Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-CA., in the U.S. Capitol on September 24, 2013. (Photo By Douglas Graham/CQ Roll Call) | Getty
Three days after a shooting at Los Angeles International Airport left one TSA agent dead, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said she believed "deep down" in reforming gun control legislation.
“Would I do a bill? Sure I’d do a bill. I believe this down deep in my soul,” Feinstein said on CBS’s “Face the Nation” Sunday. But the senator said firearms supporters will prevent such legislation from passing.
“I think there’s a hammerlock on the Congress by the gun owners and gun people, and it doesn’t matter," she said.
Feinstein noted that the gun used at the Los Angeles airport was the same model as the gun used in the 2012 Aurora, Colo. movie theater shooting that left twelve dead and 70 injured.
“The weapon was a .223 MP-15, where the MP stands for military and police,” Feinstein said. “Clearly designed not for general consumption, but through practice now for general consumption—same gun that was used at Aurora.”
Nonsense, what needs to happen is a show of leadership by politicians as happened in Australia.
ReplyDeleteThe problem is that politicians have been spewing back the crap that the gun lobby has been shoveling to the US people without question. Even worse, politicians have been using the concept of gun rights to get people to vote against their interests.
As for their threats of war, bring it since they prove they aren't "patriots" by any means since the Constitution makes it pretty clear that fighting the lawful government is treason.
You keep forgetting that Australia lacks the same level of constitutional protection that we have. You've also yet to explain how you can live in America, since our Founders were traitors by your definition.
Delete"The purchases themselves appeared legal, although authorities were still tracing them, and it's unclear if the shooter used his own identification or someone else's, the official said.
ReplyDelete"He didn't buy them on the street. He didn't buy them on the Internet," the official said. "He bought them from a licensed gun dealer — the rifle and the two handguns."
http://news.yahoo.com/gunman-told-police-acted-alone-lax-shooting-174959371.html;_ylt=A2KJ3CU1oXdSoi4Ayo3QtDMD
This would suggest that the rifle used was a California legal weapon. So while it might be the same model, it has added components in order to complicate changing the magazine. Perhaps TS could give a better image of these modifications to make it comply with the stricter California which earns it an "A" grade from the big members of the gun control lobby.
Looking at the pictures, it appears to have at least three features that would get it banned (pistol grip, adjustable stock, and flash suppressor). If it has a bullet button installed, it would be legal to have these features, though that would make it the first case that I know of where a bullet button equipped gun was used in a crime. The report also says he had five 30rd magazines, so those are illegal.
DeleteFeinstein admits to the truth. Must be hard for the hag to do. But let's note that guns aren't the only area where she wishes our rights to be violated. She also supports the NSA against Americans. Her total lack of good character shows her to be unworthy of holding any public office.
ReplyDeleteWhen Congress refuses to pass background checks (that 90% of Americans want) it's clear she is correct, the NRA has to big a hold over Congress. These elected representatives sell their vote to the highest bidder. It's called corruption.
ReplyDeleteNo, it's called listening to the genuine voices of constituents, rather than nonsense polls.
DeleteI guessed you missed the point, 90% of those constituents want background checks, so legislators ignore what what their constituents want, in favor of money from the NRA.
DeleteAnon, politicians don't necessarily pay attention to national polls. They pay attention to the voters in their district, and they ignore the feedback from them at their peril.
DeleteIts quite possible that Sen. Feinstein is voting the wishes of her constituents, other Democratic politicians haven't fared so well. A couple of state Senators in Colorado come to mind. And possibly a third in the near future.
The only poll to specifically ask about the bills before congress showed a majority was relieved that nothing passed. The poll numbers you cite was asking about vague support for background checks. It did not ask "do you support the Manchin-Toomey bill?" It's like asking the question, "do you think health care should be reformed" and claiming that is a direct support for the ACA.
DeleteIf 90% of the people want background checks, then politicians are voting against their constituents stated will. Only 10% of the people do not want background checks, yet, the Congress is in majority against background checks. There is no way these politicians are voting the peoples will, if only 10% want it.
Delete"Only 10% of the people do not want background checks, yet, the Congress is in majority against background checks. There is no way these politicians are voting the peoples will, if only 10% want it."
DeleteIf that is the case, then those politicians will be very deservedly be voted out of office in the next election and replaced with someone who the people are willing to trust to represent them.
However, if they are reelected, then you have to trust the democratic process, and admit they were reelected fair and square, just as Senator Feinstein survived her challenge for her seat in 2012.
Anonymous is right. It's corruption which will be paid for in the next couple of elections. Look at Virginia today. Can you imagine a candidate in a state like Virginia, proud of his F rating from the NRA, winning? This is the wave of the future.
Delete"If 90% of the people want background checks, then politicians are voting against their constituents stated will."
DeleteBut they didn't propose a bill that gave the people background checks. Instead they proposed a bill that made it largely illegal to sell a gun privately without any expansion of the system. So that's not giving the people what they want, right? And it's no suprise that a majority was relieved when M-T failed.
Sometimes I think these news makers are reading my blog to get their ideas. I've been saying for a long time that I blame the gun-rights fanatics. I know it sounds too egotistical to think such a thing, so maybe it's just that great minds think alike.
ReplyDeleteGreat minds? Hardly.
DeleteI guess she'll be after our Colt Army and Navy model percussion revolvers next based on the 19th century marketing ideas of gun manufacturers.
ReplyDeleteThat's the thing about gun control freaks. They refuse to be honest about their real intentions. They go after one little class of firearms after another, hoping that we won't notice. But nobody accused them of being smart.
DeletePeople do change their minds. Before Harvey Milk was murdered Feinstein did not have a strong stand on guns. This is the same change you are seeing in the public after all these mass murders. Stricter gun controls are on their way, so is a more Democratic majority in Congress.
ReplyDeleteYep. Watching Milk get murdered made her go out and get a gun to carry in her purse. She knows the value of guns- she just doesn't value the people.
DeleteVery true TS. Its very hard to accept a politician's concern for people when they seem to believe and expect you to go along with special exemptions for their security because they're "special", and therefor rate more protection than the common folk.
DeleteIf I was a public figure like her with the haters lined up to destroy her, I would carry a gun, and I've never carried a gun. Don't see the need.
DeleteA hypocritical stance politically, but probably a good choice personally. Bill Maher says the same thing. He's anti gun (owns a gun) but says he won't get rid of his until everyone else gets rid of theirs.
The problem is in your definition of "anti-gun people." They're not that really. They're against irresponsible assholes having guns. They're against certain types of guns being available to the general public. But in most cases, they're perfectly OK with responsible and fit people owning guns if they want to.
DeleteAs mayor of San Francisco, she signed a law that banned all guns including confiscation and destruction of handguns. So I guess she thinks all those people who voted for her are "irresponsible assholes".
DeleteMikeb, given your statements and those of people on your side, there's not one word or deed that would convince me that you were telling the truth in that comment. Will you at least do us the courtesy of not thinking us stupid? We are smart enough not to believe you.
DeleteThanks Mike. I agree, and public polls back you up.
Delete“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.”
ReplyDeletehttp://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ffI-tWh37UY&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DffI-tWh37UY