|
|
Close Help | ||||||||||||||
(CNN) – Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California said Sunday the president will soon have legislation "to lead on" in the gun control debate, announcing she will introduce a bill next month in the Senate to place a ban on assault weapons.
"We'll be prepared to go, and I hope the nation will really help," Feinstein said on NBC's "Meet the Press."
– Follow the Ticker on Twitter: @PoliticalTicker
The senator said she'll introduce the bill when Congress reconvenes in January and the same legislation will also be proposed in the House of Representatives.
"We're crafting this one. It's being done with care. It'll be ready on the first day," she said, adding that she'll soon announce the House authors.
"It will ban the sale, the transfer, the importation, and the possession. Not retroactively, but prospectively. It will ban the same for big clips, drums or strips of more than 10 bullets," she said. "There will be a bill."
Gun rights legislation has gained renewed attention since Friday's deadly elementary school shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, that left 20 students and six adults dead.
Many lawmakers and politicians have called for stricter gun control laws at the federal level, including a revisit to the 1994 former assault weapons ban that expired in 2004 but has yet to be reinstated.
Feinstein, who helped champion the 1994 legislation, said she and her staff have looked at the initial bill and tried to "perfect it."
"We believe we have (perfected it). We exempt over 900 specific weapons that will not fall under the bill, but the purpose of this bill is to get … 'weapons of war' off the street of our cities," she said.
The senator added she believes President Barack Obama will support the legislation. As a presidential candidate in 2008, Obama said he would support such a ban, but he has been criticized for failing to work toward tighter gun control laws since taking office.
After Friday's shooting, however, the president signaled a change in policy could soon be in place.
"We're going to have to come together and take meaningful action to prevent more tragedies like this, regardless of the politics," Obama said in his weekly address Saturday, echoing remarks he made Friday after the tragedy.
Feinstein on Sunday praised the assault weapons ban of 1994 for surviving its entire 10-year term and predicted a successful future for her upcoming bill.
"I believe this will be sustained as well," she added. "You know, all of the things that society regulates, but we can't touch guns? That's wrong."
From CNN Politics
© 2012 Cable News Network. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
| Advertising practices | Advertise with us | About us | Contact us | Work for us | Help
although gun owners have rights, the people on the other end of the barrel also have rights, no different than states which band smoking in public places, or auto registration laws. i do not want to take guns away, but i want the same laws which provide rights to everyone that are used with cars with one exception, i want a 30 day waiting period for each and every gun purchased, registration and tags w/fees, 1 year renewal w/fees, transfer fees, gun safety class, written test, shooting test, liability insurance for every gun, with a million dollar minimum, and a ban on all assualt weapons and large clips. this does not take away guns from anyone and will create a larger cloak of protection for all citizens.
i would think the members of the NRA and all gun owners would see this as a responsible solution to gun ownership. the insurance would gurantee protection for those injured or killed, and restitution for families. it will also gurantee that these weapons of destruction will be well cared for and kept in a safe place.
and if it comes to a fight publicly, do as they do in a court of law, show as many pictures of the slaughtered bodies and that will be the end of their quest.
guns have created a epidemic of killing in this country and its time they have responsible rules.
Figures this legislation is being pushed from Commiefornia.
Reinstating the AWB will do little to curb gun violence in the US. As is stated in the article the AWB will only be in effect moving forward, it will not be retroactive. The reason they won't make it retroactive is because the politicians KNOW that the populace would never stand for that. If the politicians TRULY wanted to take these guns out of the hands of citizens they would make it retroactive. This is just another attempt to give the country a "false sense of security" while infringing on our rights guaranteed to us under the constitution and accomplishing very little.
Do all you readers know how many of these types of firearms exist in law abiding homes today? If any of the readers here follow gun sales in recent history Americans are buying firearms now more than we ever have in the past, due to the way things are trending and the current administration. It is nearly impossible to find AR15 components in stock with distributors, everything is back ordered. The firearms industry employs lots of people and generates lots of tax dollars. Reinstating the AWB will affect the lives of many Americans who have built or are building their lives with firearms industry income. There are companies that exist who ONLY make firearms that would be affected by this AWB reinstatement. Those companies have employees.
I would like to remind you all of one thing, 9/11 was accomplished with box cutters.
These people arent any more mental than any other person. The problem in our society today is that we have lost respect & value for human life. Some of the contributers that caused this crime are as follows believe it or not.
1. Divorce
2. abandonment issues, kids left alone with no love due to divorce, mothers and dad going out to work.
3. leaving children to play violent video games for hours on end.
4. computers and the violence about different crimes, post chats, etc... Ruination of the country
5. media coverage of violence.
6. copycat crimes
7. wants to feel important and go down in history
8. Violent music
*******1960's 70's kids were picking up football games in the neighborhoods not mass shootings!
X enforcement!
Banning any kind of gun in the country to came to be by being able to BEAR ARMS or even trying to ban any form of a gun in the country should be considered Treason. If you do not like America and the founding principles then find a new home. Also that pathetic British Scourge of Propaganda Piers Morgan should NOT be allowed on TV because he is trying to use his TV slot to use a TRAGIC and HORRIBLE situation committed by a sick individual to push his own misguided and DISGUSTING views on a COUNTRY HE DOES NOT BELONG TO.
And as much as everyone loathes "Assault Rifles", they are RARELY the tool of choice in these horrific events
I do not think people understand what an "assault weapon" truly is? I mean can someone here actually define to me what that term means? I own zero "assault weapons" yet I own several semi-automatic rifles that have the capability of being far more deadly than these "assault rifles." The assault rifles we are talking about are semi-automatic (fire one round each time the trigger is pulled) and tend to be .223 caliber. Which in all honestly is a varmint gun. These are not "weapons of war" all this is just political rhetoric to make them out to be this big black scary guns. weapons of war are fully automatic rifles. I just hate reading peoples statements that's just regurgitated rhetoric. I hope people can take these issues do a little research (from both sides) and form an opinion of their own.
All hail the new era of the fertilizer bomb...
"gun's do not kill people, people kill people", true. However, the intent of the proposed legislation is to limit the number of high-capacity guns and semi-automatic weapons available on the streets of our country.
People have always killed other people since the beginning of recorded history. Therefore, it makes no sense to allow easy access to weapons specifically designed to kill large numbers of people rapidly.
Consider: How many of those 27 innocent children and adults killed on Friday would be alive today if the killer only had access to one single-shot rifle?
I'm not against people having guns, especially if it is for sport, but why do we need so many weapons that are easily purchased and designed to kill large numbers of people quickly and efficiently?
I say, only allow either one (1) rifle with an internal clip maximum of four rounds OR one(1) revolver with a maximum of five rounds per each 18 year old American citizen. There is no need for anything more than that. In fact, please reference one story in the past 25 years in which an innocent, non-law enforcement American citizen defended themselves and/or others using a semi-automatic weapon against a perpetrator with similar weaponry.
Leave the serious weaponry in the hands of law enforcement and the military. Please.