Assault weapons ban now highly unlikely: Senate Democrats won't even include it in their bill

  • Article by: ALAN FRAM , Associated Press
  • Updated: March 19, 2013 - 11:22 PM
  • 7
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
  • 1 - 7 of 7
sharkysharkMar. 19, 13 2:32 PM

Sometimes the right thing to do isn't the instinctive knee-jerk reaction. Sometimes the right thing to do is nothing. There is no "gun problem" that can't be solved by enforcing existing laws. It is not the fault of responsible gun owners or their guns that the Sandy Hook or Accent Signage killings occurred. Those killers are dead now and there's nobody left to punish. It's a difficult reality, but it's time to just let go.

7
3
ciamanMar. 19, 13 3:01 PM

Another fact is that the anti-gun people just lost again. It has been four months of anti-gun people and various papers. Will they admit they did lose this one too? Give it up as most people want some protection for themselves. The Democrats knew they would look bad with this loss if they pushed it on.

5
3
usafnodakMar. 19, 13 9:06 PM

less than 40 votes in the democratic controlled Senate. That tells you the lack of support even amongst democrats. There is no way it would get through The House. The magazine ban won't make it either. It takes less than 2 seconds to change mags. Adam Lanza was changing mags before the current one was empty to minimize the risk that someone would try to stop him while his firearm was empty. 12 ten round mags vs. 4 thirty round mags adds less than 16 seconds (11 changes at less than 2 secs/change vs 3 changes at less than 2 secs/change)) to the time it would take for a madman to fire 120 rounds. That will not make any difference in the time it would take police to arrive and stop the shooter. This is a "feel good" attempt to "do something". It won't do anything, 10 round mags are also easier to conceal than 30 round mags.

2
2
usafnodakMar. 19, 13 9:12 PM

let's refer to the real agenda behind "universal background checks" to make sure people understand the entire truth about that aspect of new gun control proposals from democrats on the left. The proper term is universal gun registration. There is no way to make universal background checks work to keep criminals and the mentally from getting guns without a background check without also forcing all guns in the US to be registered. That is the REAL goal for gun control proponents from the left. Canada already ran this experiment. It cost them billions of Canadian dollars. It did absolutely nothing to affect any violent crime rates. They had less than 65% compliance. Canada has far less gun owners and firearms than we do. How much will it cost the US? Canada was smart enough to realize the cost/benefit ratio was not worth it and they shut it down.

3
2
jarlmnMar. 19, 1311:05 PM

And yet earlier in the week, Feinstein, with the help of our own Sen. Amy K., summarily shot-down a proposal that would require Prosecutors to document criminal gun possession charges; showing if charges had even been filed in the first place, how they were prosecuted or (as often happens)were plea-bargained away. And finally, what punishment was given, if any, was given the law-breaker? In other words, were ANY of the already existing gun laws actually used against the criminal? Apparently, Diane and Amy both thought that this record-keeping requirement was onerous and beneath the dignity of busy and important lawyers. Sheesh, is it any wonder why good citizens are fed-up with proposals for even more gun laws? The ones we've had on the books for *decades* aren't enforced as it is!

5
2
marathongirlMar. 20, 1311:27 AM

"have pressed for since an assault-type weapon was used in the December massacre at an elementary school in Newtown, Conn" -- Once again conflicting reports...some said it was used, and some say it was in the car...which was it? And let's have a true and real definition of assault weapons. I heard them being discussed with the intermixed term of "semi-automcatic weapns" too. Umm, semi-automatic weapons are not assault weapons and no one can buy automatic weapons. So what guns are we actually trying to ban here?

2
2
owatonnabillMar. 20, 13 6:56 PM

"I very much regret it," Feinstein said Tuesday of the choice that Reid told her he had made. "I tried my best. But my best, I guess, wasn't good enough." .......... Is anybody really surprised? Feinstein's "best" was an emotional appeal that never had any basis in reality. Example: owatonnabill saw an AR-15-style weapon on sale at a local auction facility. Very realistic--had the baaaaaad-looking magazine and everything. Trouble is, it was a BB gun operated by a lever that might have ruffled the feathers of a robin plucking worms in the lawn but very little else. Ms. Feinstein's bill would have made it illegal--it looked like an "assault weapon-type" firearm even though it doesn't have enough real firepower to assault more than a nest of wrens. That is the problem with this most recent paroxysm on the part of our leftist brethren: it was destined to fail because most politicians (read "voters") see it as precisely what it is--pure emotion. Most people, thankfully, have more sense.

1
1
  • 1 - 7 of 7

Comment on this story   |  

ADVERTISEMENT

Connect with twitterConnect with facebookConnect with Google+Connect with PinterestConnect with PinterestConnect with RssfeedConnect with email newsletters

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT