Feinstein Rolls Out Assault Weapons Ban as Biden Stumbles Over Its Purpose
Her bill would prohibit the sale, transfer, manufacture and importation of assault weapons and large-capacity ammunition feeding devices that can accept more than 10 rounds. The prohibition would extend to 158 specifically named firearms.
Unfortunately for Biden, the list includes 10 shotguns.
“Since the 1994 law expired, there has been an influx of new models of assault weapons. These models are more powerful, more lethal and more technologically advanced than the weapons were in 1993,” Feinstein said. “Our bill also prohibits other semi-automatic rifles, handguns and shotguns that can accept a detachable magazine and have one military characteristic.”
“The bill also prevents and prohibits specific loopholes such as the slide iron stock which can be added to an AR-15 which essentially makes it mimic automatic weapons and it’s legal. Thumb hole stocks and bullet buttons, these are all modifications that make it easy for manufactures to evade the law.”
Feinstein’s legislation would also eliminate the 10-year sunset provision that led to its expiration the first time around, as the “purpose is to dry up the supply of these weapons over time.”
“It will not affect hunting or sporting firearms; instead, the bill protects hunters and sportsmen by protecting 2,200 specifically named weapons used for hunting or sporting purposes. They are by make and model exempted from the legislation. When we did this bill in ’93, there were 375, today there are 2,200,” she said. “Finally, the bill subjects existing or grandfathered weapons to a background check in the event it — the weapon is sold or transferred.”
Feinstein was joined by Sens. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) and Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), and Reps. Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.), Elizabeth Esty (D-Conn.), and Ed Perlmutter (D-Colo.).
“This just isn’t a matter of — an issue of Constitution, it’s an issue of conscience, an issue of conscience,” Durbin said.
“Times have changed, so have the capabilities of those who would do us harm. So I applaud Senator Feinstein for drafting an updated, smart and more robust version of the Assault Weapons Ban, which she has outlined,” Schumer said. “…We have anti-pornography laws, we have anti-libel laws, we have liable laws, all of those are limitations on the First Amendment that are reasonable. Well, the limitations supported in Senator Feinstein’s bill are reasonable limitations. We know that there is no inalienable right to own and operate hundred round clips on AR-15 assault rifles.”
“You know what, to get off 100 rounds that day in about a 10-minute period of time, Adam Lanza had to reload twice. Two times he had to reload. Things would’ve been different if that was 9 or 10 or 11,” Murphy claimed of the Newtown tragedy.
White House press secretary Jay Carney said in an off-camera press gaggle today that he wouldn’t lay out a legislative strategy, but “we’re obviously working with Senator Feinstein and other leaders in Congress on this matter.”
“Not a single one of the president’s proposals that he put forward last week would take a gun away from a single, law-abiding American citizen,” Carney added.
Tomorrow Biden heads to Richmond, Va., for a “roundtable discussion” at Virginia Commonwealth University including Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, and Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.).
“The roundtable discussion will include experts who have worked on gun safety issues in the wake of the Virginia Tech shooting,” the White House said.
Forty-three House Republicans hand-delivered a letter to Obama today declaring that new gun control measures would be met with resistance.
“The gun control proposals the president offered last week are a constitutional non-starter, and in fact, would have had zero impact in preventing the tragedy in Newtown,” said Rep. Todd Rokita (R-Ind.), who led the effort.
“As members of Congress we have, like you, sworn to defend the Constitution of the United States. The seriousness of this public oath compels us to pursue the noble cause of defending individual liberty,” the lawmakers wrote Obama.
“We will not support, and in fact we will strongly oppose, any legislation or executive order that prevents law-abiding Americans from responsibly exercising their Second Amendment rights, including any attempt to prevent ownership of certain firearms or ammunition. … We will not sit idly by while law-abiding citizens are stripped of their constitutional rights and turned into criminals by an overreaching federal government.”
Uh, the gun ban is for safety… uh, yeah, that’s it– people shouldn’t have such things unless they’re super responsible enough like being in government, or something… for the children!
Yea!
What weapons for THE CHIDRENS?
