After Dog & Pony Show, Feinstein May Not Have the Votes to Pass the Senate

Posted on January 25, 2013. Filed under: Gun Control, Politics | Tags: , |

After the Dog & Pony show that was Dianne Feinstein’s introduction of her gun control legislation yesterday, it looks like she doesn’t have enough votes to get it out of the Senate.

That’s good news, as her legislation was far too radical, in my opinion. There are better ways to try to prevent horrific massacres from happening, but not by infringing on the rights of law abiding citizens.

Senate Majority leader Harry Reid had expressed skepticism a couple of weeks ago that it would pass the House

“Is it something that can pass the Senate? Maybe. Is it something that can pass the House? I doubt it,” [Reid said].

Feinstein was not happy when those remarks were brought up during her press conference.

“Look, I just said it’s uphill. Clearly it wasn’t helpful,” she said of his comment. “He has a right to say it. That doesn’t mean he’s always right.”

Feinstein is already blaming her constituency and the Democrats for failing to pass it:

‘‘The message to Democrats is, ‘See what your silence does?’ There will be more of these. These won’t end,” Feinstein told reporters.

“It’s been event after event after event, and what’s new to this are the schools,” she said. “If just reading the list of beautiful names and looking into the eyes of some of the pictures of the children slain doesn’t do something to the conscience of America, nothing I can say or do will.”

School shootings are not something that is new. Columbine spring to mind. Thurston High School in Springfield, Oregon. Westside Middle School in Jonesboro, Arkansas. The Bath, Michigan School Massacre of 1927 in which 38 children were murdered. Oh, you’ve never heard of that one? Look it up sometime.

The theater in Aurora, that was new.

The answer is not to fingerprint us all, or to register all of our firearms into a giant database. It isn’t to spy on American citizens. Most of us know and cherish our rights, as much as they can be a pain in the ass sometimes.

And we definitely don’t want to give them away.

Make a Comment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

8 Responses to “After Dog & Pony Show, Feinstein May Not Have the Votes to Pass the Senate”

RSS Feed for The Observation Post Comments RSS Feed

What about Feinstein’s bill do you find too radical?

I doubt the efficacy of any ban because it exempts guns owned prior to the enactment of the law. So it isn’t like they are even eliminating all assault weapons they are just stopping new ones from being produced and sold.

Also the definition of an assault weapons is assinine. Any rifle with a pistol grip and a detachable magazine is an assault weapon. Yet the same weapon without a pistol grip is not! WTF! A pistol grip does not make a gun more dangerous!

What other means would you suggest for dealing with gun violence?

What do I find too radical about it? Where do I start?

1. “Government officials” are exempt from this law. Either a law applies to all, or it applies to none.
2. The fingerprinting of all law abiding citizens.
3. The registration and creation of a national database to track all weapons and owners.
4. The ban on the transfer of weapons. In other words, you can’t leave such a weapon to an heir. What happens to it then? I’m sure the government will swoop in and take it. The end result is that the government is not “taking anyone’s guns”, but they are “drying up the supply” as she puts it.

I agree that their definitions are skewed, but more people are killed with handguns every year than “assault rifles”. Handguns are easier to use in close quarters.

I think we need to put more resources into helping those with mental illness, instead of waiting for them to commit a crime before we act. Mental illness is something that we can be proactive on, if we spend the resources to do so.

Ok an exemption for any civiliian is BS. You are correct either the law applies or it doesn’t. Now I would allow an exemption for law enforcement and military. But those same individuals should not be allowed to personally own an assault weapon.

Though I don’t have a problem with registering guns. I have to register my car. I see no issue with officially documenting what guns somebody owns and when they are sold, lost, stolen or destroyed. I think it would be good to be aware of what guns are who’s property. That would make it much easier for police to identify illegally owned firearms and remove them from circulation. But I do see the concern over it considering how much information the government has built up about all of us. So I can see your concern about being fingerprinted and registered and all that.

Law enforcement and retired law enforcement personnel are exempted as well. I always assume they are exempted, but there are always those out there who like to say “well, it doesn’t specifically say that they can”.

Although the government tries to push for gun registration, comparing it to car registration is a bit much. You are talking about a right vs. a privilege. And they tried it once with the National Firearms Act of 1934. It took 34 years, but the Supreme Court essentially gutted the law in 1968 by way of the Fifth Amendment (Haynes v. United States). While the entire law was not overturned (it had to be rewritten in 1968), it stated that registration of firearms was unconstitutional because requiring a convicted felon to register a firearm was a violation of his Fifth Amendment right of no self incrimination. It seems that our current lawmakers would research this before trying to require it again.

Ok I’ll give you that guns are different from cars due to the right vs privileged. Good point, well played.

I agree with your characterization of Senator Feinstein’s bill completely, and I also agree that though we need some comprehensive changes, this is not the way to do it.

I just read today an interesting tidbit about Senator Feinstein herself, and a fairly shocking instance of hypocrisy. If you’re interested, you can find it here:

I know all about Feinstein and her concealed carry, and her 1995 statements that she would take everyone’s guns if she thought she could get away with it.

Why don’t just make murder illegal? That would stop some of these killings.

Oh wait, we already have!

Thanks for reading. =)

That’s a really good point though, or at least a way to frame it that I hadn’t thought of. Making murder illegal doesn’t seem to have worked, so why would we think making murder weapons illegal would?

Where's The Comment Form?

  • Recent Posts

  • Categories

  • Archives

  • Meta

  • Blog Stats

    • 14,743 hits

Liked it here?
Why not try sites on the blogroll...

%d bloggers like this: