Get PJ Media on your Apple

The PJ Tatler

Feinstein’s Gun Ban Goes Down 40-60 After She Scolds Colleagues

"I know how this is going to end and the despair and dismay of those families... I am really chagrined!" OBAMA REACTS: Bemoans 'Shameful Day for Washington’

Bridget Johnson


April 17, 2013 - 2:47 pm

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) chided her colleagues for shooting down gun control amendments before her assault weapons ban renewal met the same fate.

It failed 40-60, with both red-state and blue-state Democrats voting against the ban.

Feinstein expressed “substantial dismay at the lack of courage in this house” at the day’s votes, which included the 54-46 failure of the Manchin-Toomey amendment on background checks.

“We have had enough of the development of highly militarized weapons,” she said. “Everything needs 60 votes today — this is supposed to be a majority body.”

Ironically, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) likely didn’t seek a unanimous consent agreement for a simple majority because he feared gun-rights amendments would get attached to his bill. Reid also angered Feinstein by not rolling her assault weapons bill into his gun-control package.

More Democrats have come to the gun-rights side throughout the afternoon’s votes than Republicans siding with gun control measures.

However, Feinstein’s amendment still would have fallen far short of the simple majority threshold.

“I know how this is going to end and the despair and dismay of those families… I am really chagrined and concerned,” Feinstein continued. “…Show some guts!”

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), though, rose to defend Second Amendment rights in an equally impassioned tone, slamming Feinstein’s amendment as the “largest ban of guns in the history of our republic.”

“It did not stop Columbine; it would not stop Newtown,” Grassley said. “Criminals who steal such guns would not care if they were banned.”

As the ranking member on the Judiciary Committee, Grassley had asked for analysis of the constitutional ramifications of the assault weapons ban from the Justice Department but did not receive a response.

Based on Supreme Court precedent, he said, “they cannot be banned.”

Grassely warned “this is a slippery slope” of yielding more and more constitutional rights.

Sen. Mark Udall (D-Colo.) was among the “no” votes. “In carefully studying the language of this specific assault weapons ban, it became clear that it went too far because it also would have banned certain hunting rifles and even some shotguns,” he said. “And there was no opportunity to amend this legislation to make it work for Colorado sportsmen.”

UPDATE: An amendment by Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) to limit ammunition magazines to ten rounds has failed 46-54.

UPDATE: Feinstein after her 20-point defeat: “I’m disappointed by today’s vote, but I always knew this was an uphill battle. I believe the American people are far ahead of their elected officials on this issue, and I will continue to fight for a renewed ban on assault weapons,” she said.

“The very fact that we’re debating gun violence on the Senate floor is a step in the right direction, and I hope my colleagues vote their conscience and approve the underlying bill. But I’m certain that in the coming months and years, we will be forced to confront other incidents like Newtown, where innocents are murdered with one of these weapons of war.”

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.

Top Rated Comments   
"I believe the American people are far ahead of their elected officials on this issue ..."

No you don't. You fraud. Not unless you're hallucinating. The American people do NOT want, or care about, your career-ending crusade to INFRINGE upon the People's Right to keep and bear arms.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
All Comments   (60)
All Comments   (60)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
I sure am tired of hearing and reading that AR-15s are "weapons of war." To the best of my knowledge, no national military currently uses semiautomatic rifles. They use submachine guns. AR's LOOK like M-16's. Civilian AKs LOOK like military AK-47s. ARs cannot be used to hunt deer in most states because they aren't powerful enough. I have a semiautomatic Remington 742 in 30.06 caliber that IS legal for hunting deer. It is much more powerful than a .223. It would not be effected by the "assault weapons" ban, although you CAN get a magazine larger than the 4 round one it came with. But, it doesn't LOOK all scary like an AR does.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
You're a hoot! Delusional too! Nobody has even hinted at coming to take everybodys guns away. Well I take that back! The delusional pro gun thumpers have. Obamacare takes away your constitutional rights in what way? Name some constitutional rights you're going to be losing as a result of Obamacare!

You think you're so smart and want to talk about your presious rights and I assume you include your constitutional rights to privacy to act and do as you want without any intervention of those rights. If so, you've 'voluntarily' given up more personal rights to privacy than any government could ever do by design.

