Feinstein's lonely battle to ban assault weapons

  • Article by: EDITORIAL , San Jose Mercury News
  • Updated: January 25, 2013 - 1:22 PM

A massive outcry will be needed to persuade legislators to defy the National Rifle Association.

  • 61
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
evldedJan. 25, 13 1:31 PM

The answer isn't more laws that people don't follow. The answer is to take the guards off the teeth the current laws have. Make the government work for it for once. Not just write a new law and forget it like usual.

32
18
heffayJan. 25, 13 1:50 PM

Entertainment isn't a legitimate purpose? 3 gun shoots, competition shooting, target shooting, zombie fests, weekend Rambo romps through the woods? Those aren't legitimate? What *are* legitimate forms of entertainment? Maybe the Strib could generate a list of approved forms of entertainment. Anything not on that list will be banned.

24
20
EleanoreJan. 25, 13 2:19 PM

Feinsteins lonely battle to deny civil rights would have been a more appropriate title to describe rebellious behavior like this. It's like shes proposing legislation denying women to right to vote republican because it's scarry.

23
30
paulusJan. 25, 13 2:19 PM

I wonder when Feinstein is going to give up her handguns? She has a permit to carry but has stated in the past she wants to ban certain guns. Why do the "limousine liberals" want to have rules that only apply to us and not them? Healthcare, insider trading, pensions, guns, hiring union workers (Nancy Pelosi won't hire them on her vineyard), carbon footprint, etc. are only a few. Go ahead and bring it up for a vote and roll the dice on your next campaign run.

29
25
minn12Jan. 25, 13 2:21 PM

Why is it that all the liberal gun-banners are incapable of learning from history? So-called 'assault weapons' bans, magazine limits etc. have ALREADY BEEN TRIED AND FAILED. What part of that don't they understand? Columbine and several other mass shootings happened in the middle of the LAST 'assault weapons' ban. Even the government admits that such bans failed to make any difference at all. NO study has proven any reduction in such shootings or gun crime in general, yet the gun-banners persist. Makes no sense. The old saying applies here: The definition of 'insanity' is doing the same thing over and over, and expecting different results. What WILL make a difference, is getting rid of all the 'gun-free zones' which is where all these mass shootings occur. Let's focus on THAT, and then watch these shootings come to a sudden halt.

20
23
borderhumperJan. 25, 13 2:25 PM

Feinstein could save far more lives and money in her own state and across the country by foghting to deport illegal aliens. But she would rather focus on assault rifles because undocumented guns don't vote.

23
23
borderhumperJan. 25, 13 2:27 PM

How about tackling all those illegal immigrant street gangs out there in California instead of emptying the jails and putting them all back on the streets?

19
20
EleanoreJan. 25, 13 2:28 PM

Passage of a law like this would be defiance of the american people, it would basicly like declaring war on us from the seats of congress. That's not going to be acceptable, to my family, or anyones.

23
26
bgronniJan. 25, 13 2:29 PM

"That's the key here: legitimate purposes. No one needs an assault rifle to hunt. As Philadelphia Police Commissioner Charles Ramsey said at Thursday's news conference, "How are you going to go hunting with something like that? You kill something, there's nothing left to eat." A lot of people use these guns wne "varmint" hunting. Coyote for one. and guess we do not care if there is anything "left to eat"

12
28
atoonceJan. 25, 13 2:34 PM

"Daughter's grades too low, dad pulls AK-47, charges say" he said he purchase it out of fear that they would soon be banned. --That case says it all about the gun debate-- Everybody has a gun, every other yahoo has an AK47, a military assault rifle. You say, what's the difference, whe you can kill with a .22 handgun? And technically you would be right. But to me it's the idea of completely unrestricted gun ownership in this country. People buy them for "protection" or just because they feel like it. But most likely they end up using them on loved ones, or their child gets ahold of it and does some damage. Or the gun gets stolen and is now in the hands of criminals. I say there are just too darn many guns out there, and you don't need machine guns or assault rifles. They are just not necessary for the Average Joe. Not even for protection. What if there was a bullet in the chamber and he just missed it, and accidentally pressed the trigger, sure that it was empty? And put a bullet through his daughter's chest. He would be pretty darn sorry he ever bought that thing.

21
17

Comment on this story   |  

ADVERTISEMENT

  • about opinion

  • The Opinion section is produced by the Editorial Department to foster discussion about key issues. The Editorial Board represents the institutional voice of the Star Tribune and operates independently of the newsroom.

  • Submit a letter or commentary
Connect with twitterConnect with facebookConnect with Google+Connect with PinterestConnect with PinterestConnect with RssfeedConnect with email newsletters

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT