Dem Senator: We Will Have Assault Weapons Ban Bill Day One In Next Congress


I have received comments on Facebook, by email and comments in the comments section by people who think that there is no one out for Americans' guns. They live in a dream world. There is no other way to say it. The talk on television and radio over the past week, especially since Friday's Sandy Hook Elementary shooting has been nothing but anti-gun rhetoric and the internet has been filled with Tweets calling for the repeal of the Second Amendment and murder of the National Rifle Association president and its members. Whether it is Barack Obama or other liberals, there are those in Washington, D.C. who do want to ban firearms. One such is Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA). She told NBC's Meet The Press on Sunday that she will once again reintroduce an assault weapons ban bill on the first day of the new Congress.

As an introduction to a question on the leadership of Barack Obama on banning assault weapons the host quoted The Washington Post on the record of Barack Obama:

"I'm not going to take away your guns," Obama promised in September 2008. However, he advocated closing the loophole that allows for gun purchases without background checks at gun shows and for reinstating the assault weapons ban.

Obama kept his promises to gun owners but no to gun control advocates...

The president signed bills allowing guns in national parks and on Amtrak. He has not pushed for the reinstatement of the assault weapons ban... Nor has he moved towards closing the gun-show loophole.

The question was then asked, "Has the President failed to lead on this?

Feinstein was clear that Obama "is going to have a bill to lead on because the first day bill I"m going to introduce in the Senate, and the same bill will be introduced in the House; a bill to ban assault weapons.

It will ban the sale, the transfer, the importation, and the possession, not retroactively, but prospectively," she said. "And it will ban the same for big clips of more than ten bullets.

"So there will be a bill," the Senator continued. "We've been working on it now for a year. we've tried to take my bill from '94 to 2004 and perfect it. We believe we have. We exempt over 900 specific weapons that will not fall under the bill."

"But the purpose of this bill," she said, "is to get weapons of war off the streets of our cities."

She was then quickly questioned as to what made her think that the bill would pass.

"I'll tell you what happened in '93," she began, "when I told Joe Biden, who was Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, that I was going to move this on the crime bill. He laughed at me. He said, 'You're new here. Wait till you learn." We got it through the Senate. We got it through the House. The White House came alive and the House of Representatives and the Clinton administration helped. The bill was passed and the President signed it. It can be done."

Now reports have already been made about Feinstein's potential assault weapons ban. David Codrea at the Examiner was one that wrote that his source said the bill would include the following: No pistol grips allowed, no high capacity magazines, no grandfathering, and no sale permissible if in possession.

Feinstein claiming that she wants to get "weapons of war off the streets of our cities" off the streets may sound noble and all, but the reality is that doing so seems to be at odds with the very document she took an oath to uphold and defend. To refresh our minds a bit, the Second Amendment states:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

My fellow Americans. This is all about "weapons of war." It's not about hunting and it's not about target practice. The first four words indicate "A well regulated militia." That's not the hunting club. In fact, Noah Webster in his 1828 Dictionary defined militia with the following:

[L. from miles, a soldier; Gr. war, to fight, combat, contention. The primary sense of fighting is to strive, struggle, drive, or to strike, to beat, Eng. moil, L. molior; Heb. to labor or toil.] The body of soldiers in a state enrolled for discipline, but not engaged in actual service except in emergencies; as distinguished from regular troops, whose sole occupation is war or military service. The militia of a country are the able bodied men organized into companies, regiments and brigades,with officers of all grades, and required by law to attend military exercises on certain days only, but at other times left to pursue their usual occupations.

While there certainly is a distinction between militia and military, the issue is that they both can engage in military style combat. So the cry to ban AK-47's and AR-15's and various other rifles that are labeled "assault rifles" is simply, with regards to the Constitution a direct attack on the Second Amendment.

In a story I did recently on leaks concerning Feinstein's assault weapons ban, and alleged statements she made just eight years ago when she said, "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them . . . Mr. and Mrs. America, turn ‘em all in, I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren’t here." I received the following comment:

"Obama was for it then, not now, based on what he said today and since he was elected president. When did he change his position?"

This comment was to imply that Feinstein had changed her position. I ask you, does it sound like she's changed her position? Does anyone else think Barack Obama has changed his position and would not sign this bill should it come to his desk? After all, he has demonstrated that he wants stricter gun control for within hours of being re-elected as President, his administration cranked the talks on the United Nations Small Arms Treaty again.

Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, Tea Party Community & Twitter.

You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.






Comments

comments

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Meldoshki-Sevingkov/100002578741429 Meldoshki Sevingkov

    He changed his mind. It is the ability to do so that separates an intelligent leader from a speed bump; a man from a mechanical bull; a thinker from a backward idiot.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/John-Goodell/1409344319 John Goodell

    Anyone who takes Feinstein seriously should have their head examined.

  • djw663

    Feinstein along with Boxer and Pelosi 3 of the worst things CA has ever done.

  • ary

    Ms. Feinstein,

    if you believe killing babies of any age is a bad thing, why not remove the abortionists' tools, even though the word "abortion" removes you emotionally from reality of killing and is socially approved by some segments of society?

    Is using a gun to kill a baby and take its life so different than using suction tool or a sharp instrument to kill the baby?

    If it's ok to kill babies/chldren when they already have life, at what age is it no longer ok to kill babies/children?

    If only family membes and a consenting and abetting medical professional can legally kill a child / baby, at what age does that right to do so end, assuming some segment of society approves?

    Is approving or acceding to the use of drones to kill babies/children in other countries any less defined as "killing" babies & children because drones are a different "machine" or "tool" than guns and someone pushes a button and shoots them via a digital command rather than pulls a trigger?

    Does the faith / beliefs of a gunman, such as the Fort Hood killer, protect him from overdone media coverage of our president and you when he kills someone else's children/ baby-of a different age?

    Do the deaths of military "children" matter less because this president sees these men and women as his to command? Those military parents' childrens' deaths certainly seem to matter little to our president and our lawmakers.

    We still wait for truth and openness and deep media coverage of the Fort Hood deaths and the Benghazi deaths and the "security" for the vulnerable.

    And we wait , probably in vain,

    for people like Ms. Feinstein and Mr. Obama to acknowlege

    that they are creating an opportunity from this Connecticut crisis to make laws which will ensure that ordinary Americans and our children have access to less "security",

    even while they, for their own, hold tightly to the "security" that the "rights" and privileges of political office gives them -- AND which they pay for by putting their hands in taxpayers' pockets.

    If you believe guns for protection are a bad thing for ordinary Americans, why not give up all protections for yourself and your family?

    If you believe that Americans should allow themselves to be sexually assaulted (the definition of which can be to have to endure "unwanted sexual touch"), why not give up your private jet and fly on planes the rest of us have to fly on and subject yourself to TSA assaults on your private parts?

    Ms. Feinstein is in many ways a brilliant woman. When, Ms. Feinstein, did you quit thinking for yourself and become embedded in the progressive /socialist notion that you know best for everyone else, but are "special", and decide you are not willing to live by the laws you seek to impose on others? Did the way you think claim your mind-set with growing power and wealth?

    Ordinary citizens need ACCESS to protection that guns give, just as much as you and your president do. Your life is not more important than the lives of those Benghazi soldiers, and your life is not more important than the lives of those who died at Fort Hood.

    Airlines have "air marshals" that carry guns and are trained to protect. Why shouldn't schools have "school marshals"?

    How many babies and children are killed or injured each day across American in car accidents?

    Is it 20?

    Why not make a law outlawing all cars? If no one could start a car, perhaps no children would die in car accidents!

  • Noagain

    For all you folks in Washington who have body guards; when you give them slingshots I'll agree to give up our guns.

  • Carl

    This should be posted with every Face Book post aginst wepens ban copy and paste or rewrite to your liking (The
    Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads: (and should be
    posted every time some thing like this is posted)
    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a
    free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
    infringed.
    Does the government or anti gun people understand the words " SHALL NOT be infringed" )

  • Gizmo

    Murder statistics 2007-2011, I think we should ban knives before we ban rifles, at least according to the FBI. http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8

  • QuisPercusit

    Feinstein needs a terminal case of what ever is ailing HitleryKlintonchev.

    She will soon choke on her oath of office to uphold preserve protect and defend the constitution aganist ALL enemies both Foreign and Domestic . She is one of the Domestic enemies. the founding fathers were wary of when the wrote the Bill of rights . How stupid are the voters in Kaliforniagrad. Hmmm?

  • Randy K

    And, out from under her slime covered rock slithers Dianne FRANKENSTEIN. Watch her scaly tail closely...I'm bettin Babblin-Babs the baby-Butcher Boxer is attached to it and awaiting her turn at the mic.