Seems I remember, though I could be wrong, that you're studying to be an engineer. If so, I sure hope you become a better engineer than you are as a constitutionalist or debater of politics.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
LOL..and in another delicious twist, it would appear that the terrorist still currently on the run tweeted support for gun control.

Makes sense that terrorists who wish to impose their world view on others would have similar instincts to liberals who would impose their world view on others....guns in the hands of the individual seems to be something of a stumbling block for both!
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
I took note of how many individuals with guns it took to take out one terorist running towards them and nearly 24-hours later to take the second one into custody. Nearly 300 rounds fired to take out one terrorist and the other escape running right throught their long road block in a car. Then I remember the two bank robbers in West LA where officers fired thousands of rounds to take them out. Then I'm reminded of 12,000 plus homicides in which 328 were taken out justifiably in the process of the homicides.

You probably a mathematic genious who can figure out how many more guns we need in the hands of citizens to make the nations safe from the majority of violent crime and do that insurrection thing on the tyrant government.

(fill in blank)
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
The issue is not 'how many guns in the hands of citizens', but the 'freedom of the citizens to have guns in their hands'. If you do not comprehend the difference, then this conversation is a moot point.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Above @ scottch
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Let's see, such a selection of easy targets....

I no longer have the "right" to NOT purchase health insurance - so that freedom of choice IS something I have had taken away from my by the government!

I am being REQUIRED to purchase a product from a private industry using my own money - so I no longer have the FREEDOM to spend my income as I see fit.

The government is now in control of 1/6 of the US economy, and now government bureaucrats will have access to healthcare records. How's that loss of privacy feel? Hasn't the SCOTUS decided that there is a right to privacy? We will have to literally satisfy the IRS with documentation of our personal lives that we have a health insurance plan that they approve of!

As for your erroneous claim that "Nobody has even hinted at coming to take everybodys guns away. ".....

NY Governor Andrew Cuomo said in a radio interview in late December, “Confiscation could be an option…mandatory sale to the state could be an option.”

Dianne Feinstein, Senator from California, 1995 interview, “If I could have banned them all – ‘Mr. and Mrs. America turn in your guns’ – I would have!”

This of course AFTER she DID manage to ban certain scary looking semi-automatic weapons in 1994 - a law that thankfully had a sunset provision.

When informed that there could be no "handgun ban as long as we have a Second Amendment", Illinois Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky responded with "I don't know that we can't".

San Diego's police chief Lansdowne wants privately held weapons to be confiscated and destroyed at the death of the original owner and not allow the weapon to be sold or handed down to descendents.

Former NYC mayer Koch is on record as wanting to ban all guns to private citizens.

I could go on, but it's pretty clear that there are a LOT of people on the democrat gun control side who have voiced just such a view as you inaccurately are claiming they are not voicing.

In short, you are an epic fail once again.

Do try again though - this is fun!
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
My, My! You are not 'forced' to buy healthcare insurance. You have a choice! Insurance or fine in which the fine is the cheaper way and still when you get injured or have a catastrpohic illness or injury the tax payers will pick up your bill for you because you opted for the fine.

You have a problem spending your own money for something that benefits you and takes you off the dole for taxpayer handouts?

Now, if only you could read. The question was: What CONSTITUTIONAL rights are you losing. Speech, religion, gun ownership, drink alcohol, not be anybodys slave, search and seizure, speedy trial, voting........... What?

Once again you go off into BS that has NO relevance! Show me one House or Seante bill that has ever hinted of banning private gun ownership and collecting them. People have all kinds of twisted opinions as evidenced by you quite often but until somebody proposes a bill in an attempt to enact their personal opinions well, thats all they are personal opinions. Just like your opinion that all democrats are evil, useless citizens of low education and IQ, all on welfare and mostly people of color who are homosexual communists born of a sheepherder and his favorite ewe.

