You're correct on your response to Feinstein that it's none of her business, but her points are so bad I just felt the need to expand.

"You can't use it for hunting"

Ummm, yeah you can. The caliber is sufficient for hunting many animals. If it "can't" be used to even kill an animal then why would you ban something so harmless? Perhaps Feinstein doesn't understand the definition of can/can't. Also, many of my personal friends (primarily ex military) prefer to use what she's referring to as an "assault rifle" because it has the feel they're accustomed to (not because it does any more damage than my 30-06).

"You don't need it for defense"

First off, it's a bill of rights not a bill of needs. I don't need to do a lot of things. Not even sure how that's an argument at all. I don't need a marshmallow for defense should those be illegal? If the implication is that these weapons are insufficient for defense, then I would refer to the same logic above, they must be harmless if they aren't even sufficient for protection. If the implication is that they're too effective for defense... I would question why we care how effective I am at protecting my family.

"What do you really need it for?"

I really like your response for this one! Heck, even if I want to use it as a paperweight or if I want to remove the firing pin and use it as a wall decoration that's my own business. I don't see any evidence that Dianne needs her 1st amendment right to free speech with the garbage she's spewing but I recognize that I can't take that right away from her and would never try!