Senator Dianne Feinstein To Introduce New Assault Weapon Legislation In Wake Of School Shooting

[Auburn85 434]

http://sanfrancisco....chool-shooting/

SAN FRANCISCO (CBS/AP) — Democrats say meaningful action in the wake of last week’s elementary school shooting must include a ban on military-style assault weapons and a look at how the nation deals with individuals suffering from serious mental illness.

Several Democratic lawmakers and Independent Sen. Joe Lieberman said Sunday that it was time to take a deeper look into the recent spate of mass shootings and what can be done to prevent them in the future. Gun control was a hot topic in the early 1990s, when Congress enacted a 10-year ban on assault weapons. But since that ban expired in 2004, few Americans have wanted stricter laws and politicians say they don’t want to become targets of a powerful gun-rights lobby.

Gun-rights advocates said that might all change after the latest shooting that killed 20 children aged 6 or 7.

“I think we could be at a tipping point … a tipping point where we might actually get something done,” said Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., on CBS’ “Face the Nation.”

Speaking Sunday night at a vigil in Newtown, Conn., the site of Friday’s massacre, President Barack Obama did not specifically address gun control. But he vowed, “In the coming weeks I’ll use whatever power this office holds to engage my fellow citizens, from law enforcement to mental health professionals to parents and educators in an effort aimed at preventing more tragedies like this.”

He added: “Are we really prepared to say that we’re powerless in the face of such carnage, that the politics are too hard? Are we prepared to say that such violence visited on our children year after year after year is somehow the price of our freedom?”

Schumer and other Democrats, as well as Lieberman, said they want to ban the sale of new assault weapons and make it harder for mentally ill individuals to obtain weapons. Lieberman said a new commission should be created to look at gun laws and the mental health system, as well as violence in movies and video games.

“Assault weapons were developed for the U.S. military, not commercial gun manufacturers,” Lieberman said before the Newtown vigil Sunday night.

“This is a moment to start a very serious national conversation about violence in our society, particularly about these acts of mass violence,” said the Connecticut senator, who is retiring at the end of the year.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., said she will introduce legislation next year to ban new assault weapons, as well as big clips, drums and strips of more than 10 bullets.

“It can be done,” Feinstein told NBC’s “Meet the Press” of reinstating the ban despite deep opposition by the National Rifle Association and similar groups.

New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg said Obama could use executive powers to enforce existing gun laws, as well as throw his weight behind legislation like Feinstein’s.

“It’s time for the president, I think, to stand up and lead and tell this country what we should do – not go to Congress and say, ‘What do you guys want to do?’” Bloomberg told NBC’s “Meet the Press.”

Gun-rights activists have remained largely quiet on the issue since Friday’s shooting, all but one declining to appear on the Sunday talk shows.

David Gregory, the host of “Meet the Press,” said NBC invited all 31 “pro-gun” senators to appear on Sunday’s show, and all 31 declined. All eight Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee were unavailable or unwilling to appear on CBS’ “Face the Nation,” host Bob Schieffer said.

Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas, was the sole representative of gun rights’ activists on the various Sunday talk shows. In an interview on “Fox News Sunday,” Gohmert defended the sale of assault weapons and said that the principal at Sandy Hook Elementary School, who authorities say died trying to overtake the shooter, should herself have been armed.

“I wish to God she had had an M-4 in her office, locked up so when she heard gunfire, she pulls it out and she didn’t have to lunge heroically with nothing in her hands. But she takes him (the shooter) out, takes his head off before he can kill those precious kids,” Gohmert said.

Gohmert also argued that violence is lower in cities with lax gun laws, and higher in cities with stricter laws.

“The facts are that every time guns have been allowed – conceal-carry (gun laws) have been allowed – the crime rate has gone down,” Gohmert said.

Gun-control advocates say that isn’t true. A study by the California-based Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence determined that 7 of the 10 states with the strongest gun laws – including Connecticut, Massachusetts and California – are also among the 10 states with the lowest gun death rates.

