- it's a forested area, which they mow down and then begin to dig these huge, giant lakes that they pour chemicals in to produce this form of tar sands oil.

The earth is defaced forever. Now, we have to make up our mind. Do we want to deface large portions of our earth forever? I don't think so. Because we're making progress on clean energy, and that ought to be where we go. As some people say, "Well, you know, if the pipeline isn't built north to south through the center of our country, they're only going to do it east to west and send it to China.

I have it at home and I can give it to my staff. And if anyone would like to call Sean Elsbernd at our San Francisco office, he'll make the article available to you. Right, Sean? Greg Dalton: Surely some very vivid photos.

Another area of potential large oil development is here in California, the Monterey Shale, a new fracking technology making accessible -- about 15 billion barrels of oil, which is equal to half the amount originally in the north slope of Alaska.

Should that be developed and should California tax that? California is the only state that doesn't tax oil extraction. Dianne Feinstein: Well, I sure think we ought to tax it because I don't think candidly that it's all that necessary. There will be no oil drilling off the coast of California if Senator Boxer and I prevail, and we have so far. And the House delegation And the House delegation as well. The people of our state voted and we voted against offshore oil drilling.

And I believe we ought to keep that vote. But my emphasis would be on clean energy. I would -- you know, the wind farms, the solar facilities, and there's so much research going on different forms of fuel. I mean I'm amazed of what they think they can make fuel out of these days. So, you know, I say, "That's just great.

Let's do it. A number of questions from the audience today including, "Do you drive an electric car? It's outside. It's in the basement here. Dianne Feinstein: Actually, I sat on one out of the Fremont plant, kind of dented the fender a little bit. No, not really. Greg Dalton: Another question from the audience, "When is the government going to get serious about ending obsolete subsidies to well-established industries like oil and gas agri-business?

They can take care of themselves now. They're big boys. Greg Dalton: And subsidies, how about other subsidies? Dianne Feinstein: Well, I think the day has come for subsidies to go for industries other than start-ups like some of the clean energies. Greg Dalton: Solar? So there's going to be cut after cut after cut.

And they're big cuts. So I think we need to look at tax reform. I think we need to look at all of these deductions and remove a lot of them. And I think we also need to look at our entitlement programs. Let me sort of give you an idea of what's happened over the last 10 years.

What I'm going to tell you is put together by the staff of the Senate Appropriations Committee. Over the last 10 years, our population has gone up by nine percent. Defense spending has gone up 74 percent.

Remember now, this is on the debt by and large. Because both Afghanistan and Iraq were funded for the first time in history on the debt. Entitlement spending has gone up 32 percent. And revenues have dropped by 18 percent.

Taxes are lower than they -- the lowest they've ever been since , when they're very high. Greg Dalton: So, maybe the sequester is not that bad?

Dianne Feinstein: So we lost revenue and increased debt to pay for wars and to pay some on entitlements. So I think the solution is there are things we can do on entitlements that are outside of the year window that likely won't affect many people who are now on these programs that can see that social security for the long term is viable.

That's most important. Increasingly, people don't have retirements or pensions from their companies. They come to depend on social security and that must be there for them. Medicare, another one. I'll tell you one thing. The federal government does not competitively bid Medicare products, if you can believe it. That makes no sense. If we just did what the military does in competitive bidding, we'd save a great deal of money.

So it's possible to make some changes that really aren't going to impact people out there using these programs right now. When I agree that, you know, unemployment is high, the time is still tough. Homes are still underwater. As a matter of fact, 25 percent of our homes in California are underwater. So I think we could look at a much more complete package and have substantial bipartisan support for it. Greg Dalton: Another question from the audience, "How do we eliminate the conflict of interest that campaign finance creates?

Super PACs Dianne Feinstein: Oh, oh. Greg Dalton: --that maybe one thing that Dianne Feinstein: Oh, oh, yes. Greg Dalton: -- certainly has changed the game. And so -- there isn't a solution yet to the Supreme Court decision.

I think it's the most unfortunate decision. And I think that's a good thing. I'm also glad I can look forward to six years without having to raise money, so…. Greg Dalton: A number of questions about guns. People pointing out that a lot of Americans support background checks according to the polls and yet that seems to be a very difficult -- very difficult prospect.

So explain the disconnect between the polls and the votes on a background check. Dianne Feinstein: Oh, well, it's called to a great extent the National Rifle Association that really can go out and spend large amounts of money defeating members of the House and some senators, particularly in the smaller states.

And they do it. And after the bill that I authored in , Jack Brooks, who was Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, was defeated, the Speaker of the House, Tom Foley, who let the bill come to the floor and the House, was defeated. So they exerted their muscle and now they are funded reportedly to a substantial extent by gun manufacturers.

It failed to explode. The group also shot out windows at her vacation home. Feinstein carried the gun in a snapped leather holster in her purse until one day she wondered how quickly she could access it if she needed it. In , she presented Pope John Paul II with a inch-tall gunmetal blue cross at the Vatican that was created from 15 melted-down firearms, including her own, that were turned in during a gun buyback program in San Francisco.

That same year, Feinstein signed a local gun-control ordinance that banned most residents from owning pistols, leading a different fringe group to try to oust her from the mayorship in a recall. I was hurt by it. The ordinance was later invalidated by the courts, but Feinstein retained her job in the recall election. The following years were rife with gun violence, including in California.

A school shooting in Stockton led the state to become the first in the nation to ban military-style assault weapons. In , a gunman killed eight people at a San Francisco law firm, leading Feinstein to write the federal assault weapons ban that was signed into law the following year. It was a landmark piece of legislation, though critics argue that provisions included to ease its passage — notably the grandfathering of 1.

When Congress allowed the law to expire in , part of the debate centered on its effectiveness. Feinstein has attempted to reenact the assault weapons ban, including in the aftermath of the attempted assassination of then-Rep.

It got even more personal for Feinstein last year when a gunman opened fire at the Route 91 Harvest country music festival in Las Vegas.