Posted on 02/26/2005 5:25:12 PM PST by Dan from Michigan
Assault weapons battle rejoined
Feinstein fights to reinstate law that expired after 10 years
Edward Epstein, Chronicle Washington Bureau
Saturday, February 26, 2005
Washington -- California Sen. Dianne Feinstein renewed one of Washington's long- running and most bitterly fought battles Friday, saying she will introduce legislation seeking to reinstate the federal assault weapons ban that expired in September after 10 years.
Gun control has been a signature issue for Feinstein since she arrived in the Senate in 1993. But the odds she faces to pass the weapons ban in the current Congress are probably steeper than they were in 1993, when the Senate narrowly approved the ban, or last March, when it passed 52-47 before dying in the body.
(snip)
"We're cautiously optimistic,'' said National Rifle Association spokesman Andrew Arulanandam, that the Feinstein bill won't pass the Senate this year. "But we recognize the fact that this is Washington, D.C., and we take nothing for granted.''
(snip)
In disclosing her decision, Feinstein cited the shooting deaths Thursday of two Los Angeles city workers by a co-worker apparently armed with an AK-47 rifle as an example of why the law is needed.
"Once again, we've seen the tragic consequence of the ready availability of assault weapons throughout our society,'' she said.
(snip)
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
Not a singler piece of Democrat-sponsored legislation should see the light of day until each and every one of President Bush's judicial nominees has received an up-or-down vote in the senate.
That's a good idea.
We'll just put that in the STFU file for now, mmmmmmkay?
we'll see......I'm betting that what some of the Repub pundits said is true......we didn't want to use the "nuclear option" last few years cause Bush didn't really have a mandate.......now that he has won a 2nd time and also the popular vote, I'm sure they will go nuclear this time if the Dems filibuster....
She's supposed to be a smart woman but she has stupidly concluded that these too shooting victims are somehow more dead than they would have been had some other type of weapon had been used.
Someone needs to tell the Republicans that even jellyfish, though spineless, can sting.
We need to launch a liberation front, we need to bring freedom's truth to the masses!!
Stop the slavers. Emancipate the people.
Democratic legislation is persona non grata as far as I'm concerned. The minority Party has no business trying to wag the whole Senate dog.
No doubt that good man Hastert will see that the House never touches such Democrat-tainted garbage, either.
Pittsburgh Tribune-Review
Elementary deduction
Monday, January 17, 2005
Sherlock Holmes could teach deductive reasoning to the National Academy of Sciences.
Holmes, the quintessential detective created by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, knew that by eliminating all other factors, the remaining one must be the truth.
An NAS panel created during the Clinton administration -- and infested with gun-grabbers -- issued a 328-page report on gun control. It studied hundreds of articles, books, government publications, gun-control laws and its own empirical work.
But its exhaustive study -- analyzing the former ban on so-called assault weapons, the Brady Act, one-gun-a-month buying restrictions and gun locks -- could not identify any benefits of gun control.
Crime was not reduced. Accidents were not lessened.
But after studying each specific issue, the panel's inductive reasoning only concluded that more study was needed.
Citizens in more than 30 states may carry concealed weapons legally. If they were injuring others or themselves, it surely would have produced front-page, above-the-fold stories with screaming, large-type headlines.
Mr. Holmes also knew what silence could say. Because the guard dog did not bark in "Silver Blaze," Holmes easily deduced the truth about a horse thief.
Since the panel's findings leave proponents speechless, deducing the truth about gun control is just as easy. Elementary, actually.
-- from http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/tribune-review/opinion/archive/s_293242.html
Up yours, Demonrats. None of YOUR bills are passing until at least 2008.
Do they even have the votes?
Back on March 2, 2004 the vote was
YEAs 52
NAYs 47
Not Voting 1
To extend the AWB, Remember the amendment passed.....
Now after the election and w/ 4 new repubs how will the voting go?
This is just a posturing introduction.
Why don't the democrats just cut the BS and introduce bills to
Outlaw unhapiness
Outlaw rich people
Outlaw mean people
Outlaw anyone who does not agree with feminists
or
Make a law which says the DNC platform is mandatory thought.
Not a one of them was rejected by the Senate. They'd simply never been voted on.
Fine.
Bush should inform the Senate that at the beginning of every recess, each and every nominee who had been approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee more than 90 days prior, and who had not received an up or down vote by the full Senate, will be recess appointed.
And then renominated at the beginning of the next session.
If the Senate rejects a nominee, the President should honor that, and not use his recess appointment power to try to circumvent it. But if the Senate had not rejected a nominee, but simply had not yet voted on him, the President would be fully justified in using his recess appointment power to temporarily fill the position.
My advice is not to drag one's feet; if you want an AR or related weapon and the standard magazines to go with it, get it now - do not delay - because who knows what the future holds. The RATs are down, but they are not out.
I wouldn't doubt that a Republican put her up to is just to keep the money flowing from the NRA. Okay, I'm only kidding. Sort of.
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.