Gun bans are only for the 99% because only the Elite 1% are responsible enough to have armed protection.
/zeke
Does anyone else see Jeff Dunham’s Walter as Joe Biden’s smarter cousin? They really do look like family.
Walter has about 150 IQ points on Joe.
Gotta hand it to Joe. He just stated the shotgun was a superior firearm to the AR frame variety…while supporting an AR ban.
Fireside Chats with Joe Biden? Looks like a terrible idea for the Democrats.
Nutty, crazy,lyin’Joe Biden is – Gawd help us – the VP of the US and the best insurance Barrack Hussein Obama could ever have! Neither of these scum bags should hold any position equal to or higher than dog catcher – clinton’s old job before the covered up case with that female great dane. The purpose of the second amendment is to stand between the citizen and tyranny; to keep people like Obama from installing all of their dictatorial aspirations; to protect us also from the non-governmental criminals the failed “justice” system lets loose and armed on the streets, and – finally – to hunt and for other recreational purposes. These morons in the District of Criminals are driving us to the point where there will be no alternatives.
Would somebody, PLEASE, get Biden to view the YouTube video of the L.A. bank robbery of 1997 where the police were totally outgunned by a few bank robbers?
These “hyper criminals” were armed with ASSAULT WEAPONS that were under the federally mandated assault weapons ban.
HOW CAN SUCH AN INCOMPETENT IDIOT, BE CONSIDERED A “LAW MAKER”?
Yeah and let’s be clear that they were using REAL assault weapons that were capable of full automatic fire. They were not the “assault weapons” that Feinstein et al want to ban.
Wouldn’t have been shootout if the legal system had worked right. Both men were arrested on gun charges in 1993, and after a slap on the wrist they got their stuff back.
So, if shotguns are better for shooting people, why is Biden trying to ban rifles?
More to the point, though: Where does the Constitution authorize the government to ban military or military style arms or accouterments? The 2nd Amendment refers to the militia, and the surviving state records of the ratification debates make clear that the militia was all able bodied men of proper age and that they all had an unquestioned right to own military arms, so contemporary military type arms are exactly what are most protected.
I understand that Senator Feinstein and VP Biden believe bans are common sense good policy, but where does the Constitution say that common sense good policy trumps the Constitution?
Because that is what they are saying: “Good Policy” trumps the Constitution. I want to hear them say so out loud.
Taken to its conclusion, as most men between 18 & 45 are classified, by federal law, as part of the unorganized militia, and the AR-15 Is the civilian M-16, the government could mandate ownership of the AR-15. Hey, production would skyrocket, putting Americans to work. Now that’s a mandate I could support.
The Constitution does not protect automatic weapons. Read it.
Can you show me where it says that automatic weapons are not protected?
Bull. The Constitution says, “the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” How do you figure that says, “no automatic weapons?” In point of fact, the Constitution tacitly condones the private ownership of warships, in Article I, Section 8, where Congress is given authority to grant letters of marque and reprisal, which means deputizing private warships into government service. The 2nd Amendment was specifically described by its writers to be intended to protect the right of the people to be just as well-armed as any government army.
Look up the definition of “arms”, and notice that they did not qualify what kind of “arms” they were referring to.
The 1934 and 1968 gun control acts are constitutional abominations that were left standing because too many in the right position of power wanted to appear “reasonable”, or worse were party to an agenda that specifically needs to get rid of impediments to government power.
Instead of amending the Constitution accordingly, they simply ignored it.
The government ignoring a basic component of the legal device that gives that government authority in the first place is always a bad idea…
just an fyi i have been following all day on the subject of gun control.
i started out looking into the coroner’s report on sandy hook that came out this morn. looks like no long guns were used in the murders. all semi-auto pistols. then i got side tracked on all the other mistakes? showing up at the school.
2 men dressed for hunting? around a school? were apprehended in the woods behind the school immediately following arrival of ploice, and put in the front seat? of police cruiser(s).
odd how the shooter didn’t wound anyone. hard to believe he didn’t wound any running, screaming children? 2 pros? credentials? front seat?
no video available? or gov. people available for interview? i guess w/ obammy & co. around we should be getting used to this sort of thing. i’m not.
the whole thing goes downhill from there. there is a laundry list of assorted weird chit going on. i don’t want to ruin it for anybody. anyway, u-tube has several people asking some dam good questions. remember, sometimes conspiracy theories are real (fast & furious).