“If you look at the states with the strongest gun laws in the country, they have some of the lowest gun death rates, and some of the states with the weakest gun laws have some of the highest gun death rates,” said Brian Malte of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.

[autigeremt 6,970]

There is no such thing as an assault weapon. Every weapon fits this description once used to hurt people. It won't fix anything, but you can bet it will cause law abiding citizens in the end.

[AURaptor 1,137]

There is no such thing as an assault weapon. Every weapon fits this description once used to hurt people. It won't fix anything, but you can bet it will cause law abiding citizens in the end.

You're wrong. Assault weapons are REALLY mean looking. That's how they made up the list of banned weapons before, after all. If it looks more dangerous than a " regular " rifle, then it's an assault rifle.

[alexava 6,974]

Cry all you want, these are going away. I too wish the principal was rambo like. Its not a logical solution too this, and the senator showed his sides idealogical flaws by suggesting that as the answer.

[AUloggerhead 2,356]

http://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2012/12/18/invincible-ignorance-n1468784

"... The key fallacy of so-called gun control laws is that such laws do not in fact control guns. They simply disarm law-abiding citizens, while people bent on violence find firearms readily available. ..."

This man writes with pure reason & incontrovertible logic.

[AUloggerhead 2,356]

Cry all you want, these are going away. I too wish the principal was rambo like. Its not a logical solution too this, and the senator showed his sides idealogical flaws by suggesting that as the answer.

Disagree. All that gun-free zones mean is that everyone inside one is defenseless against a lone shooter. There is a very logical reason why lunatic cowards bent on mass killings freely choose school campuses, shopping malls, theaters & houses of worship over say, police stations, prisons or gun clubs/shooting ranges.

[alexava 6,974]

ok, if a principal is a gun person like the one in pearl river miss. back in 97, then im for this action and giving him this option. in other words i dont oppose a principal concealing. a lot of principals and teachers i know are not people who would even want to be armed. so in some instances this might help, but its not the fix. maybe there is no fix. but you have two elements to deal with. 1, is mentally ill people who kill total strangers for no reason. 2. they are HEAVILY armed, legally. we need to work on both of those elements and that will infringe on some of the rights of people who have no intent on breaking laws or harming anyone. i feel for these people that play by the rules. we have to ask what is more important.

[AUloggerhead 2,356]

ok, if a principal is a gun person like the one in pearl river miss. back in 97, then im for this action and giving him this option. in other words i dont oppose a principal concealing. a lot of principals and teachers i know are not people who would even want to be armed. so in some instances this might help, but its not the fix. maybe there is no fix. but you have two elements to deal with. 1, is mentally ill people who kill total strangers for no reason. 2. they are HEAVILY armed, legally. we need to work on both of those elements and that will infringe on some of the rights of people who have no intent on breaking laws or harming anyone. i feel for these people that play by the rules. we have to ask what is more important.

You forgot another possibility, what about al Qaeda or other terrorist group targeting a school? http://www.killology.com/art_mass_slaughter.htm

If and when the unthinkable happens, would you change your attitude towards the arming of school officials? It's bad enough that that these tragedies happen with loser cowards acting alone, but it seems like it's going to have to take an actual planned assault by a team of terrorists for people to wake up to the folly of continuing to be unprepared & defenseless. I'm asking ... what is more important -- protecting our innocent children against a real and present threat or passing gun control laws that do nothing more than disarm law abiding citizens?

[BamaGrad03 0]

Correct me if I'm wrong but...

Didn't he leave the .223 in the car? I was under the assumption that he did all the killing with the two hand guns...

[3rdgen 2]

It is a sad state we have reached when we just expect that passing a law will stop these shootings. We have laws against murder, against mentally ill people having guns, against guns being at schools, and against theft. There is not a law that has been written or will be that can stop this. All the while due to people with little gun experience and the overall low information of the current American population politicians will move against law abiding citizens. As Ben Franklin said, " those who would give up essential liberty to purchase temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

[alexava 6,974]

Correct me if I'm wrong but...

Didn't he leave the .223 in the car? I was under the assumption that he did all the killing with the two hand guns...

you appearantly quit watching the news very early on saturday. and the bad news bears can teach lessons on assumption. but all 26 people were killed with the assault rifle. he had multiple 30 round clips and enough ammo to kill all 600 students in the school. he was not very well trained/capable do the job. all 20 kids were shot between 3-11 times each. the early unofficial reports were that the rifle was still in the car, just like his mom was reported to be a teacher at the school, both false.

[AcUmen 242]

There is no such thing as an assault weapon. Every weapon fits this description once used to hurt people. It won't fix anything, but you can bet it will cause law abiding citizens in the end.

You're wrong. Assault weapons are REALLY mean looking. That's how they made up the list of banned weapons before, after all. If it looks more dangerous than a " regular " rifle, then it's an assault rifle.

Yep, I remember the Clinton ban that went into effect in 1994. What they did was say if a gun has the following it is an assault rifle:

1) Pistol grip

2) Magazine with more than 5 rounds

3) Flash suppressor

4) Bayonet lug

You could legally have 2 of the 4 on a rifle, but not more than that (iirc correctly). So what did the gun makers do? They simply made their AR-15's without flash suppressors and bayonet lugs. I don't know any killer who runs around with a bayonet and I don't know many who care about firing a gun at night (flash suppressor). Thus, you could still buy new rifles with high capacity mags and a pistol grip (as long as they didn't have the other two features).

Moreover, that ban did nothing to stop the millions of "pre-ban" rifles out there in circulation already (rifles with all 4 features). They were still perfectly legal to own and the prices on them shot way way up. That ban made a lot of gun dealers a lot of money.

I think a lot of people think the Clinton ban literally banned these rifles. It didn't. All it did was ban cosmetics. It was typical of retarded government legislators who have no clue about the topic on which they are legislating.

BTW, even if they ban the sale of all assault rifles and even if they bust down doors and confiscate all the ones in circulation, it still wont stop school shootings. Why? A decent marksmen can take a bolt action rifle into a crowded place and pick off a good number of people. Heck, even a revolver can kill a good number (there are ways to quickly reload revolvers). The only way a gun ban will make one bit of difference is if the government comes and confiscates all firearms and makes them disappear. Good luck with that unless they want to start Civil War II (and things would get ugly real fast, I can guarantee you that. I, for one, never want to see that).

[cptau 169]

There is no such thing as an assault weapon. Every weapon fits this description once used to hurt people. It won't fix anything, but you can bet it will cause law abiding citizens in the end.

You're wrong. Assault weapons are REALLY mean looking. That's how they made up the list of banned weapons before, after all. If it looks more dangerous than a " regular " rifle, then it's an assault rifle.

Yep, I remember the Clinton ban that went into effect in 1994. What they did was say if a gun has the following it is an assault rifle:

1) Pistol grip

2) Magazine with more than 5 rounds

3) Flash suppressor

4) Bayonet lug

You could legally have 2 of the 4 on a rifle, but not more than that (iirc correctly). So what did the gun makers do? They simply made their AR-15's without flash suppressors and bayonet lugs. I don't know any killer who runs around with a bayonet and I don't know many who care about firing a gun at night (flash suppressor). Thus, you could still buy new rifles with high capacity mags and a pistol grip (as long as they didn't have the other two features).

Moreover, that ban did nothing to stop the millions of "pre-ban" rifles out there in circulation already (rifles with all 4 features). They were still perfectly legal to own and the prices on them shot way way up. That ban made a lot of gun dealers a lot of money.

I think a lot of people think the Clinton ban literally banned these rifles. It didn't. All it did was ban cosmetics. It was typical of retarded government legislators who have no clue about the topic on which they are legislating.

BTW, even if they ban the sale of all assault rifles and even if they bust down doors and confiscate all the ones in circulation, it still wont stop school shootings. Why? A decent marksmen can take a bolt action rifle into a crowded place and pick off a good number of people. Heck, even a revolver can kill a good number (there are ways to quickly reload revolvers). The only way a gun ban will make one bit of difference is if the government comes and confiscates all firearms and makes them disappear. Good luck with that unless they want to start Civil War II (and things would get ugly real fast, I can guarantee you that. I, for one, never want to see that).

