"We can't allow the rights of a few to override the safety of all".
Posted on 01/25/2013 10:49:32 AM PST by kiryandil
By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself, Mr. SCHUMER, Mr. DURBIN, Mr. WHITEHOUSE, Mr. BLUMENTHAL, Mr. LEVIN, Mr. ROCKEFELLER, Ms. MIKULSKI, Mrs. BOXER, Mr. REED, Mr. LAUTENBERG, Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr. CARDIN, Mrs. GILLIBRAND, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. MURPHY, Ms. WARREN, and Mr. CARPER):
S. 150. A bill to regulate assault weapons, to ensure that the right to keep and bear arms is not unlimited, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Assault Weapons Ban of 2013. This legislation is urgently needed to help end the mass shootings that have devastated countless families and that lead too many Americans to live their lives in fear.
**snip** It will be an uphill battle--all the way. I know this.
But we need to ask ourselves:
Do we let the gun industry take over and dictate policy to this country? Do we let those who profit from increasing sales of these military style-weapons prevent us from taking commonsense steps to stop the carnage?
Or should we empower our elected representatives to vote their conscience based on their experience, based on their sense of right and wrong and based on their need to protect their schools, their malls, their workplaces and their businesses?
This legislation is my life's goal. As long as I am a member of the Senate, I will work night and day to pass this bill into law. No matter how long it takes, I will fight until assault weapons are taken off our streets.
Put simply, we cannot allow the rights of a few to override the safety of all. That is not the America that our founding fathers envisioned. And that is not the America I want my children and grandchildren to live in.
So I ask everyone watching at home: please get involved and stay involved.
The success or failure of this bill depends not on me, but on you. If the American people rise up and demand action from their elected officials, we will be victorious. If the American people say ``no'' to military-style assault weapons, we will rid our Nation of this scourge.
Please, talk to your senator and your member of Congress.
“Put simply, we cannot allow the rights of a few to override the safety of all.”
This is why we have a Constitutional Republic instead of a Democracy. The purpose of our form of government is to protect “the rights of the few”. How much more basic can you get.
Twisted Sister and her A$$whipe cabal of commies!
Seems to me her comment is a direct violation of her oath of office....the Constitution does not distinquish what percentage of the population has to be affected. Since she has been deliberating over this legislation for awhile, seems to me this is a premeditated comment and defacto breech of her oath too. Lastly, when a law is passed and a court is approached to interpret it, seems to me the law would be illegal on its face as it was drafted to limit someone’s inalianable right, by design.
Sounds awesome to me! Did she fall on her head and common sense slipped in the crack?
I couldn’t agree more. We can’t let the rights of a few (pregnant women) override the safety of all (unborn babies). We must put a stop to abortion! I’m behind you Senator Feinstein!
DiFi is an idiot but everyone here already knows that.
The Constitution was written to protect the rights of all of us as well as the rights of the few.
"More like, we can’t allow the safety of a few to override the rights of all." Isn't that what civil rights, women's right, gay rights, etc did exactly?
Protecting minorities from the mob is exactly what the founders envisioned when forming a republic rather than a democracy. I wonder if she also would agree that the rights of racial minorities should not be considered against the safety of the majority. If that is her position, than an excellent case can be made to violate the rights of racial minorities in order to clean up the streets of Chicago. Yet I am sure she would be indignant at the thought.
The bill of rights exists to protect people from the arbitrary will of the mob.
Day after day these people prove how smart our founders really were.
The rights of a few.
‘Few’?
A right is a right. Whether it is excercised by all or not. In California gun owner may be a minority. In many other states they are the majority. In any case a right is a right.
The ‘few’ who do exercise this right are the ones that provide safety to those who do not.
There may only be a ‘few’ CCL carriers in a shopping mall. But these few provide safety for all those there. Just look at Portland recently.
Her statement is reckless and dangerous.
“Put simply, we cannot allow the rights of a few to override the safety of all.”
Sure. And while you’re at it, let’s do away with that pesky “presumption of innocence”. We all know that they’re guilty any way.
And how about that “unreasonable search and seizure” clause? If you have nothing to hide, why should you mind the government arriving at your house unannounced and without a warrant?
Free speech? Can’t have the rights of a few overriding the rights of muslims not to be offended.
Freedom of religion? Only if it’s not a “hateful” religion that offends others.
The right to life? Well we’ve already taken it away from the unborn, so why not remove it for infants, the disabled and elderly as well? After all, we can’t “impose” a “burden” on people.
Habeus corpus? It’s ok for some people, but not for those who allegedly make a video to “insult Islam” thereby triggering a “spontaneous riot” in Benghazi and excusing the President’s decision to leave Americans to their death.
This works for me. I want the cigar and single malt concessions, though.
It is a universal right not exercised by everyone.
"We can't allow the rights of a few to override the safety of all".
You’re being way to kind in referring to her as just an idiot.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.