Okay your turn for yet another diversion.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
I don't need a person that gets a concealed carry permit, when others can't to tell me how to protect myself and family, and to try and impose he dictatorial powers onto disarming those citizens that do need the ability to defend themselves, knowing full well that when a life hangs in the balance of seconds, 911 is minutes away, and much longer if you live in cities such as Detroit, or other cities facing fiscal crisis because of Democrat fiscal irresponsiblity.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Our glorious leader is all for arming the Muslim Brotherhood with free F-16's. An organization that has been associated with anti-American policies. He doesn't want American citizens to be able to protect their families. Feinstein wants to ban firearms that are scary looking, because of womething she witnessed many years ago that involved a murder with a handgun, how does that have any bearing on justifying the ban? She has a concealed weapons carry permit, but the majority of lawful California citizens aren't permitted the same privelege. She wants to ban firearms that aren't used in most gun crimes. Logic isn't a strong suit for the elitist class to which she belongs.....
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
We're faced with Capital T terrorism, savage assorted nuts shooting our school children, Feinstein, Reid and the worst President in the history of this nation, Barry Obama, contributor of U.S. tax dollars to his favorite charity, the Muslim Brotherhood.

Together, these briny, posturing, peccadilloes of government are guiding us in every wrong direction, all headed for every metaphorical cliff around.

Deter kid killing by putting armed guards in schools. Never.

Arm the CIA, FBI and homeland security with competent, dedicated patriots who'll eat, breathe and sleep the job of protecting the United States. Never.

Load key positions with Barney Franks approved political hacks and every manner of blame-America-first mentalities. Always.

I know. I know. We vote these pukes in so we're responsible. But only to a point. Where our elected representatives abrogate they're sworn duties; when they clearly abrogate their oaths of office, they lose their right to lead. They de facto resign from the job.

I'm resigned to advise Americans that the miscreants I named intend only ill for the United States. They feel no allegiance to the nation or its legal citizens. Everything they're committed to either involves the people giving up rights or putting the citizens in positions of peril, most notably trashing the second amendment; putting armed guards only where their own children attend school while driving up a debt that's driving this nation over its own financial cliff.

Make no mistake, America's leadership is waging a multi-pronged attack on America. And the mainstream media are they're cheerleaders. They have no purpose, but to help destroy every value this nation has held dear. Report on a mass baby killer: never. Support baby killing: always.

One of the scariest facts: if North Korea, or any evil regime for that matter, launched any kind of attack, nuclear or not, on allies of America or this nation itself, the cool one, Obama, would do nothing but talk.

If Obama got up in front on Congress on December 2, 1941, it would have been a tragic day in the history of this great nation. I can imagine the pap it would have produced. In four years, we'd have been speaking German, the language of death.

Obama is a cancer on the Presidency. There's no getting around it.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
That was a good read! However, it fails the originality test. Political activists have been writing stuff like that since the beginning of time in America.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Feinstein expressed “substantial dismay at the lack of courage" of her opponents? Quelle surprise!

These flea-bitten guttersnipes on the left can never argue substantively, can they? They can never produce a political, or social, or logical argument. It's always character assassination.

They always say in effect, "We're better than you, because we favor this policy." EVERY TIME. And their policies are pernicious, just as they are pernicious. Their insane plans for this country can't be defended logically, so they always strike that holier-than-thou pose.

This Feinstein is the little birdbrained autocrat who helped block a bill to give relief (and water!) to the farmers being ruined by the Delta Smelt controversy. So she's a nasty little tyrant herself. Don't lecture us, Evita.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Maybe, now that they have failed to nullify the constitution, the senate can get back to the job they are actually required to do: produce and pass a budget
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
I am sure Barry will now try too take action via executive order. Sheould he attempt this unconstitutional coup, it will be the patriotic duty of every American too demand his impeachment and removal from office. I guess it would be too much to ask he be tried for treason.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
"It failed 40-60, with both red-state and blue-state Democrats voting against the ban."
He DiFI! There were 60 votes! Against! Stupid quim.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
" But I’m certain that in the coming months and years, we will be forced to confront other incidents like Newtown, where innocents are murdered with one of these weapons of war."

Well, Ms. Feinstein, evidence is showing the bombs used recently at the Boston Marathon were constructed using pressure cookers. Shouldn't you begin the process to ban pressure cookers? You know, "if it saves ones life" and all that.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
1 2 3 4 Next View All

One Trackback to “Feinstein’s Gun Ban Goes Down 40-60 After She Scolds Colleagues”