Which will go nowhere, but, will give the anti-gunnites a chance to bloviate
(USA Today) California Democrat Dianne Feinstein will begin her fourth full term as a U.S. senator much as she started her Senate career: fighting for a ban on assault weapons.
Feinstein’s new bill, which will be introduced Thursday in the Senate, among other things proposes to:
- Ban the sale, transfer, importation or manufacturing of about 150 named firearms, plus certain rifles, handguns and shotguns fitted for detachable magazines and having at least one military characteristic.
- Strengthen the 1994 ban by moving from a two- to a one-characteristic test to determine what constitutes an assault weapon.
- Ban firearms with “thumbhole stocks” and “bullet buttons.”
- Ban the importation of assault weapons and large-capacity magazines.
- Ban high-capacity ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 rounds.
The bill would grandfather in weapons legally owned on the day of enactment and exempts over 900 specific weapons “used for hunting or sporting purposes.”
We’ve discussed this previously, and what DiFi’s bill would do would be to outlaw virtually every mean looking gun with a pistol grip, most which are used for “hunting or sporting purposes”, but will leave the exact same weapons, sans pistol grip, legal.
“I became mayor as a product of assassination,” she told USA TODAY.
While county supervisor and mayor, Feinstein said, she saw “up-close and personal the death and destruction that these guns carry with them.”
“I have watched these incidents from 1966, which was the first one, the Texas bell tower, and watched it go through school after school, business after business, law firm after law firm,” she said. In 1966, former Marine Charles Whitman killed 14 people and wounded 32 others while shooting from atop the tower on the University of Texas campus in Austin.
But it was a mass shooting at a law firm in a San Francisco high-rise in 1993 that began her long push against the availability of assault weapons; the first version became law in 1994 and expired in 2004.
I have news for you, DiFi: Whitman used guns that would be exempt from your ban. Regarding the assassination of Harvey Milk which let you become mayor, Dan White used a .38 caliber revolver and brought 10 extra rounds. Your legislation would make no difference. As for the 1993 shooting, Gian Luigi Ferri was clearly nuts. But, facts are not necessary when a Democrat is trying to make an end run around the 2nd Amendment and disarm the public.
Crossed at Right Wing News and Stop The ACLU.
Guns kill 30,000 Americans each year, about half of which are suicides. 4000 vets kill themselves with guns each year.
Guns are used in defense and protection at least 1.8 million times a year.
But since you always demand things of others that you will not do, when is the last time you volunteered on a suicide line? Helped a vets orgaization? Donated money to mental health causes?
Yep. Didn’t think so.
Now, if we could just restrict those deaths to Democrats.
But wait, they already are. Even Democrats despise Democrats.
@ John
GAWD! I wish you liberals would quit using that phony statistic!
A very high portion of those deaths are considered to be justifiable homicide…as in shooting and killing criminals. And due to right to carry laws. Most are never even prosecuted in court because the defender was protecting himself, or a loved one, from a deadly threat.
You also need to quit listening to Nanny Bloomberg’s talking points….it really makes you quite stoopid!
Um, what do others call you, Tim? Just curious.
I do so wish the Republicans would come out in force against this anti-constitutional attack. They need to demand to know how this can be allowed. We need someone to hold up a placard with some guns and rifles on it and have these anti-gun nazis point to the specific gun they want to ban and tell why.
If they can’t point to the gun based on their own ban, then the gun is allowed. If they don’t know what they are banning, then it shouldn’t be banned.
To ban based on looks and utility, is ludicrous. And a travesty of inalienable laws.
Republicans better get hard and angry about this. Or this will be their last election.
If we even consider to allow this to be debated, then the only way it can go forward is if a ban on all violent acts of any kind in movie and tv shows should be enacted.
Sorry, but here is another thought.
If the desire is to DO ANYTHING TO SAVE ONE CHILD, then we need to stop with this stupid delayed gun ban pushed by DiFi. If her point is to slowly drain the massive american market of these evil guns that shoot slugs of evil, then why wait 100-150 years? Or longer? Why not ban them now? Why not say, “yes, you can have your guns, but ammo will now only be nerf darts.”
If the INTENT is to save children’s lives, then why do something that won’t, will not have, and will never stop lunatics from getting their hands on devices that can shoot slugs of metal?
And, again, since when is 10 considered HI-CAPACITY?!!? or 7? If the intent is to prevent mass shootings, then make all guns single shot. They made a huge stink over how many bullets does it take to kill a deer, then why did they come out with a bill that allows 10 bullets?
Isn’t 10 children one too many?