Breakthrough Web Design - 515-897-1144 - Web sites for businesses
News & Entertainment for Mason City, Clear Lake & the North Iowa Region
Founded October 1, 2010

Assault weapon ban bill headed to Congress


This news story was published on December 16, 2012.
Advertise on NIT Subscribe to NIT

Feinstein

The Washington Post is reporting that Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) will introduce legislation to ban assault weapons when Congress is back in session.

Feinstein made the declaration on Sunday on NBC’s “Meet The Press” political talk show.

The Post reported that Feinstein said “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. And it will ban the same for big clips, drums or strips of more than 10 bullets. So there will be a bill. We’ve been working on it now for a year.”

The Post reported that Feinstein is confident the measure will pass.

Feinstein said this past July on her website that “Weapons of war do not belong on our streets, plain and simple. I am considering how I might strengthen the Assault Weapons Ban that expired in 2004 and how best to move forward with that bill. In the meantime, I support other efforts including Senator Lautenberg’s bill to ban high-capacity magazines. That provision was included in the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban and I hope it gains some traction in the Senate.”

After Friday’s massacre in Connecticut, Feinstein said she was “horrified and incensed by” the tragedy and that “these massacres don’t seem to stop—they continue on and on.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

 characters available

94 Responses to Assault weapon ban bill headed to Congress

  1. Avatar

    see more Reply Report comment

    February 18, 2013 at 5:40 am

    Appreciating the dedication you put into your website
    and detailed information you offer. It’s great to come across a blog every once in a while that isn’t
    the same old rehashed information. Great read! I’ve saved your site and I’m including your RSS feeds to my Google account.

  2. Avatar

    fancyfree15 Reply Report comment

    December 22, 2012 at 6:11 pm

    Working on both EMS and law enforcement, I can’t tell you how many times I’ve encountered people who desperately needed mental health treatment, were too mentally ill to know it, and no one could act until they were deemed “a threat to themselves or others”. Many of the mass murderers in the past months had all the signs and symptoms but didn’t reach the standard for an involuntary committal until it was too late. Our approach to mental health must be changed for both the mentally ill and for society in general.

    • Avatar

      Jason Reply Report comment

      December 22, 2012 at 7:31 pm

      Thank you. An intelligent, non-emtional response to the real problem.

      • Avatar

        a citizen Reply Report comment

        December 23, 2012 at 2:53 pm

        I agree with a lot of what has been said here. I just feel that whenever you enter the realm of civil commitment, you are starting on a very slippery slope. Balancing the safety and rights of the many against the safety and rights of a few, along with the rights afforded by our Constitution, is a very thin rope to tread upon, and must be done so with extreme caution and judgement.

  3. Avatar

    fancyfree15 Reply Report comment

    December 22, 2012 at 6:02 pm

    The one thing the majority of these mass murderers have in common is mental illness. The nationwide deregulation of mental health left so many with – yes, lots of freedom to live in their communities, but no safety net. The mentally ill are often incapable of making and following through with treatment decisions. As their condition worsens, family and friends can’t force them to obtain treatment. They can only watch and pray that their loved one doesn’t harm themselves or another. Until that happens, there is no way to treat them without their consent. Mental health MUST become a social priority again!

  4. Avatar

    concerned Reply Report comment

    December 22, 2012 at 2:50 pm

    Feinstein is a hypocrite of the worst kind. She has a carry permit while saying others should not have them. She has security people protecting her but wants everyone else helpless.

  5. Avatar

    Get Educated Reply Report comment

    December 18, 2012 at 9:57 pm

    Do you really think either side wants to hear from someone that rides the fence on every issue. You are a LOAD. Get a purpose.

  6. Avatar

    anonymous Reply Report comment

    December 18, 2012 at 6:06 pm

    I love these debates. One side wants to arm every man, woman and child and the other side wants to get rid of every gun ever made. The 2nd amendment supporters accuse the gun control people of violating their constitutional rights while they want to stop them from expressing their first amendment rights. Pricless!!!

    • Avatar

      a citizen Reply Report comment

      December 18, 2012 at 10:24 pm

      You are absolutly correct. Especially when people like “Get Educated” take a debate about firearms and start throwing in knives (pardon the pun) and cars to prove his point (which I still haven’t quite figured out). I dread the day when these people lose their subjectivity and start actually thinking before they write something. They might start to lose their humor and start making some sense.

  7. Avatar

    Get Educated Reply Report comment

    December 18, 2012 at 5:31 pm

    Okay Happyguy, where does your analogy stop? Someone uses a knife to kill so we ban knives? Someone uses a car to purposely run over someone so we ban cars? That constituional right we are all aforded, specifically the 2nd Amendment is what this country was founded upon. For anyone to suggest we alter the Constitution or begin to givce up our rights can leave this country and go live in one that better suits your ideologies that don’t coincide with our Constitution. Arm the educators and be done with this issue!! It is working in Texas. Don’t forget that Columnbine occured during the ban period on assult rifles. Now what Happyguy? What is your answer to that? That is a retorical ? so don’t bother.

    • Avatar

      happyguy Reply Report comment

      December 20, 2012 at 6:28 pm

      There are all kinds of guns that are illegal to own inspite of the 2nd amendment. There is no reason we can’t add more. I personally would call for a ban on assault rifles and magazines that hold more than 3 shells. I would also like see them make it illegal to own or possess them. I know a lot of people on this site don’t agree with my views. I don’t really care. These are part of a sensible solution and don’t infringe on your 2nd amendment right. On your other issues about knives and cars (and you forgot baseball bats) doesn’t warrant a response. You and I both know there is no way to stop every evil act a person will do. But we sure can make it harder to do and stop a lot of it. So here is another post the gun lovers can jump all over, but I think most with common sense will agree with most of what I have said.

      • Avatar

        Jason Reply Report comment

        December 20, 2012 at 9:35 pm

        “There are all kinds of guns that are illegal to own inspite of the 2nd amendment. There is no reason we can’t add more. I personally would call for a ban on assault rifles and magazines that hold more than 3 shells. I would also like see them make it illegal to own or possess them. I know a lot of people on this site don’t agree with my views. I don’t really care. These are part of a sensible solution and don’t infringe on your 2nd amendment right.” And totally ignore the 800lb gorilla in the room. Banning anything will not remove it from our society. Heroin, Meth, cocain are all banned from posession yet people still aquire them. Buying lage quantities of the components for producing Meth is illegal, yet law enforcement continues to find active labs. It is illeagal to produce distilled alcohol for consumption without a liecense; yet moonshine is still produce and sold.

        We (society) has near perfect hid-sight in each of these massacres; how each of the shooters displayed metal problems. Yet the “proper athorities” failed to act or couldn’t act to investigate the shooters. These mureders don’t just snap, each of them planned their acts. When do we start dealing with thses troubled people before they become mass murders?

        The other fact you miss is that each time you arm the law-abidding public crime/shootings/urders decrease. Notice how the “Batman Theater” gun man chose a theater which had a “no-carry” policy; it wsn’t the closest nor was it the largest theater near the gunman.

        On a tangent here, I have to wonder if our “lockdown” policy is wise and may have even contributed to the number of victems in this case?

      • Avatar

        happyguy Reply Report comment

        December 20, 2012 at 10:13 pm

        Jason you are entitled to your opinion as am I. I disagree with a lot of what you say. And I could argue some of your facts. No point because neither will change the others mind. We do need to address the mental health issue but in the past and now a day too, tax payers have had a real problem financing that. Seems to be one of the first items cut from any goverment budgets. The one thing I think we can both agree on is something needs to be done. We can’t have these atrocities happening every month.

      • Avatar

        maybe Reply Report comment

        December 20, 2012 at 11:18 pm

        I guess lightning can strike the same spot twice as this is the second time I agree with you happyguy.

      • Avatar

        Jason Reply Report comment

        December 21, 2012 at 12:11 am

        “No point because neither will change the others mind.” You miss-understand my intensions for posting. I know I will never sway any poster here to my opinion, my aim is to reach that reader who will read my missive and then do his own research and form his own opinion. I have “won” if I have achieved that with only one person.

        “We do need to address the mental health issue but in the past and now a day too, tax payers have had a real problem financing that.” Two points: 1)How much would it cost the tax payers to finance a realistic process to have those with mental issues commited? And how much would it cost to allow our Law Enforcement Community to actually protect the public; we have allowed the police to be hamstrung all in the name of personal freedoms. 2) how willing would the tax payer be to finance the forced removal of all the weapons you have suggested.

        “The one thing I think we can both agree on is something needs to be done. We can’t have these atrocities happening every month.” 1) These atrocities are not happen every month. 2) I believe we should try something that isn’t based on an emotional response and shown historically to be in-effectual in reducing these murders.