The rifle used in at the school was legal under the Connecticut law banning "assault rifles". The Connecticut law is modeled on the expired federal law.

[autigeremt 6,970]

Meaningless. They (progressives) want to take them all away. One law at a time if need be. The Connecticut law proves it's not enough in their eyes.

[AcUmen 242]

It is a sad state we have reached when we just expect that passing a law will stop these shootings. We have laws against murder, against mentally ill people having guns, against guns being at schools, and against theft. There is not a law that has been written or will be that can stop this. All the while due to people with little gun experience and the overall low information of the current American population politicians will move against law abiding citizens. As Ben Franklin said, " those who would give up essential liberty to purchase temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

It's the same thing that happened after 911. Instead of Congress sitting down calmly and seeing if there was anything constitutional they could do to prevent future attacks, they pushed a bill called the PATRIOT ACT down our throats with most of them never having read it. The PA was the single biggest hit to the constitution (specifically the 4th) in history.

[arnaldoabru 11]

We should arm kindergartners and first graders. That way if someone bust into their school with and assalt riflte holding 30-100 rounds, wearing a kevlar vest, the can get off a head shot and take him out.

[alexava 6,974]

We should arm kindergartners and first graders. That way if someone bust into their school with and assalt riflte holding 30-100 rounds, wearing a kevlar vest, the can get off a head shot and take him out.

that is literally what we should do. but use daisy red riders. there will be a mass of eyeballs lost.

[alexava 6,974]

It is a sad state we have reached when we just expect that passing a law will stop these shootings. We have laws against murder, against mentally ill people having guns, against guns being at schools, and against theft. There is not a law that has been written or will be that can stop this. All the while due to people with little gun experience and the overall low information of the current American population politicians will move against law abiding citizens. As Ben Franklin said, " those who would give up essential liberty to purchase temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

It's the same thing that happened after 911. Instead of Congress sitting down calmly and seeing if there was anything constitutional they could do to prevent future attacks, they pushed a bill called the PATRIOT ACT down our throats with most of them never having read it. The PA was the single biggest hit to the constitution (specifically the 4th) in history.

just what bothers you about the patriot act? i welcome any common sense change to a document that is 200+ years old. the patriot act did not harm anyone who had nothing to hide.

[autigeremt 6,970]

We should arm kindergartners and first graders. That way if someone bust into their school with and assalt riflte holding 30-100 rounds, wearing a kevlar vest, the can get off a head shot and take him out.

That would mean you get the first Glock, right???? jk

[AUGradinTX 0]

There is no such thing as an assault weapon. Every weapon fits this description once used to hurt people. It won't fix anything, but you can bet it will cause law abiding citizens in the end.

You're wrong. Assault weapons are REALLY mean looking. That's how they made up the list of banned weapons before, after all. If it looks more dangerous than a " regular " rifle, then it's an assault rifle.

Yep, I remember the Clinton ban that went into effect in 1994. What they did was say if a gun has the following it is an assault rifle:

1) Pistol grip

2) Magazine with more than 5 rounds

3) Flash suppressor

4) Bayonet lug

You could legally have 2 of the 4 on a rifle, but not more than that (iirc correctly). So what did the gun makers do? They simply made their AR-15's without flash suppressors and bayonet lugs. I don't know any killer who runs around with a bayonet and I don't know many who care about firing a gun at night (flash suppressor). Thus, you could still buy new rifles with high capacity mags and a pistol grip (as long as they didn't have the other two features).

Moreover, that ban did nothing to stop the millions of "pre-ban" rifles out there in circulation already (rifles with all 4 features). They were still perfectly legal to own and the prices on them shot way way up. That ban made a lot of gun dealers a lot of money.

I think a lot of people think the Clinton ban literally banned these rifles. It didn't. All it did was ban cosmetics. It was typical of retarded government legislators who have no clue about the topic on which they are legislating.

