Washington - Leading Democrat Has Assurance Assault Weapon Ban Will Get A Vote |
|
| |
Text Size
|
|
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif. speaks during a news conference on Capitol Hill in Washington, Thursday, Jan. 24, 2013, to introduce legislation on assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition feeding devices. (AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta)Washington - The senator leading the charge to revive a assault weapons ban conceded on Sunday, just days before hearings on gun control open, that winning Senate passage will be tough but said she has been assured she will have the chance to bring it up for a vote.
President Barack Obama, who has made gun control a top priority after 20 children and six adults were killed by a gunman on December 14 at a Connecticut school, said in remarks published on Sunday that gun control advocates should take into account the views of rural Americans who use guns for hunting.
“Part of being able to move this forward is understanding the reality of guns in urban areas are very different from the realities of guns in rural areas,” Obama told The New Republic magazine as he continued his administration’s outreach to gun owners even as he seeks new gun restrictions.
Senator Dianne Feinstein said Majority Leader Harry Reid has promised that even if the assault weapons ban is left out of a broader package intended to curb gun violence, she will have the opportunity to offer it as an amendment on the Senate floor.
Feinstein introduced legislation last Thursday to ban military-style assault weapons like the one used by the gunman in last month’s school shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, and high-capacity ammunition clips.
“This has always been an uphill fight. This has never been easy. This is the hardest of the hard,” Feinstein, a California Democrat, said on CNN’s “State of the Union” program.
“Now, will it (gun violence legislation) only be assault weapons? No, most likely. There will be a package put together. If assault weapons is left out of the package ... I’ve been assured by the majority leader I’ll be able to do it as an amendment on the (Senate) floor, which is the way I did it in 1993,” Feinstein added.
Feinstein was referring to the previous U.S. assault weapon ban that she authored. That law expired in 2004 after 10 years in effect and Congress refused to extend it.
No major gun control legislation has made it through Congress in two decades in the face of opposition from the National Rifle Association and its gun rights allies.
Republicans generally oppose gun restrictions and many Democrats, particularly those representing rural areas, also support gun rights. Reid has been a long-time backer of gun rights.
Asked if she concedes that getting the Senate to pass a new assault weapons ban would be tough, Feinstein said, “I concede because the NRA is venal. They come after you. They put together large amounts of money to defeat you. They did this in ‘93 and they intend to continue it.”
Wayne LaPierre, chief executive officer and executive vice president of the Virginia-based NRA, is among the witnesses scheduled to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee at a hearing on Wednesday on reducing gun violence.
RURAL VIEWS ON GUNS
Obama, in the magazine interview, said bridging a cultural divide in attitudes to gun ownership will be critical to his administration’s push to curb gun violence.
“If you grew up and your dad gave you a hunting rifle when you were 10, and you went out and spent the day with him and your uncles, and that became part of your family’s traditions, you can see why you’d be pretty protective of that,” Obama said.
Obama wants the ban on military-style assault weapons, a proposal that faces a tough battle in Congress, as well as mandatory background checks for all gun buyers, a step viewed as having a better chance of success.
The United States has a long-standing gun culture and the U.S. Constitution guarantees the right to bear arms.
Vice President Joe Biden on Friday took the administration’s case for gun control to the gun-friendly state of Virginia, part of a White House strategy to urge the public to pressure Congress into passing laws aimed at curbing firearms violence.
Feinstein’s legislation would prohibits the sale, manufacture, transfer and importation of 157 military-style assault weapons. It would ban an additional group of assault weapons that can accept a detachable ammunition magazine and have one or more military characteristics.
It also would ban large-capacity magazines and other ammunition feeding devices that hold more than 10 rounds and shooters to fire numerous rounds in rapid succession without reloading.
More of today's headlines
“London - The Sunday Times marked Holocaust Memorial Day in a less-than-traditional manner, running a virulently anti-Israel cartoon depicting a big-nosed Prime Minister...”
London - 'Sunday Times' Mocks Holocaust With Israel Cartoon
Baltimore - NYC Mayor Tops $1B In Gifts To Johns Hopkins Univ.
Total18
Read Comments (18) — Post Yours »
1
Jan 27, 2013 at 01:26 PM Texas_Eli Says:Report as Inappropriate
The reason these idiots bring up hunting every time they try to restrict firearms is they think most gun owners hunt. They don't. Most gun owners today have never hunted, it's 2013 not 1913. Most gun owners are at most target or recreational shooters, and hundreds of thousands of mis-called 'assault weapons' are being bought by first-time gun owners that are simply afraid of this government!
The second amendment isn't about hunting, it's about defense from the government!
2
Jan 27, 2013 at 02:49 PM InsideOne Says:Report as Inappropriate
A vote is good. Then, if it doesn't pass, we can publicize the names of every NRA-pandering lawmaker that voted it down, alongside images of the carnage at Sandy Hook, Aurora, etc...NRA tactics for the people who care more about children than gun makers profits.
3
Jan 27, 2013 at 02:52 PM Anonymous Says:Report as Inappropriate
“ The reason these idiots bring up hunting every time they try to restrict firearms is they think most gun owners hunt. They don't. Most gun owners today have never hunted, it's 2013 not 1913. Most gun owners are at most target or recreational shooters, and hundreds of thousands of mis-called 'assault weapons' are being bought by first-time gun owners that are simply afraid of this government!
The second amendment isn't about hunting, it's about defense from the government! ”
If you're so afraid of our government, why not press your representatives to cut military spending? That way those evil government forces won't have the weaponry to hunt you down, and you won't have to spend your hard-earned money on weak-kneed AR-15s that wouldn't stand a chance against their superior weaponry in any case.
4
Jan 27, 2013 at 03:03 PM bewhiskered Says:Report as Inappropriate
"The second amendment isn't about hunting, it's about defense from the government!"
What a surprise! It's the old NRA line again about defending against our government next time it goes tyrannical (מארגען נאך דעם קיגעל). So, you're going to make a stand against stealth bombers and nuclear weapons with your AR15- right Gomer? More likely, you'd soil your 'gatkes' at the first encounter! The only reason you gun psychos want your weapons, is to compensate for your erectile dysfunction with something that actually shoots!
5
Jan 27, 2013 at 03:31 PM pbalaw Says:Report as Inappropriate
“ The reason these idiots bring up hunting every time they try to restrict firearms is they think most gun owners hunt. They don't. Most gun owners today have never hunted, it's 2013 not 1913. Most gun owners are at most target or recreational shooters, and hundreds of thousands of mis-called 'assault weapons' are being bought by first-time gun owners that are simply afraid of this government!
The second amendment isn't about hunting, it's about defense from the government! ”
I agree with u Eli, except make no mistake that they don't keep saying hunting bec they are use idiots, (like the other posters ) the reason they keep saying hunting is ti make it easier to change the law... Once everyone thinks its just for hunting its not a big deal to then say oh this gun is not needed for hunting and why do many in a clip etc...
6
Jan 27, 2013 at 04:52 PM JCSHOULSON Says:Report as Inappropriate
The murderer in Newtown used handguns. He left the "assault" rifle in the car. We were lied to!
7
Jan 27, 2013 at 06:00 PM Kzler Says:Report as Inappropriate
“ The reason these idiots bring up hunting every time they try to restrict firearms is they think most gun owners hunt. They don't. Most gun owners today have never hunted, it's 2013 not 1913. Most gun owners are at most target or recreational shooters, and hundreds of thousands of mis-called 'assault weapons' are being bought by first-time gun owners that are simply afraid of this government!