  8. Avatar

    Katie Reply Report comment

    December 18, 2012 at 4:22 pm

    I just read that Adam Lanza’s mother intended to have him committed to a psychiatric facility and that’s likely what made him snap because he was very angry about it.

    http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/12/18/fear-being-committed-may-have-caused-connecticut-madman-to-snap/

    • Avatar

      happyguy Reply Report comment

      December 20, 2012 at 6:31 pm

      Katie…from Faux News…come on. I’ll believe it when a respectable news organization reports it.

      • Avatar

        LVS Reply Report comment

        December 21, 2012 at 8:29 am

        @Happy Guy-I heard it on CBS and NBC as well as FOX news. The guy was a looney. That being said it is no excuse for killing kids. He should have been put away long before this happened. I would support anything the would prevent this happening again. I have said it before and I will say it again and I know it will make some people angry, I have been a hunter all my like and have never had a reason to have more than five bullets in my guy. I di shoot 3 turket and two deer in Texas one time without reloading. I see no reason to have a clip that holds more than 10 rounds or a gun that will shoot rapid fire. That being said, most semi-auto pistols today have 10 round clips standard. People buy these for protection and have a right to own them. I would support a ban on “Assult” type weapons if it was done with other measures to protect children. We need to understand it is a new world and some of the old rules don’t apply. There are a lot of crazy people out there.

      • Avatar

        LVS Reply Report comment

        December 21, 2012 at 8:31 am

        Damn keyboard “Typo’s”

  9. Avatar

    Citizen X Reply Report comment

    December 17, 2012 at 11:08 pm

    Understand, that this is not a case where a law abiding, licensed, properly trained, mentally stable person was in use of a firearm. A law abiding citizen with the right to carry could have prevented this lunatic from killing a single person. All you “ban them now” people should understand that new laws will not stop criminals and lunnies from getting their hands on firearms and using them against upstanding citizens. Just sayin…

  10. Avatar

    SAVAGE Reply Report comment

    December 17, 2012 at 7:50 pm

    Can someone give me a reason that you need a weapon that can fire 20-30 rounds a minute? Just would like to know, maybe I’m missing something.

    • Avatar

      Jason Reply Report comment

      December 18, 2012 at 8:44 am

      Can someone give me a reason that you need:
      Beer sold in more than a 2 pack?
      A vehicle that will travel faster than 55mph? Just would like to know, maybe I’m missing something.

      I shoot in combat matches, it requires a rifle/shotgun/pistol that can fire rapidly. I also shoot skeet/trap (and as I am not very good at it, I do do need those back up shots). These are sports that many enjoy participating in.

      BTW 20-30 round per minute translates into one shot every 2-3 seconds. This same rate Oswald achieved while shooting President Kennedy.

      • Avatar

        savage Reply Report comment

        December 18, 2012 at 9:42 am

        I have weapons. I’m not saying ban all guns. Just the ones that can fire 100’s of rounds in a matter of minutes.

      • Avatar

        maybe Reply Report comment

        December 18, 2012 at 11:23 am

        @savage, guns that can fire hundreds of bullets a minute have been banned for the public since 1938, how many more laws against them do we need?

    • Avatar

      savage Reply Report comment

      December 18, 2012 at 3:24 pm

      Sorry I overstated the rate of fire. R-15 with a 20-30 round clip will only fire 12-15 rounds a minute . Take in 5 clips and add a group of people at point blank range you do a bit of damage in 5 minutes.

      • Avatar

        savage Reply Report comment

        December 18, 2012 at 3:33 pm

        maybe, I read that law and did it quickly and I’m not a very knowledgable person in this area. But it read like you need to be licensed to sell them, and not be a criminal to buy one.

      • Avatar

        maybe Reply Report comment

        December 18, 2012 at 11:11 pm

        You need an FFL to sell and to buy, try buying a full auto and then wait for the ATF to come say hi.

      • Avatar

        happyguy Reply Report comment

        December 20, 2012 at 6:38 pm

        I saw a demonstration on TV last night where it was possible to fire 100 shots in one minute with the same rifle that was used on Friday. Absolutly no reason any civilian should own something like that

  11. Avatar

    peelitfrommycolddeadhands Reply Report comment

    December 17, 2012 at 4:32 pm

    There is no such thing as a semiautomatic assault weapon. If you were to take a ruger 10-22, swap the stock with an AK style stock it’s still a ruger 10-22. Shoots the same ammo, same action, same everything except that it LOOKS like an assault weapon that everyone is familiar with. An assault weapon ban would be the first step of abolishing the 2nd amendment

    • Avatar

      maybe Reply Report comment

      December 17, 2012 at 5:32 pm

      An assault weapons ban is not nessesary, how many speed limit laws are there? The federal firearms act of 1938 basically banned all automatic (assault) weapons from public use. How many more laws do we need to make criminals obey the law? This article is the Federal Firearms Act of 1938.

      http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/Ascione1.html

  12. Avatar

    Katie Reply Report comment

    December 17, 2012 at 2:52 pm

    The problem in this case lies with the mother. I read an article today that quoted a former baby sitter who was told by Nancy Lanza never to turn his back on Adam Lanza and that was when Adam was 9 years old. A mother who was that worried about her son at that young age should never have had guns around him ever. She had also made the comment that she was losing contact with him lately. Will we ever know if she knew how truly dangerous he was at the time of this tragedy? Perhaps a psychiatrist will come forward to the police. Perhaps she was unable to get him all the help he needed.

    The other problem is that our legal and medical systems are broken when it comes to mentally damaged individuals. They will not keep them locked up for their own good or for the public’s safety. People who will not stay on their medications need to be kept hospitalized for our safety. Until the legal and medical systems acknowledge this and protect the public from these people, we are all in danger. The shift away from mental hospitals has been shown to be a wrong one. The ones that existed in the past were hellholes, but what is happening now in our society is just as wrong. Mentally incapacitated and psychotic people are living on the streets and are being turned loose on our society because they are not being committed to hospitals where they belong. The judges and doctors are afraid of violating these patients’ rights and violate ours instead. This has to change. We must demand to be protected from criminals and people with violent mental illnesses.

    • Avatar

      happyguy Reply Report comment

      December 17, 2012 at 5:17 pm

      The people that commit these acts are evil and most are legally sane. These evil people are getting guns, many legally. It will help some if we can change the way mentally ill people are handled. But are you willing to pay for it. That is one of the reason why things changed so much. It costs a lot of tax payer money to care for these people. But that without some reform of gun laws will do no good. We need both. And if we don’t act and act soon Newtown will happen all over again.

      • Avatar

        Katie Reply Report comment

        December 17, 2012 at 5:40 pm

        We need to lock up the people in our society who do not toe the line legally or mentally. We are now reaping the results of not having done the job for many years. We have permissive parents, a permissive judicial system, and a permissive mental health care system. They all need to toughen up and as I’ve said before, we need to provide the proper institutions, rehab, education, & productive work for them that will actually help pay for their expenses to the extent that they are able. It’s time to get tough and get people to clean up their acts.

      • Avatar

        maybe Reply Report comment

        December 17, 2012 at 6:00 pm

        According to the news reports this last maniac wasn’t sane as you mentioned and tried to buy his own weapons but was denied because of the current laws. Since he was denied does that mean we need more laws saying the same thing?

  13. Avatar

    a citizen Reply Report comment

    December 17, 2012 at 11:03 am

    This discussion is almost more enjoyable to read than the Cyclone Steel article about the
    Fosters. Thank you all for writing in.

  14. Avatar

    Anonymous Reply Report comment

    December 17, 2012 at 10:06 am

    The radical muslims/NWO and the UN should like this.

  15. Avatar

    Anonymous Reply Report comment

    December 17, 2012 at 9:59 am

    Is’nt this the nummie that voted to send thousands of assualt rifles (military aid) to foreign countries so the people could protect themselves ????

  16. Avatar

    Anonymous Reply Report comment

    December 17, 2012 at 8:17 am

    This nit wit woman should be passing a bill to fund and help the mentally ill. The gun did not take it upon it’self to do this sick deed.

    • Avatar

      ArmBears Reply Report comment

      December 17, 2012 at 9:21 am

      Planes dont kill people, people who fly them into buildings do. And yet we have found sensible ways to provide for our safety and secure our Freedoms at the same time. Over One Million Americans have died as a result of gun violence since the assination of John F Kennedy, Dr. King and Robert Kennedy. Its time to stop the insanity. Im a life long member of the NRA.

  17. Avatar

    Anonymous Reply Report comment

    December 17, 2012 at 8:11 am

    The people who wrote our constitution – remenber the war hey fought to free our country from tyrants – They used guns not political speeches – put money back into federal funding for mental health that has been deprived of. Be willing to bet at the first sign of trouble you would be running next door to your neighbor that carrys – get off your whimp azz and stop letting everyone carry your load.