BTW, even if they ban the sale of all assault rifles and even if they bust down doors and confiscate all the ones in circulation, it still wont stop school shootings. Why? A decent marksmen can take a bolt action rifle into a crowded place and pick off a good number of people. Heck, even a revolver can kill a good number (there are ways to quickly reload revolvers). The only way a gun ban will make one bit of difference is if the government comes and confiscates all firearms and makes them disappear. Good luck with that unless they want to start Civil War II (and things would get ugly real fast, I can guarantee you that. I, for one, never want to see that).

This is spot on.

That's why I kept pressing for someone (in another thread) to tell me what it is about an AR that is more dangerous than other semi-automatic weapons that people aren't hysterical about. Aside from a high capacity magazine, there isn't any difference. Problem is, that isn't a feature of the rifle, but the magazine.

"The features are considered "cosmetic" (irrelevant). When gun manufacturers changed their designs for commercial firearms to eliminate these features so their new guns would comply with the law, the gun banning advocates in and out of the government cried "foul" and criticized the manufacturers for making "cosmetic" changes and "using loopholes" to get around the law.

Of course, they never mention that the cosmetic features are the very same ones they had used to needlessly make some firearms illegal to start with. The features were "so dangerous" when the gun banners wanted to use them to restrict guns, but they became "cosmetic" when the banners wanted to vilify the firearms industry (part, along with the NRA, of what they call "the gun lobby" so they can accuse legislators who know something about firearms of being "owned" by the "gun lobby")."

http://www.gunsandcrime.org/asltweps.html

I also keep hearing "military-style." What does that mean? It looks like a military rifle? I can't see how this is relevant. The appearance didn't kill people. That is a ridiculous argument. If there were some good reason to ban these rifles over other semi-automatic rifles, the 1994 ban would have kept them from being made and sold. If the only argument you have is it's military-style, can hold a bayonet, has a flash suppressor, you are never going to accomplish what you set out to. The AR is a semi-automatic rifle. Not an M4A1 Assault Rifle capable of spewing automatic fire at 700+ rounds a minute.

I'm all for something being done if it makes sense and will make a difference. But Banning gun A and hoping things will change while at the same time legal guns B, C, and D all have the same capabilities makes zero sense.

[arnaldoabru 11]

We should arm kindergartners and first graders. That way if someone bust into their school with and assalt riflte holding 30-100 rounds, wearing a kevlar vest, the can get off a head shot and take him out.

That would mean you get the first Glock, right???? jk

Rather than recess and duck duck goose target practice should be required

[icanthearyou 4,468]

It is a sad state we have reached when we just expect that passing a law will stop these shootings. We have laws against murder, against mentally ill people having guns, against guns being at schools, and against theft. There is not a law that has been written or will be that can stop this. All the while due to people with little gun experience and the overall low information of the current American population politicians will move against law abiding citizens. As Ben Franklin said, " those who would give up essential liberty to purchase temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

It's the same thing that happened after 911. Instead of Congress sitting down calmly and seeing if there was anything constitutional they could do to prevent future attacks, they pushed a bill called the PATRIOT ACT down our throats with most of them never having read it. The PA was the single biggest hit to the constitution (specifically the 4th) in history.

just what bothers you about the patriot act? i welcome any common sense change to a document that is 200+ years old. the patriot act did not harm anyone who had nothing to hide.

Yeah, right, we should get rid of that 200 year old piece of scrap paper and the privacy and freedom it guarantees us. Anyone who doesn't like that has something to hide. Don't restrict the government. The government is the only thing that can protect us from ourselves and each other. Yeah, right, love this federal government. They are doing a great job. More bureaucracy, waste, corruption and debt please. Can't get enough. Demand bigger government NOW!

[icanthearyou 4,468]

Just spitballing here but maybe, just maybe, if the administrators of our schools weren't consumed by finagling attendance reports and standardized test scores vital to maximizing federal money, they could spend their time actually educating and protecting the children.

[alexava 6,974]

You made no sense. You probably want more accountability for educators too and dont want to be taxed for it.

[alexava 6,974]

or maybe not