The second amendment isn't about hunting, it's about defense from the government! ”
You are in good company the antisemitic militias, John Birch Society and gun nuts make good company. This government inherited a Dow Jones of 7,000 which is now 14,000 and all the fat cats made a pile of money. In 2007 GE sold for $ 9.00 and now the values is $ 23.00. Need psychiatric care??
8
Jan 27, 2013 at 06:59 PM Benny Says:Report as Inappropriate
She looks like she is ready for nursing home a long time ago
9
Jan 27, 2013 at 08:50 PM awacs Says:Report as Inappropriate
Meanwhile, DHS is buying 7,000 assault weapons (except that they're even better: they can shift to full auto if the citizens get too uppity). Google "dhs buying 7000 assault weapons" for the full story.
Moral: do as I say, not as I do.
10
Jan 28, 2013 at 02:49 AM Texas_Eli Says:Report as Inappropriate
“ "The second amendment isn't about hunting, it's about defense from the government!"
What a surprise! It's the old NRA line again about defending against our government next time it goes tyrannical (מארגען נאך דעם קיגעל). So, you're going to make a stand against stealth bombers and nuclear weapons with your AR15- right Gomer? More likely, you'd soil your 'gatkes' at the first encounter! The only reason you gun psychos want your weapons, is to compensate for your erectile dysfunction with something that actually shoots! ”
I assure you, I am a fully functional male.
Bombers and nukes aren't used to oppress people, they're used to annihilate countries.
I don't own an AR-15, and I don't intend to, because I consider them under-powered and I do not like the direct impingement gas system they use.
And, as awacs mentioned, your government is buying up thousands of machine guns and millions of rounds of hollow-point ammunition - prohibited for military use - for agencies like the Social Security Administration. What do you think they're up to?
11
Jan 28, 2013 at 09:10 AM bewhiskered Says:Report as Inappropriate
"And, as awacs mentioned, your government is buying up thousands of machine guns....."
My government? So, you are not an American? And, now the Social Securities Administration is the enemy? We'd all better watch out for those deadly office clerks, who are loaded up with "thousands of machine guns and millions of rounds of hollow-point ammunition," who are coming to get us! These absurd psychotic paranoid conspiracy theories of yours wouldn't have anything to do with an African American President in the White House, who is planning on sending his black helicopters out to take over the country, would they, Clem? The only real danger to the rest of us, is that deranged people such as yourself are permitted access to firearms!
12
Jan 28, 2013 at 09:33 AM Anonymous Says:Report as Inappropriate
“ I assure you, I am a fully functional male.
Bombers and nukes aren't used to oppress people, they're used to annihilate countries.
I don't own an AR-15, and I don't intend to, because I consider them under-powered and I do not like the direct impingement gas system they use.
And, as awacs mentioned, your government is buying up thousands of machine guns and millions of rounds of hollow-point ammunition - prohibited for military use - for agencies like the Social Security Administration. What do you think they're up to? ”
The reactionary, hyperventilating left has nothing to say other then backwards hyperbole and threats.
They have fully convinced themselves that any position any of them take as an individual, is sentiment shared by all but a few "nut jobs".
Childish performances jokes is all they have to go by, as they seem to fail to comprehend the difference between an army armed with AR's and a populace armed with same.
13
Jan 28, 2013 at 10:07 AM bewhiskered Says:Report as Inappropriate
“ The reactionary, hyperventilating left has nothing to say other then backwards hyperbole and threats.
They have fully convinced themselves that any position any of them take as an individual, is sentiment shared by all but a few "nut jobs".
Childish performances jokes is all they have to go by, as they seem to fail to comprehend the difference between an army armed with AR's and a populace armed with same. ”
"Childish performances jokes is all they have to go by, as they seem to fail to comprehend the difference between an army armed with AR's and a populace armed with same."
So, you're going to take on the United States Military, are you? Tell me, does the term delusional have any special significance for you?
14
Jan 28, 2013 at 10:40 AM MidwesternGuy Says:Report as Inappropriate
“ The reactionary, hyperventilating left has nothing to say other then backwards hyperbole and threats.
They have fully convinced themselves that any position any of them take as an individual, is sentiment shared by all but a few "nut jobs".
Childish performances jokes is all they have to go by, as they seem to fail to comprehend the difference between an army armed with AR's and a populace armed with same. ”
I would add that they're not familiar with the concept that no matter how well-armed a governmental force may be, that armed individuals are able to make an enormous difference.
For example, it is unrealistic to fight the whole army, but it is very realistic to take out a couple of soldiers, even as a final act. Multiplied on a large scale, it's enough for an occupying force to move on after having declared "victory".
Just look at what happened to the US in Viet Nam. They used overwhelming force but were still defeated by dedicated individuals. Such ideas are foreign to the left because they cannot view the State as an adversary.
Is it so hard to believe that the State could one day potentially seek to harm us? Ask the Japanese who were sent to internment camps, if you want an example closer to home. But, as you say, all they have is foul humor and childish references.
15
Jan 28, 2013 at 11:44 AM Texas_Eli Says:Report as Inappropriate
“ "And, as awacs mentioned, your government is buying up thousands of machine guns....."
My government? So, you are not an American? And, now the Social Securities Administration is the enemy? We'd all better watch out for those deadly office clerks, who are loaded up with "thousands of machine guns and millions of rounds of hollow-point ammunition," who are coming to get us! These absurd psychotic paranoid conspiracy theories of yours wouldn't have anything to do with an African American President in the White House, who is planning on sending his black helicopters out to take over the country, would they, Clem? The only real danger to the rest of us, is that deranged people such as yourself are permitted access to firearms! ”
The government that you obviously endorse. I do not.
What possible reason could the SSA have for buying machine guns? The EPA?
And I don't have a problem with the Halfrican for being half-Black (or 1/4-Black and 1/4-Arab), I have a problem with leftist psychopaths that are seeking to enslave America through debt and disarmament!
16
Jan 28, 2013 at 04:16 PM Kzler Says:Report as Inappropriate
“ I assure you, I am a fully functional male.
Bombers and nukes aren't used to oppress people, they're used to annihilate countries.
I don't own an AR-15, and I don't intend to, because I consider them under-powered and I do not like the direct impingement gas system they use.
And, as awacs mentioned, your government is buying up thousands of machine guns and millions of rounds of hollow-point ammunition - prohibited for military use - for agencies like the Social Security Administration. What do you think they're up to? ”
I worked for 40 years for SSA and weapons are forbidden on its premises. Do you have proof of you allegation . Why don't you give proof.
17
Jan 28, 2013 at 08:17 PM Texas_Eli Says:Report as Inappropriate
Google "social security administration 174000 rounds" WHY?
18
Jan 29, 2013 at 07:04 AM bewhiskered Says:Report as Inappropriate
“ I worked for 40 years for SSA and weapons are forbidden on its premises. Do you have proof of you allegation . Why don't you give proof. ”
"Why don't you give proof?"
This insanity comes from the lunatic paranoid conspiracy websites like Infowars and the Daily Caller. Infowars stupidly claims that "the Social Security Administration is purchasing the bullets as part of preparations for civil unrest." The morons at the Daily Caller state, "The bullets must be for use against American citizens!"
The reality however, is that "The bullets are for Social Security's office of inspector general, which has about 295 agents who investigate Social Security fraud and other crimes," said Jonathan L. Lasher, the agency's assistant IG for external relations.
"The agents carry guns and make arrests — 589 last year," Lasher said. "They execute search warrants and respond to threats against Social Security offices, employees and customers."
But, of course, the crazy, gun psycho, world of conspiracy mental deficients believe anything they are told by these fear mongers. The real problem is not the bullets that the SSA requires for their agents who investigate crimes, but rather, that insane lunatics like those posting above are permitted firearms and annumition. So much for proof!