Fienstein Pushing Asaault Rifle Ban

Diane Fienstien is planning on reintroducing the Assault Weapons Ban that Congress (not Bush) let lapse in 2004.

California Sen. Dianne Feinstein renewed one of Washington’s long-
running and most bitterly fought battles Friday, saying she will introduce
legislation seeking to reinstate the federal assault weapons ban that expired
in September after 10 years.

Gun control has been a signature issue for Feinstein since she arrived in
the Senate in 1993. But the odds she faces to pass the weapons ban in the
current Congress are probably steeper than they were in 1993, when the Senate
narrowly approved the ban, or last March, when it passed 52-47 before dying in
the body.

This is the same ban that Kerry was too chickenshit to propose that it be extended. Or maybe he just couldn’t find the Senate floor. And, if Fienstien would look at the relevent laws already fully in effect on assault weapons, she would see that the 1994 ban really had little in the way of teeth. Those weapons were already banned because they were automatic back in the late 1930’s. Furthermore, criminals do not generally buy assault weapons legally.

Don’t misunderstand me: though I fully support the Right to own guns, there is little to no need to own certain guns. I would accept a new law that wasn’t  self serving political BS. Let me have my butterfly knives, though. SInce they are illegal. The 2nd Amendment does say "arms," does it not?

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

12 Responses to “Fienstein Pushing Asaault Rifle Ban”

  1. Maggie says:

    Do ya think an Abrahms tank qualifies as “arms” cause I sure think it might come in handy if that Saudi-funded school down in Virginia decides it’s time to take field trips to D.C.?

  2. Nice history at the end, there. Most people aren’t aware of the 1934 Federal Firearms Act which regulated the sale of machine guns to the point where the average person could not own one (thus effectively banning them) Semi-auto look-alikes are not true “assault weapons”, as you seem to know. However, they are “scary looking” and thus anethema to anti-gun types like Feinstein.

  3. Maggie, technically, I would say a tank does qualify. It is an arms. One is necessary almost everytime one visits DC.

    Redhunter, I appreciate. I will be honest that I was to lazy to look up the exact date. I had had the convo with a lefty on a forum about it, and found out quite a bit about that Act.

  4. W.B. Rodgers says:

    I’ve posted my own thoughts on this over at my place. I’d gladly trackback to you, Teach, if I had any idea how that sort of thing operates. I did give you top billing for bringing this story to light, though.

  5. Ogre says:

    I own one of those evil, “outlawed” weapons, an AR-15. The “crime” my gun committed? It has a bayonet mounting point AND a pistol grip. Oh, the horrors. I haven’t checked today, but as of last night, the total number of people killed with that gun was zero.

    I do have the gun monitored with a motion detector at all times so that when (not if) the gun jumps up and starts running around shooting people, we will have evidence of it’s murderous rampage on film.

    BY this time, Feinstein knows the “ban” is total BS, but she’s introducing it so she can get more liberal support and money for her re-election campaigns, nothing more.

  6. There’s the rub, Ogre: you got your civilian version of the M-16 legally. Criminals generally wouldn’t. It doesn’t come in full auto. A bayonet point? I wonder how that makes a gun more dangerous. If I had a medium to long range rifle, I am not letting anyone get close enough to me to use the bayonet. Also, isn’t a bayonet much closer to the types of “arms” that were available and used during the late 1700’s?

  7. Woody says:

    Most people don’t own guns, so the democrats and their allies in the liberal press (who also don’t own guns) get to set the playing field to their advantage by demagoguing the issue.

    Many people like Pirate say “there is little to no need to own certain guns”. Pirate may or may not be aware that true assault weapons have been banned for decades. What the liberal politicians are blathering about is more aptly described as Redhunter put it “scary looking” guns.

    I own a Tec9 semi automatic pistol, a banned assault weapon. I also own a Glock 19 semi-automatic pistol. They shoot the exact same .9mm rounds, but the Tec9 looks like a fearsome military machine gun and so it is banned, while the smaller more easily concealed (therefore more dangerous) Glock 19 is not.

    There is no logic in the “assault weapons” ban. It’s all political pandering to the uninformed and slowly but surely it is erroding gun rights in this country. Someday only criminals will have guns and we law abiding citizens will be easy prey…

  8. Alan, I do in fact know about the real assault weapons ban, as shown in the 2nd to last paragraph. I still stand by my statement that I see little to know reason to own certain weapons. An MP5-SD3 is a kick ass weapon, yet is there really a need to own a 9mm automatic compact assault rifle with a folding stock and an integrated silencer? Not at this time. In the future, perhaps. Hopefully not.

    Notice I have said “need.” Not Right. The 2nd says essentially that no law shall be passed. Period. Yet it is illegal for me to possess a butterfly knife or switchblade. Both, like a tech 9, are scary, though a switchblade is a piece of crap. Butterfly isn’t. There are numerous laws against ownership of “arms.” We cannot posses a nuke, yet, isn’t that an “arms?” I will support a persons Consitutional Right to posses all arms. Doesn’t mean I have to agree with a person purchasing a PSG-1 with a silencer

  9. Woody says:

    Yes. The MP5 kicks ass, but it is already illegal to own an automatic weapon, and silencers are also illegal to posess without a BATF permit, so I’m not sure why you bring it up. I’m not advocating anyones right to purchase true military assault weapons.

    I was addressing the fiction of “assault weapons” that the liberals in Congress are trying to ban. The strategy appears to be scare the soccer moms enough and maybe they’ll vote you into office.

    I did not mean to imply you are on the wrong side of the issue, I was just putting in my $0.02. As for the nuke thing, I think you may be getting off on a tangent…

  10. Hey, takes alot more then that to offend me, Woody. I just think of it as political discussion. Yeah, the nuke thing goes a bit too far: is it a weapon or a “bullet?” Me, personally, I do not think of bullets as “arms.” Surprisingly, it rarely occurs to the anti gun folks to go after the bullets, rather then the guns. A case can be made both ways regarding bullets.

  11. Grafzahl says:

    What for do american people really need to own assaultrifles?
    Because of inferiority complex ? to compansate their lame life? because they can? because NRA says you have to?

    owning LE-weapons is kind of paranoid

  12. Perhaps so, Grafzal, however, the Constitution says no laws are to be passed restricting ownership.

    Granted, I doubt the Founders had any idea what weapons would be like these days. Most people have no need to own an MP5-SD (9mm machine gun with an intregal silencer, you see it in movies alot), but, the Constitution allows it.

    I still say that the burden needs to be put on bullet makers. Bullets aren’t really “arms.”

    Anyhow, if owning a Chinese version of the AK-47 is OK for John Kerry……..

Pirate's Cove