stats for wordpress
 







Are you on Facebook?

Would you please click "like" in the box to your right, or

Visit us on Facebook!


Diane Feinstein: Assault Gun Ban Will Be Introduced On First Day Of Congress

by David Badash on December 16, 2012

in Guns,News

Post image for Diane Feinstein: Assault Gun Ban Will Be Introduced On First Day Of Congress


Democratic U.S. Senator Diane Feinstein says she will introduce an assault guns ban bill into the Senate on the first day Congress returns, and a similar bill will be introduced into the House. Some gun control advocates believe the tragedy in Newtown, Connecticut, where 20 elementary school children and six adults were murdered with a semi-automatic rifle, may be the tipping point to allow responsible gun control legislation to pass.

“I’m going to introduce in the Senate, and the same bill will be introduced in the House — a bill to ban assault weapons,” Feinstein told NBC’s David Gregory on “Meet the Press” this morning.

“It will ban the sale, the transfer, the importation and the possession — not retroactively, but prospectively — and it will ban the same for big clips, guns, or strips, of more than ten bullets,” Feinstein said. “The purpose of this bill is to get just what Mayor Bloomberg said, weapons of war off the streets.”

NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg has been advocating for gun control laws and came down hard on President Obama for not taking action.

Feinstein added she has been working on the bill, which exempts “over 900 specific weapons,” for a year.

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

Friends:

We invite you to sign up for our new mailing list, and subscribe to The New Civil Rights Movement via email or RSS.

Also, please like us on Facebook, and follow us on Twitter!

{ 8 comments }

James_M_Martin December 16, 2012 at 8:49 pm

Even if it passes, the NRA will fund a constitutional challenge and we will watch Scalia squirm trying to make Jefferson's time applicable to today, vis-a-vis gun ownership to maintain a militia. There won't be anyone to serve in a militia the way things are going. I don't think they had assault rifles with them when Washington crossed the Delaware River.

dlh0 December 16, 2012 at 11:18 pm

Well, actually they did. They were armed similar to any other military of the time, even those armed with personal rifles. Additionally, the average American Minuteman at the beginning of the Revolutionary War was armed with a rifle equal to, or more accurate than, those carried by the British. So yes, George's boys Were armed with assault weapons of the period. So what is your point? That they didn't have modern weapons by today's standards? Of course not! But they did by the standards of their day.

James_M_Martin December 17, 2012 at 8:57 am

You dumb shit, my point was that the founders could not foresee AK-47's and probably would have limited their injunction to small arms, pistols and rifles.

TheZeej December 17, 2012 at 1:16 pm

Nice debate technique. I don't know if dlho is a moron or not, but you have provided the evidence that you certainly are one.

2ndamendment123 December 31, 2012 at 3:35 pm

Funny, I feel that way about you.

TheZeej December 17, 2012 at 1:19 pm

What Founder's injunction are you referring to? I can't locate any such injunction in the 2nd Amendment, or anywhere else in the Bill of Rights.

dlh0 December 17, 2012 at 10:21 pm

Your communicative skills aside, MY point was that perceived levels of firepower have little to do with the founding fathers views of an armed populace. I've heard your view on the subject from others who also enjoy comparing apples to oranges. It was desired at the time that the militia, or civil populace, be armed in a manner comparable to the body of government they may one day have to fight for their freedom if tyranny were to ever again become the law of the land. Musket to musket was quid pro quo then. Today, a semi automatic version of a true "assault rifle", as carried by the American military, is not an unreasonable arm to possess, given the views on the subject by the drafters of the Constitution. Carrying those two ideas forward, I'm sure the founding fathers would be dumbfounded by today's technology, but I believe their reasoning behind an armed populace would stand undeterred, for the goal remains the same. We have greatly regulated the ownership of heavy weapons, but the rifle is still a mainstay in safeguarding individual and joint freedom. Our problem is not the tool, it is our unwillingness as a society to address the real problem of social decay. Further, politically it isn't about safety….it's about control, but that's another subject. And by the way, an AK47 IS considered, "small arms", by definition, as is an AR15, M1 Garand and most other rifles and handguns. A wise man quits digging before he gets in over his head… drop the shovel and climb out of the hole…….oh, and quit drinking the cool aid.

craigmotyka December 16, 2012 at 11:20 pm

These mass shootings don't happen where the average citizen can legally carry a weapon the answer to mass shootings are not gun bans and gun control, the answer is arming yourself and not relying on police to keep you safe when it happens. We shouldn't fear the gun we must embrace it, our modern way of life was shaped by the gun. The gun is the only thing that keeps you free from oppression and serfdom. With guns we are citizens, without guns we are subjects

Comments on this entry are closed.

{ 1 trackback }

Previous post:

Next post: