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.