Greetings:
Wasn’t it Senatress Feinstein who first said, “You can take my Senate seat when you pry it from my cold, dead ass.” ???
“Military-style assault weapons have but one purpose, and in my view, that’s a military purpose to hold at the hip if possible, to spray fire, to be able to kill large numbers,” she said.
Which, of course is why the police in every town, city, county, and state in the country will still be able to get them at will.
“You know what, to get off 100 rounds that day in about a 10-minute period of time, Adam Lanza had to reload twice. Two times he had to reload. Things would’ve been different if that was 9 or 10 or 11,” Murphy claimed of the Newtown tragedy.
TOTAL BULLSHIT. (Aside from the fact that 100 rounds in 10 minutes is easy with a 6 shot revolver loading loose rounds from a poecket.)
http://www.courant.com/news/connecticut/newtown-sandy-hook-school-shooting/hc-sandyhook-lanza-earplugs-20130106,0,2370630.story
“Lanza changed magazines frequently as he fired his way through the first-grade classrooms of Lauren Rousseau and Victoria Soto, sometimes shooting as few as 15 shots from a 30-round magazine, sources said.”
Diaaaane Foinstoin said:
What kind of idiot fires an AR-15 from the hip? That’s what shotguns are for, amirite Joe Biden?
Crips, Bloods, MS-13. Those kind of idiots… the kind who don’t give a damn about what or who they hit, so long as their rivals know they have them, and they terrorize the people in the projects into silence.
“It’s harder to use an assault weapon to hit something than it is a shotgun.” said Mr. Biden. Well he just stepped in it there. Then why ban something that is harder to use? Why isn’t he calling for a ban on double barrel shotguns? Are there people out there really so stupid as to still believe this is about “gun safety”?
Because, right now, they’re on getting rid of semi-automatic rifle “assualt weapons” that can take a removable high-cpacity “clip”… banning those “more dangerous than assault weapon” shotguns will be next.
Biden’s stumbling all over the place. According to a report in the Daily Rash, during his appearance on CBS This Morning the vice president said the Department of Homeland Security is “crawling with lesbians.” http://www.thedailyrash.com/al-sharpton-talks-to-hillary-clinton-about-benghazi-blood-clots-and-bills-penis
Yeah, the Daily Rash is one of my favorite humour sites, it beats The Onion all hollow…
Feinstein said, “Military-style assault weapons have but one purpose, and in my view, that’s a military purpose to hold at the hip if possible, to spray fire, to be able to kill large numbers,”
That cow can’t be that stupid, can she? From the hip, really Diane. And you and your ilk are advocating sending women into the meat grinder of combat when you have not one iota of knowledge when it comes to how to use a rifle. My god that was stupidity incarnate.
Purposeful non-understanding because it sounds scary and appeals to getting rid of guns crowd.
Let’s accept at face value that the Civil War was about slavery.
I would humbly suggest that, as percentages go, there are a lot more gun owners in America today than there were slave owners in 1860.
I would also suggest that there are a lot more weapons that the old hag Feinstein wants to ban than there were slaves.
As issues go, this one could get downright violent if the leftists don’t get a clue pretty soon and are not prevented from shoving through their various gun control schemes.
This also applies to that idea about even private sales going through an FFL.
I can see some lame brained republican technocrat arguing vociferously that our side should acquiesce to at least something in order to appear reasonable.
What, I pray, do we get in return if we do agree to it? After all, we all know they will just be back at the next excuse to push for yet another concession, one small nibble at a time until we don’t have a right left to exercise.
About the only way I’d accept it is if they revoked the 1986 Machine Gun ban, so how’s about we toss THAT out onto the negotiating table and see how it flies?!?
– what is this, Joe? Survivor? Is Dr. Biden going to help the injured or just hide from the raping horde?
I wonder, assuming that FrankenFeinstein’s proposed bill with its list of prohibited firearms makes it into law, can that list be added to by bureaucratic fiat or must it go back to congress for such action? If all that it takes is a bureaucratic move in order to have a specific firearm added then it will have come to pass that the 2nd Amendment is effectively a right granted by the non-representative side of government and no longer derived from a recognized natural right. In other words, total fulfillment of the leftist’s wet-dream to gut the 2nd entirely of meaningful purpose and protection. My goodness, they wouldn’t want to do that now would they?
They can do whatever they want. There is no real opposition to their actions, neither from the Republicans nor from the population.
The Constitution has been irrelevant for quite a while.
Welcome to the USSA (United Socialist States of America)!
Walt – shouldn’t that be United Socialist States of Amerika? You are correct about no real opposition to their agenda – both parties are sycophantic to the same controllers – they only want to stay “in power” or “keep their seat” in govt – they hope that as members of one kind of elite they will not be subjugated like the “great unwashed masses” ie the people.
Diane Frankenstein and her ilk are at best hypocrites. I just watched a movie last nite by Kirk Cameron called Monumental – and it gave me insight (as a Canadian) to a different type of American and a different type of character that actually had backbone and perseverance.
There are approximately 100K abortions performed in this country yearly. Who is protecting children now? Gun control will only increase crime and provide an avenue for the drug cartels to take over. Pretty simple to understand.
“The bill also prevents and prohibits specific loopholes such as the slide iron stock which can be added to an AR-15 which essentially makes it mimic automatic weapons and it’s legal.
The slide-fire stock has been legal and approved for sale by BATF for several years now. The stock allows an AK or AR rifle to be fired in rapid bursts by it’s own recoil. The ATF declared it legal because the law establishing automatic (select fire) weapons addressed the guns firing mechanism but made no mention of butt stocks. The system works by the recoil of the gun pushing the weapon rearward and the then the gun being forced forward again. basically, the trigger finger stays stationary and the gun bounces back and forth pulling the trigger each time.
Yeah and they leave out the part about how you can’t hit the broad side of a barn bump firing a semi-auto. That technique might be useful for suppression fire into a crowd – or a mob of zombies ambling down your street.
Actually Art they are quite easy to control see one in action here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D1WhhKH3QVU&feature=pyv&ad=6832211627&kw=slidefire
Some people do not oppose gun ownership, believing in the right of the individual to protect himself against armed criminals or to hunt for sport. These same people may believe that the Constitution did not anticipate the kind of weaponry available today, and that a “well-armed militia” was for the purpose of repelling tyrannical government.
Today, people do not need military weapons to repel burglars, and we already have the world’s most effective weapon against bad leaders. It’s called the vote. Any other means of overthrowing the government is considered treason and, according the same Constitution by which we derive our rights, is punishable by death.
I disagree, but fair enough.
The weapons in question are not really military. They are semi-auto firearms that have scary looking external features.
The definition of ‘assault weapon’ was invented BY the gun control groups in the mid 80s, who then began calling for those firearms to be banned under the guise that they were unique. It’s no coincidence that the same groups inventing the term had previously pursued full out bans and confiscation/mandated turn in programs.
It’s along the lines of an anti-free speech group creating a term ‘offensive speech’, then claiming that they don’t want to ban all speech, just offensive speech. On it’s face, I disagree-offensive speech should be allowed. It gets more insidious when you realize that ‘offensive speech’ is defined as speech that offends a person.
The definition of “Assault Weapon” has been expanded several times, which shows that gun rights groups were right in claiming that the bans were an incremental strategy to ban all semi-autos, and not doubt opening the door to ban arbitrarily defined pump, bolt, and lever action firearms.
“It’s not the people who vote that count. It’s the people who count the votes.”
Even though Josef Stalin never said these words (the Soviet Union did not have “popular” elections), they are so very, very true. These words might have been better spoken by Hugo Chavez.
In kalifornia, our congressional districts were gerrymandered to give one political party a decided advantage. Can you guess which party that is? Yes, I have heard the claim that the new districts favor conservatives. I have a bridge to sell to the person that made that claim.
“according the same Constitution by which we derive our rights, is punishable by death.”
And right there is our fundamental difference, mind-numbed lefty dolt. We derive no rights from the Constitution, the Declaration, or any other act of man; we have rights because we are. The Constitution expressly protects some of those rights so that they can’t be taken away when women and wimps get scared of their exercise.
The most common military and civilian weapon at the time of the Founding was the British “Brown Bess” musket in .75 caliber. At the short ranges at which almost all criminal uses of firearms occur, you’d be one Helluva lot better off taking a hit from a .223 caliber FMJ fired from a Bushmaster than taking a hit from the 3/4 inch lead ball coated in animal fat and fired from a barrel that might well have last been cleaned using the infantryman’s urine.
“we already have the world’s most effective weapon against bad leaders. It’s called the vote.”
I didn’t realize you were a humorist. That really is funny. You should try telling it to the people of Iran, or Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. Or Pol Pot’s Cambodia. They’ll get a chuckle out it, too.
John Tomerlin said:
That worked well for Hitler.
Before spouting off anything that says an insurgency in America can be “easily defeated”, you need to look at this:
http://demonocracy.info/infographics/usa/us_debt/us_debt.html
The Founding Fathers didn’t anticipate an Internet that swiftly spreads so-called “hate speech” and pornography either, but that doesn’t diminish the fact that the Internet is protected by the First Amendment.
Anyways, this whole talk about gun bans is just banter about the number of angels dancing on the head of a pin. Technological advances has assured the physical impossibility of restricting the availability of guns to scofflaws.
Plugs: “My view is that it is totally a guarantee, not negotiable, that I should be able to own a weapon for my own protection, sporting purposes, but there should be rational limits on the type of weapons I can own that exceed the need, that go beyond the need I need for my personal protection or legitimate sporting activities.”
Right. The second amendment was put into place to protect target-shooters and bird hunters. Is our vice president honestly this stupid?
Yes. Yes, he is.
His viewpoint might also be summed up as, “Stop liking what I don’t like”.
I wish someone had asked him about the firearms the Secret Service carries.
“Let them eat cake.” –Marie Antoinette
The gun ban is to allow progressives to go to bed feeling all affirmed and completed inside–same as all the other causes they promote.
The gun ban is to allow the “progressive’s” armed private army… the street gangs… to crush the taxpayers without resistance. Or so they think.
I would like to join Rev. G. Hall in his prayer, “…..Bless our elected leaders with the wisdom….” With what is proposed, it will take a miracle to draft even a poor piece of legislation.
If public safety is the goal, this proposal will do nothing. The root problem of guns used to murder was not even considered. But the potential harm is enormous. On several key points, it renders the Second Amendment a dead letter. It has been said, and I repeat, that no article in the Constitution is an absolute right; Congress has the valid authority to pass laws which limit each right, e.g. the right to yell “Fire” in a crowded movie is a no-no.
These people are a danger to our nation. They want to take a big step toward a dictatorship.
veep joe bumbles: the Second Amendment is to protect American Citizens from tyrannical dictatorial government…. kind of what our current administration is becoming.
A provision in the Feinstein bill has that WHEN A LAWFUL GUN OWNER DIES THE FIREARMS GO TO… the GOVERNMENT not whomever is specified by the owner. It will be also illegal to sell or to gift registered firearms under the current provisions in the drafted bill!
Outrageous!!!!
I guess the goal is to make criminals of us all so we will be in those “secret” TSA/DHS camps.
Send Diane to all the gang neighborhoods in her state on a semi-auto round-up. I wanna see her observe the actual attempt to enforce the law. Should be good.
Ban DiFi for being a walking, talking, assault weapon on the 2nd Amendment. (Also, for being illiterate to the point of inability to use a dictionary, wherein the word “infringement” has precise meaning.)
Oh, lest I forget: Impeach her for defying her sworn oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution! Do the same to all co-sponsors!
Why would shotguns be more useful than other guns after a natural disaster? When all firearms were confiscated after Hurricane Katrina, shotguns didn’t seem any more useful.