    • Avatar

      happyguy Reply Report comment

      December 17, 2012 at 11:14 am

      Why are you afraid to have a civil conversation about some common sense gun control issues. You and the other pro gun people here are all about yourselves and damn anyone else. You sound as if you are all holed up waiting for armageddon. You may not realize this but you share this world with billions of other people. The world doesn’t revolve around you. Mine and your right to life trumps the 2nd amendment everytime. If you don’t want to talk about the gun issue I know there is a growing movement to put a very high tax on ammo. How about that instead?

      • Avatar

        My Voice Reply Report comment

        December 17, 2012 at 11:47 am

        I haven’t heard you or any other Liberal here NOR Feinstein offer ONE word of condolences to the victims OR their families. Instead you use this horrible tragedy to fuel your anti-gun rhetoric. I for one would like to focus on the victims and their families first. My heart goes out to you all. God bless the victims and their families.

        Now, the gun issue. You can take this opportunity to hammer the guns ban all you want. But never forget that the 2 largest mass murders in american history were done with box cutters and fertilizer. What are you going to really stop? A deranged person will stop at nothing to carry out their evil acts. No ban or law will EVER change that.

  18. Avatar

    get your facts straight Reply Report comment

    December 17, 2012 at 7:31 am

    An assault rifle is a select-fire (either fully automatic or burst capable) rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine. It is not to be confused with assault weapons.[1] Assault rifles are the standard service rifles in most modern armies. Assault rifles are categorized in between light machine guns, which are intended more for sustained automatic fire in a light support role, and submachine guns, which fire a pistol cartridge rather than a rifle cartridge.

    Examples of assault rifles include the StG 44, AK-47,[2] M16 rifle, QBZ-95, INSAS, Heckler & Koch G36, and Enfield SA80

    hmmmmmmmmmm dont see any referance to an ar-15 being an assault rifle by definition

  19. Avatar

    blog Reply Report comment

    December 17, 2012 at 5:07 am

    Love this topic because it always fires up the gun totin , don’t step on my rights nuts. This summer when I saw a man and a woman walking in the mall with holstered pistols it became evident how crazy our world has become.

    • Avatar

      concerned Reply Report comment

      December 22, 2012 at 2:44 pm

      You are not allowed to carry in Mason Citys mall.

  20. Avatar

    maybe Reply Report comment

    December 16, 2012 at 11:32 pm

    • Avatar

      happyguy Reply Report comment

      December 17, 2012 at 6:26 am

      More guns in school…that is insane and a recipe for more children dying. Gun control does work. In 1996 Australia pass mssive gun reform and didn’t have a mass shooting for 10 1/2 years after. Why is your assualt weapon and your big clip more important than your grandsons life?

      • Avatar

        maybe Reply Report comment

        December 17, 2012 at 7:34 am

        The gun is a tool, an inanimate object that if while sitting in my closet doesn’t hurt a soul but when it comes to it and my grandsons life is in danger it will be there to protect him.

      • Avatar

        Jason Reply Report comment

        December 18, 2012 at 8:37 am

        And Israel armed its teachers and parents in their schools in the 1970’s. Not one child has been killed in their schools since. But I guess Australia has a larger terrorist problem then Israel.

  21. Avatar

    Anonymous Reply Report comment

    December 16, 2012 at 11:28 pm

    Hitler justified himself killing 6 million Jews in WW2.
    al-Qaeda justified themselves flying planes into the twin towers.
    Gun owners justify their right to own guns.
    If you believe in something strong enough, you can always find reasons to justify for it being right.

    • Avatar

      Jason Reply Report comment

      December 17, 2012 at 2:46 am

      And gun control advocates justify any law to control guns.

    • Avatar

      Crazyheeb Reply Report comment

      December 17, 2012 at 8:38 pm

      How dare you? How the hell dare you compare hitler killing 6 million Jews to gun control? And moreover, how dare you compare what islamofacists did on 9/11? You’re just as deranged as the sick f@ck that killed those innocent children. And thank you for proving the “gun-nut’s” case for them- if you want to kill someone bad enough, you don’t need a gun. You’re exactly what’s wrong with this country and make me wonder why I put on a uniform everyday to protect people like you. The typical coward liberal that sits back and points fingers in the wrong direction…… Please, for the love of all that is holy, DO NOT REPRODUCE.

