Get PJ Media on your Apple

The PJ Tatler

by
Bridget Johnson

Bio

February 25, 2013 - 12:47 pm

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said she believes a Wednesday Judiciary Committee hearing will “make the case” that her assault weapons ban is constitutional.

The witness list for the hearing is United States Attorney for Colorado John Walsh, Milwaukee Police Chief Edward Flynn, Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter, and two lawyers.

Also at the witness table will be Neil Heslin, father of a Newtown, Conn., shooting victim, and a Newtown EMS medical director.

Former GOP Rep. Sandy Adams (Fla.), a onetime police officer, rounds out the witnesses.

“I think we will make the case that these weapons do not belong on the streets of our cities, that many of the parts of these weapons make them into weapons that are specifically designed to kill large numbers of people in close conflict,” Feinstein said today on MSNBC.

“I’ve tried to do it carefully. We have 22 co-sponsors. I recognize it’s an uphill battle. But I also know that there — these events are going to continue and America has to step up. The mothers, the women, the men of America have to make a decision as to whether their personal pleasure is more important than the general welfare.”

Feinstein said “grievance killers” can find automatic weapons “out of a back of a car, at a gun show.”

“America’s laws are virtually nonexistent and, therefore, I think this is a good bill,” she said. “I intend to fight. I did it once before. If it doesn’t get done right now, be assured I will continue to press the case.”

The senator said she’s racked up “lists and lists” of supporters for her bill.

“I think we’ve got all the police. We have all the mayors virtually, the Conference of Mayors. Mayors against Guns. We have medical experts. We have virtually dozens of religious organizations, of every creed supporting us. We have just lists and lists,” Feinstein said. “I put together a little booklet that contains the basics on the bill, as well as a list of the endorsers, so we will be making our arguments. It’s very difficult to go against the NRA.”

Bridget Johnson is a veteran journalist whose news articles and opinion columns have run in dozens of news outlets across the globe. Bridget first came to Washington to be online editor at The Hill, where she wrote The World from The Hill column on foreign policy. Previously she was an opinion writer and editorial board member at the Rocky Mountain News and nation/world news columnist at the Los Angeles Daily News. She is an NPR contributor and has contributed to USA Today, The Wall Street Journal, National Review Online, Politico and more, and has myriad television and radio credits as a commentator. Bridget is Washington Editor for PJ Media.

Comments are closed.

All Comments   (19)
All Comments   (19)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
Someon in Foulstines district....Please send this to her dumb arse...and feel free to send to all other powers that be!....Dear Congressman/woman,
The term "assault weapon" is being misused to defame U.S. citizens who own civilian-use rifles like the AR-15. The term is completely inaccurate. The AR-15 and similar firearm platforms, are NOT "assault" weapons/"assault" rifles by definition of the United States Defense Department's Defense Intelligence Agency book "Small Arms Identification and Operation Guide." That document explains that "assault rifles" are "short, compact, selective-fire weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power between submachine gun and rifle cartridges." In other words, assault rifles are battlefield rifles which can fire automatically. Many civilians have purchased semiautomatic-only rifles that look like military assault rifles. These civilian rifles are, unlike actual assault rifles, incapable of automatic fire. The civilian AR-15 and AK-47 fire only one bullet per trigger pull. They are not automatic. A shotgun is a much more lethal weapon because of its wide spread of fire and easy-reload pump-action. "Large-capacity magazines" are prized by gun enthusiasts for hunting, target shooting, collecting, and for self-protection.
It is a fact that law-abiding civilians don't go on shooting rampages. It is a fact that shooting rampages, while sensational and tragic, are just a tiny fraction of the causes of deaths in American society. Criminals mostly use handguns when using guns, and domestic disputes often involve things like crowbars, baseball bats, knives - almost anything can be made into a deadly weapon. Semi-automatic weapons do have a place in a free society, and ownership thereof is protected by the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment and the New Mexico Constitution's Article II, Section 6. (FIND YOUR ARTICLE FOR YOUR STATE!)
So, with all that being said...let's start by stopping the use of the name "Assault" rifle/"Assault" weapon because they were never meant to be called that buy the companies that first built them. PLEASE consider and urge your collogues to stop the use of those terms, it only shows ignorance by our media and our state and federal law makers.
Thanks kindly for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,


1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Have you noticed that she doesn’t have ANY pro-gun people on her witness list, this is so one sided it’s a real joke.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Feinstein: "America’s laws are virtually nonexistent."

WCITSOYP, Senator?
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Yes, that's why I have weapons. For my personal pleasure.

That's my senator!
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Sure, she has lists and lists, but does she have any binders?
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Damn! Gonna have to include meat cleavers in that bill Di.

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2013/02/24/police-man-attacked-critically-injured-wife-with-meat-cleaver/

While that meat cleaver didn't kill it was clearly the intent of that cleaver to do so.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Did she say general WARFARE? Or did she really mean I should give up[ my guns for the general WELFARE? If I remember right, the Germans gave up their guns for the General Welfare in the 1930's. didn't work out so well for Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals and other "undersirables".
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Sorry, Di, but I'm a Baby Boomer. So I'm all about personal pleasure. Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness - that's how I roll. And could you please direct me to the gun show where I can buy that automatic weapon in the parking lot? Oh, there really isn't one? Never mind, then. Resume whatever you were doing with those straw men.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Welfare? I thought it said "warfare".

Not sure it doesn't, come to think of it.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
It has nothing to do with protecting anyone, because it will not, and everything to do with subverting the Constitution, which it does.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
1 2 Next View All