Washington (CNN) – Almost six weeks after the Connecticut shooting rampage that killed 20 first-graders, Sen. Dianne Feinstein on Thursday proposed a new federal ban on some assault rifles and semi-automatic weapons, as well as ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 rounds.
With assault rifles and semi-automatic rifles displayed on one side and police officers who support her proposal behind her, Feinstein said the goal is to "dry up the supply of these weapons over time."
FULL STORY
From CNN Politics
© 2012 Cable News Network. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
| Advertising practices | Advertise with us | About us | Work for us | Help
This old biddy can display whatever she wants. The majority of the population are realizing that guns are not the problem, it is insane and deranged people who abuse those inanimate objects to kill other humans who are the problem.
It's past time to stop with gun control and start focusing on insane person and criminal control.
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
forget the guns- talk about the ammo. No reason why a 556 round should be available to the general public, or many other rounds for that reason.
She might be so kind as to placard them with current prices & retailers for each one, given that she'll cause a boom in sales.
"Part of Feinstein's goal is to convince opponents of an assault weapons ban [...] that these weapons are not necessary for average citizens to own."
And she is an expert on this by virtue of what? Being able to pull some together for a show-and-tell?
"Show and Tell" at the Capital!
More feel good laws that will have zero effect on your safety. But....cheer them on! They're "Gettin er done!"
LOL
It's Newtown! At least show the victims the respect of spelling it right. Doesn't anyone edit these articles?
@Bob Caspar, good idea, push a ban with no grandfather clause? Suddenly turn millions of gun owners into owners of illegal contraband. Ever heard 'from my cold death hands'? Some of those gun owners believe that. It's one thing trying to make a dinky pot bust, how many LEOs are going to want to run in and confiscate these guns you think are so dangerous? Pot doesn't shoot back.
Can't wait to watch this fail spectacularly. Feinstein and those agree with her may have emotion and fear on their side. But we have the law on ours.
The right to kill is a cherished American tradition.
I thought Biden and Obama were on top of this.
What a load of useless crap. Banning every weapon that "looks" like an "assault" weapon to these liberal will not save one life. It will not stop one attack. It will not make one bit of difference. The Second Amendment does not say the people can have the weapons the government decides they should have – it's an absolute right.
How have you gun prohibitionists hoenstly not learned that these are NOT "military weapons?????" The are military STYLE, meaning in APPEARANCE ONLY. You are banning nothing except pistol grips, so there will be assault weapons (as you call them) without pistol grips.
We must protect the Second Amendment.
It's the only thing saving us from the Tyranny of the Taxers!
The blood of the innocent serves to remind us of just how important keeping our guns should be!
Gun owners should be able to keep their assault weapon if they provide:
1- Annual health certification & background check of all house hold members
2- Annual certification of proper storage & locking (inspector certified)
Then the law should change so anybody whose weapon is used in a crime is automatically charged
with manslaughter.
Its a good start but not good enough. Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein should include a ban on violent movies, video games and contact sports like football. People want these because they see it tv, movie theaters and video games. How come Senator Feinstein only wants to do half the job? She needs to ask the question want is making people want these type of weapons. She really needs to get serious about solving the problem or just shut up.
"The measure includes a grandfathered clause for weapons owned before the bill passed as well as other hunting, sporting, antique, manually operated and disabled weapons."
...which makes the entire "weapons ban" thing a joke, and rightly so. Just as before, if a lunatic wants to go on a shooting rampage, they will now just get their hands on one of these "grandfathered" guns, meaning innocent, law-abiding, responsible gun-owners who have these types of weapons could become targets for someone wanting to steal and use their gun...
...as was the case with the poor mother of Adam Lanza. He killed her for her AR-15 gun, which he ended up not using anyway (it was found in the trunk of his car).
DEMS: Leave the Second Amendment Alone and Intact!
After she's finished showing them off will any of them be for sale? I could use a few more along with some high capacity magazines.
About 1% of all gun deaths last year were from a rifle which includes these "assault rifles". 76% of gun deaths were gang related and it's highly unlikely that any of those guns were legally owned weapons. But let's continue to strip law abiding citizens of their rights and make these scary assault rifles illegal while ignoring the gang issues and the mental health issues that are the real reasons behind gun violence. Once again our horrible Congress completely misses on the real issues while going after pointless changes that will do little to nothing solve a problem.
Someone should display guns which won;t be banned that have the exact same capability, caliber, etc. of guns that would be banned. Someone should demand Feinstein explain why collapsible stocks, flash suppressors, barrel shrouds, and bayonet mounts make the gun more deadly and/or what recent tragedies would have been prevented if those features weren't available.
OK – take away the large magazines and clips. Now, let's imagine that a shooter has 4 10-round clips in his pocket. He finishes one. He pops out the clip – 2 seconds – and pops in another clip – 3 seconds. Assuming that all the law abiding citizens around him have given up their guns, and all the security guards are unarmed, did we just prevent anything from happening?
While I believe that there is little reason for average people to own these guns (I do enjoy them), it will never change the fact that less than 2% of gun crimes involve these types of weapons. This change will avoid 98% of the problem. A breakdown of this law: a maximum 2% change in crime, and a minimum 98% political statement.
Wasnt the right just lectured about fear mongering yesterday???
Absurd exploitation of an unavoidable tragedy.
NOTHING can stop a lunatic from killing people. LEAVE THE CONSTITUTION ALONE. don't punish good people.
Just because SHE doesn't see a need for the average citizen to own such a weapon does not mean that the average citizen shouldn't own one. What next, SHE doesn't see the need for smoking, which kills many times more people per year, so she'll try to outlaw it? I guess anything SHE doesn't see a need for will be targeted next. I don't see a need for her to keep dying her hair, so I guess I'll have my congressional representative introduce anti-hair dying legislation.