  22. Avatar

    Reggie Reply Report comment

    December 16, 2012 at 8:24 pm

    I really think our problem is two fold.Mentally unstable people either being misdiagnosed or going off their meds AND readily available multiple round weapons.Combine these two and you have a potentially lethal ,as we have seen. problem. Is there an easy solution? I don’t think so but unless we are willing to lock anyone who suffers from a lot of forms of mental illness the easier and more logical plan of attack is to outlaw assault weapons. Will this stop all killings? I don’t think so but a maniac with a six shooter or a knife will kill a lot less people.There is no easy solution to this problem in a free society

    • Avatar

      maybe Reply Report comment

      December 16, 2012 at 11:03 pm

      I heard on the news on Saturday that some nutcase in china killed 36 people with a knife.

      • Avatar

        happyguy Reply Report comment

        December 17, 2012 at 6:17 am

        At about the same time on Fri a man in China went into a school and attacked some 30 children. In Newtown, Conn. 26 were killed with an assualt rifle. In Chine no one died. Big difference. Get your facts right. You were trying to mislead us.

      • Avatar

        maybe Reply Report comment

        December 17, 2012 at 7:32 am

        I was watching headline news and they said 36 people were killed, if anybody was trying to mislead anybody it was the media, I just repeated what they said. I understand people like you that want to give away your rights to protect yourselves and your family and let others do it for you. I will not rely on anybody but myself. You can blame me or blame guns all you want but thats not where the problem lies, You can take away all the guns in the whole world and people will still be getting killed.

  23. Avatar

    happyguy Reply Report comment

    December 16, 2012 at 7:06 pm

    “After a 1996 firearm massacre in Tasmania in which 35 people died, Australian governments united to remove semi‐automatic and pump‐action shotguns and rifles from civilian possess In the 18 years before the gun law reforms, there were 13 mass shootings in Australia, and none in the 10.5 years afterwards.”

    How can we call ourselves a civilized nation when we continue to let these mass murders happen and do nothing to stop them? There are some common sense actions that could and should be taken to help prevent these evil people from committing these types of crimes. Can we stop something like this from ever happening again? I don’t know. I do know that if no action is taken this will happen again and again. Just when is enough, enough? I know we have a 2nd amendment that most think it gives you the right to own guns. But didn’t the 26 people killed on Friday have a right to life also? In my book your right to life trumps your right to own an assault weapon every time.

    • Avatar

      maybe Reply Report comment

      December 16, 2012 at 11:01 pm

      Yes those 26 people that died on Friday did have a right to life, but because some nutcase took away their right now you want to take away mine? I mourn for their lives, My grandson is 5 and thinking of what they went through broke my heart but I will be damned if I will give up a single gun of mine because someday I will need them to protect MY grandson.

      • Avatar

        happyguy Reply Report comment

        December 17, 2012 at 6:13 am

        Maybe…and you are the reason these mass murders will continue to go on and on. I truely hope your grandson isn’t one of the next victims. Shame on you!

    • Avatar

      Anonymous Reply Report comment

      December 17, 2012 at 8:01 pm

      How do you figure we let this happen.

      • Avatar

        happyguy Reply Report comment

        December 20, 2012 at 6:46 pm

        lack of action for how many years now? That’s how we let it happen. Kind of a no-brainer isn’t it?

  24. Avatar

    blog Reply Report comment

    December 16, 2012 at 5:14 pm

    I think complete media blackouts on these types of events might help stop some of the nuts simply looking for publicity. Also I used to hunt and have several guns in my house but see no need for these military style guns with large clips to be in the public’s hands. Times have changed radically since our for fathers wrote this into the constitution. Guns then were a necessity for survival.

    • Avatar

      msgordy Reply Report comment

      December 16, 2012 at 5:39 pm

      The times have changed since then. We also didn’t have tv-internet-radio-etc. Maybe we need to ban that type of media and go back to wood block printing presses.. People don’t NEED these types of weapons?? Who are you to question what I need or do as a hobby?? Feinstein is an idiot. This wrinkled up POS liberal needs to go away. Using the horrible deaths of all these children as a vehicle for HER agenda is sickening.. The guy never used a “assault weapon” SO we are introducing a ban.. Typical knee jerk idiotic reaction. Bring back public executions–The honken/johnson trial comes to mind

  25. Avatar

    armchair captain Reply Report comment

    December 16, 2012 at 5:05 pm

    I wonder if the Senator Feinstein has read that the murderer did NOT own the guns used. He infact took them from his mother. The .223 bushmaster assualt rifle better known as an AR-15 was left in the car he drove to the school.

    Until the Sandy Hook horror, the three worst K–12 school shootings ever had taken place in either Britain or Germany. Did banning guns stop the killING of dozens on the island in Europe last year?

    Did Friday’s killer respect the NO GUNS rule at the school. All these rules do is let these murders know they can go to the school and shoot it up knowing, NOBODY else will have a gun to stop their spree until it is to late.

    Maybe the schools need to assign guns to people in charge to stop the killing, instead of sending the principle down unarmed.

    • Avatar

      happyguy Reply Report comment

      December 16, 2012 at 6:54 pm

      wrong armchair…all were shot with the rifle except for himself.

    • Avatar

      bodacious Reply Report comment

      December 17, 2012 at 7:01 am

      You blame the school? What an idiot and what a concept. You are screwed up.

  26. Avatar

    rukidding Reply Report comment

    December 16, 2012 at 4:44 pm

    This is not a constitutional issue there is no reason a person should have a assualt rifle. Nobody is talking about taking a hand gun or hunting rifle away from anyone. Its too bad that there are people who are not responsible enough to own a gun and that is why a law is needed.

    • Avatar

      armchair captain Reply Report comment

      December 16, 2012 at 5:05 pm

      The shooter did not own the guns.

      • Avatar

        armchair captain Reply Report comment

        December 16, 2012 at 5:09 pm

        Connecticut has some of the strictest laws in the nation. To obtain a gun there, you must be 21. You must apply for a local permit with the town’s police chief and be fingerprinted for a state and federal background check. The process includes a 14-day waiting period, and the state requires a gun safety course for anyone who purchases a handgun.
        The shooter in Connecticut wasn’t eligible to own a gun, as he wasn’t 21. He stole the weapons from his mother, who legally obtained them.

        Read more: http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/conscience-conservative/2012/dec/16/why-gun-control-wouldnt-have-prevented-connecticut/#ixzz2FG8XKYlc
        Follow us: @wtcommunities on Twitter

      • Avatar

        rukidding Reply Report comment

        December 16, 2012 at 7:51 pm

        This is part of my point this nut did not own the guns he stoled them, but his mother was not a responsible enough gun owner to keep her weapons out of the hands of this person. I am not against gun ownership but I don’t see any need to have assualt rifles or clips that hold large number of rounds.

    • Avatar

      maybe Reply Report comment

      December 16, 2012 at 10:55 pm

      An assault weapon is an automatic which was banned in the 1930’s. What they want to ban now is a weapon that looks like one but not a real assault weapon. If they ban all weapons and these a$$wipes keep killing people then what are we going to ban?

    • Avatar

      tony r Reply Report comment

      December 17, 2012 at 12:50 pm

      those “assault” you’re talking about are semi auto only that are use for hunting all through this country so tread lightly there

    • Avatar

      John Reply Report comment

      December 19, 2012 at 11:27 pm

      There is a law and the shooter did not own the guns, his mother did and he killed her before he left for school that day.

  27. Avatar

    Get Educated Reply Report comment

    December 16, 2012 at 4:39 pm

    Leslie, you should see a therapist. When is our culture going to address the real problem? We don’t need to stomp on our constitutional rights to direct people to follow the laws. We need a moral compass for that. Why do these persons get to a point in there minds to do these things? What is it about their upbringing went wrong or was missing? Until we answer these questions we will continue to read about these types of events. Bow and arrows, guns, knifes. They aren’t the problem. You can take all these away and these people will continue to have this deep hate in them. That is what needs to be eliminated. Not our constitutional rights.

    • Avatar

      msgordy Reply Report comment

      December 16, 2012 at 5:41 pm

      Perfect!! Couldn’t have said it better

  28. Avatar

    LVS Reply Report comment

    December 16, 2012 at 4:03 pm

    Senator Feinstein can submit all she wants but I do not think it will make it through the house. This is the same stuff they pulled in California and then expanded it to include all semi-automatics. It is the first step to eliminating all rifles and pistols like they did in Canada. The law abiding people will go along with it and the next thing they will see is they come to the houses and take away all weapons. I don’t agree that we need clips that hold 20 or 30 rounds or guns that will kill at a 1000 yards but I don’t trust the government on the issue either.

  29. Avatar

    maybe Reply Report comment

    December 16, 2012 at 3:50 pm

    When he government starts rounding up all the Christians or takingall the guns away or declares martial law then totally abolishes the constitution you will wish you had semi auto rifles with high capacity magazines. This is the beginning to all these things happening, mark my words.

    • Avatar

      happyguy Reply Report comment

      December 20, 2012 at 6:50 pm

      maybe, do you really think you and your weapons could stop the US government from doing anything that they really want to do? Think about it.

      • Avatar

        maybe Reply Report comment

        December 23, 2012 at 5:43 pm

        @happy Guy, no I don’t think I could do anything to stop the government from doing what they want to do but with an estimated 300,000,000 privately owned guns out there you are looking at probably one of the biggest armys in the world, good luck.

  30. Avatar

    Midwest Reply Report comment

    December 16, 2012 at 2:38 pm

    Well Leslie maybe we need to ban all cars and trucks so drunk drivers or people on their cell phones can stop killing people too. Second Amendment is a murderer? How old are you? So in your opinion you must agree all cars and trucks are murderers too. Also acitizen so you think that’s why guys coach little league? Don’t understand some peoples thinking. I agree with you about assault weapons but why doesn’t anyone ever bring up all the killing kids get to watch on TV or in the video games they play where they are in action blowing peoples heads off?

    • Avatar

      Changes needed Reply Report comment

      December 16, 2012 at 4:21 pm

      Why aren’t more people talking about all the violence on TV, movies and video games? A normal person knows it is getting extreme. How do you think kids process this stuff?

  31. Avatar

    a citizen Reply Report comment

    December 16, 2012 at 1:23 pm

    That is the kind of convoluted thinking most subjective pro-gun people have. I believe the report mentioned assualt weapons and large quantity ammo holders. I am just curious why people need these kind of items. I am a firearms owner, and I possess none of these. And have no reason to. Why do people need these, other than an secret unfullfilled desire to be a “super covert specialist in black ops”? It’s similiar to a little league coach, unable to coach in the pros, manifesting his lost yearnings in being a rough, tough coach getting his players to be real winners. Unfullfilled fantasy – Rambo, pro coach, the Walter Mitty syndrome.

    • Avatar

      Katie Reply Report comment

      December 16, 2012 at 1:40 pm

      No one needs large clips anyway. It takes no time at all to change small clips, according to people who own them.

      • Avatar

        Just My Opinion Reply Report comment

        December 16, 2012 at 5:26 pm

        You’re right, Katie. Why is the average citizen able to purchase assault rifles? What do they need these for? And please don’t tell me it’s for protection. How many bullets do you need to pump into someone’s body to disable them?

      • Avatar

        anonymous Reply Report comment

        December 16, 2012 at 8:42 pm

        If he was shooting at you and he had to pause just 5 seconds that might be enough time for you to escape.

      • Avatar

        maybe Reply Report comment

        December 16, 2012 at 11:17 pm

        @just my opinion, assault weapons were banned for the public to buy in the 30’s unless you have a federal firearms permit which is harder to get than a winning lottery ticket. You can get them on the black market which is illegal which prooves a point that if you ban certian weapons only criminals and law enforcement will have them. When I lived in arizona years ago I walked in on 2 armed robberies, luckily I was armed and was able to stop it and a cop was no where in sight.

    • Avatar

      Allen Reply Report comment

      December 16, 2012 at 10:52 pm

      @a citizen, please define convoluted thinking, as it pertains to subjective pro-gun people.

  32. Avatar

    gun toting patriot Reply Report comment

    December 16, 2012 at 1:00 pm

    O here we go again let’s just ban all the guns so the criminal can victimize everyone.

    • Avatar

      Leslie Reply Report comment

      December 16, 2012 at 1:35 pm

      ALL guns SHOULD be banned. The second amendment is a murderer.

      • Avatar

        Anonymouse Reply Report comment

        December 16, 2012 at 2:03 pm

        Senator Feinstein had best surrender her CCW pistol too, after all its a killer.

      • Avatar

        howard qy Reply Report comment

        December 16, 2012 at 6:39 pm

        Just ban the AMMO. Let em have all the guns they want but stop making the ammo. Then no one will dies from guns.

      • Avatar

        John Reply Report comment

        December 19, 2012 at 11:32 pm

        @ Leslie, Are you also upset about abortions? Care to hear about how many of those happen each month and year here in the good old USA?