Feinstein: Not The Time For Gun Control

Source: CBS Broadcasting Inc.

The California senator who authored the nation's now-lapsed 1994 ban on assault weapons says she will hold off trying to renew that ban.

Dianne Feinstein (D.-Calif.) tells 60 Minutes correspondent Lesley Stahl that the political timing isn't right and she will move to renew the ban at a future time of her own choosing. Feinstein appears in Stahl's report on the increase in gun sales taking place in America to be broadcast this Sunday, April 12, at 7 p.m. ET/PT.

Asked by Stahl if trying to renew the assault weapons ban would start a culture war and pose a distraction for an already overburdened Obama Administration, Feinstein replies, "I agree with you." "So you are going to hold off?" asks Stahl. "That's correct. I'll pick the time and the place, no question about it," Feinstein tells Stahl.

But even if she pursued the renewal, the votes may not be there today in either the Senate or the House. Both Houses of Congress gained pro-gun Democrats this past election, some of whom won the support of the National Rifle Association. "I am not going to disagree with that at all," says Feinstein. "The National Rifle Association essentially has a stranglehold on the Congress."

Read more: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/04/09/60minutes/mai...

Democrats in the heartland (who would like to get reelected) thank you.

Until then, anyone who doesnt care to become part of the gun culture is essentially held hostage by people who take checks from the NRA.

I am tired of this issue. We need to start addressing the socio-economic roots of crime and violence and stop trying to treat the silly symptoms.

It is easy for Feinstein, a pro corporate DLC loving democrat to talk about the stranglehold of the NRA, but she rarely does anything to offend the corporate bosses and she was a god damned coward when it came to standing up to the Bushies.

.. are against more gun control, I guess that makes _them_ the mainstream, not you.

..the recent Gallup poll as well as the proliferation of Concealed Carry.

"A Gallup Poll out this morning shows support for a ban on private hand gun ownership at an all time low, with 29 percent of respondents saying they support such a law. It's the smallest percentage since Gallup started asking this question 50 years ago. Interestingly, gun control advocacy hit its all time high in 1959, according to this poll. It's important to note that the poll was taken before the massacre in Binghamton, but other mass shootings have been in the news for a few weeks."

http://www.gallup.com/poll/117361/Support-Gun-Control-L...

The 29% figure you cite oppose banning handguns outright. With all of the massacres going on in the country these days and all of the movies gullible Americans watch in which the hero defeats the bad guys with a gun, more Americans want to have guns for self-defense, so that's misguided, but not surprising.

The more meaningful second issue though is how many people support stricter gun control laws, which is what most gun control proponents are advocating for, and, in that measure, the division is about 50-50. Which is, admittedly, a much lower figure than it has been historically, in which a solid and substantial majority have favored stricter gun control laws. I don't really know why that's changed, but 50% does not a majority mandate make for either side of this debate.

Seems to be trending down, which to me, allies pretty closely with the overall decrease in violent crime since the peak.

What other parts of the Constitution should we abolish?

I don't like Feinstein at all and will never vote for her again; but this post is a rude, abusive post that is just plain wrong on the facts.

The affect that guns have on society is an important issue. The NRA is an irresponsible participant in this debate. NRA owners should stop being afraid and frankly confront what they've been told by their leaders, who have pretended to be their friends for so many years. If you want guns, then you have to deal with the social consequences and stop depending on your own self-righteous and abusive responses to anyone else who isn't afraid to speak out. If you don't want to be addressed as "gun nuts," then you should stop acting like gun nuts.

Feinstein has a serious personal history involving guns that should be respected. She has a permit to carry, although I doubt that she does any more. While she is dispicable on economic and Civil Rights issues generally, she never advocated "grabbing" guns from lawful owners, no matter what the NRA says.

sc

Oh, she still wants to- she just realizes she doesn't have the votes at the moment.

We'll just have to make sure that those votes never appear.

I think her statement is pretty clear. And by what authority does she say she will be the one to decide the right time and place??

It is your fucking fault we do not have adequate gun control. Little whiny baby paranoid freaks.

does that make me a whiny paranoid freak?

unless one is planning a rampage. Are you so scared that you need so many guns, or do they all shoot targets in a uniquely interesting way?

if you watch south park, that's even better..

Shotgun. pump cheap upland bird hunting, in rain / defense
shotgun Italian over under, $2-3k, upland bird nice weather..
shotgun semi Italian trap.

rifle 17hmr plinking
rifle 308 hunting
rifle 243 ack improved target

sidearm 40 cal ccw
sidearm 40 cal ccw wife

All serve a separate functions. none scarry commie or black rifles. over under cost more than my first car.

"One or two guns" should be enough for?? What? Owning guns is not "paranoid". I'd like to ask the gun-haters how they think this country would have defeated King George if the citizens had not been armed? With sling shots and knives? Good grief.

I just took certification to get my conceal carry permit here in VA. Being a responsible gun owner means you understand the safety issues and practice them. You learn how to PROPERLY handle a gun.

Gun-haters have no reason to fear the law-abiding citizen. We're not banning knives because people kill with knives. And we're not cutting off hands because people murder with their hands. Guns just don't get up and start shooting people.

And law-abiding citizens don't commit crimes -- with or without guns.

be a Baretta? Unbelievable craftmanship.

1 of the holy trio

didn't take long

your sense of both personal and social responsibilities. Not knowing you, or any of the gun owners on DU, it's foolish to get in a name-calling match. There are many sides to this arguments with good points and sound reasons, coupled with fears that can cloud judgment. But frankly, as far as I can tell, until gun owners themselves en masse determine to hold responsible the gun lobby and weapons manufacturers for the irresponsible actions these groups have taken in this world, more people will die senselessly and needlessly in shootings. Be it wars, cruel genocides, or just crimes of passion or neighborhood disputes. How much do you want to stop the violence that causes so much misery in this world?

When one person is shot and killed, a whole circle of people feel the pain and anguish which lasts a lifetime for everyone. There is no justice that can erase that feeling when you lose someone you love.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

are responsible for all these murders too. after all, we support a right to remain silent, right to an attorney, right to a fair trial, all of which help those accused of murder.

of course they also help those WRONGLY accused of murder.

and set a fair playing field.

much as gun rights do.

Just by keeping a firearm in the house?

Don't get me wrong. I own no guns. I don't WANT to own a gun.

But the right is as fundamental is that to freedom of speech.

And someone who owns a gun is not a killer, nor are they a "gun nut"

How many dead cops?

Just out of curiosity.

I'm not a gun guy so I'm not sure.

The killer in Binghamton was able to unload 98 shots in a minute (don't know what weapons he had).

The guy from the Alabama massacre last month had an assault rifle of some sort (an SKS, I believe) that he had reportedly modified somehow.

When cops don't have a chance against these guys, what does that mean for the rest of us?

I'm looking for an Easter present.

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09097/961071-53.stm

impossible to get. Something very illegal was going on there. I guess we need to make it SUPER illegal though.

But if we can't count on gun merchants to follow the rules, then maybe they can't be trusted to sell these weapons?

If the government vows to crack down on these individuals and charge them with felonies for illegally selling these weapons, that will be enough for me...for now. But if the government and court systems can't get a handle on this, I'm sorry but I think those weapons need to go.

If a dealer is selling specialized weapons to illegal patrons now, why will making the weapons completely illegal stop them?

If the dealers can't get the weapons, how can they sell them?

That sounds like decent logic to me.

There all illegal so they must not be sold anywhere. .

Then there's nothing that can be done. God help those going into law enforcement. Like lambs to the slaughter.

What do you propose we do to save cops lives?

But you don't here of many AK-47 shooting with guns bought from actual legitimate gun dealers so this is nothing close to average. This in itself is a very unusual case.

You would be better off with better inspections of shipments into the US. Tons of illegal weapons. That's where you have to stem the tide.

I also fully support allowing municipalities to decide their own gun laws. What works for rural communities is wholly inadequate for the inner cities (and vice versa). If you want these illegal guns off the streets, you have to let the cities crack down, they're awash in them.

we afford our citizens.

period.

and inner city residents are MORE likely to be victimized by violent, armed thugs. they, if anybody, deserve concealed carry.

I am just tired of the high and mighty attitude from city-dwellers on how enlightened they are and how much they need extra laws hicks can't possibly understand.

What this hick can't understand why city folks tolerate catch and release prosecutors. It's not not like they have a shortage of shitheads and they need to let them out so the cops have someone to catch. They get some predator who has been robbing and carrying illegal weapons for years; arrest him, bail him countless times and are surprised he is still robbing and shooting people.

Their civic leaders are screaming for new gun laws when they let the scumbags walk on the carloads of gun violations. Think about it, what could be easier? All you have to prove is the thug is a crook and was carrying a gun. The asshole has a 23 page rap sheet, the cops took a Glock from his pants pocket. Send the bastard away for 20 years, "NEXT!"

You smugly announce,"If you want these illegal guns off the streets, you have to let the cities crack down, they're awash in them." Philadelphia certainly qualifies as big city, look at how the big city handled the three assholes that killed Sgt. Liczbinski.

Howard Cain was the trigger man. You can see his fifteen page criminal record here.Howard Cain
Look at all the violations of the Pennsylvania Uniform Firearms Act that Cain has been arrested for. Keep in mind, these are only gun charges. Over Cain’s criminal career he had thirteen arrests for unlawfully carrying a firearm, that were listed "Nolle Prossed," meaning the prosecutor chose not to bring charges. In a further eleven arrests for violations of Pennsylvania’s firearms laws, the charges were either withdrawn or dismissed. In only three cases was he prosecuted and either plead guilty or was found guilty. On weapons charges alone, he could have done 12 years in prison, in which case he would not have been on the streets to kill a police officer.

You can find Levon Warner’s criminal record here. Levon Warner
His is only six pages. Warner is facing three charges for being a felon in possession of a firearm, and for unlawfully carrying firearms, in his latest arrest for conspiring to murder a police officer. Do you think Ms. Abraham’s office will make them stick this time? Previously, the Philadelphia DA’s office thrice declined to prosecute Warner for gun law violations. The Philadelphia judicial system chose not to try him for six other violations of Pennsylvania’s gun laws.

And last, but certainly not least, Eric Floyd.Eric Floyd
Again, hopefully this time, he’ll actually face weapons charges, in addition to the murder charges. But again, in 1994, he was arrested for robbery, and the prosecutors declined to prosecute him for carrying firearms illegally in two counts. Also in 1994, the courts declined to try him for two counts of carrying firearms illegally.

Now keep in mind, this is only weapons charges. The rap sheets of these scumbags total twenty six pages, and contains all manner of things that should have kept them off the streets for good. Maybe you should look at about how absolutely and utterly broken the City of Philadelphia’s criminal justice system is.

So now Governor Rendell is grandstanding to deflect attention from a system that is currently not using the laws already in the books in prosecutions. Don't you think you deserve better from your political leaders? You going to chime in with the chorus of witless supporters fighting hard to pass more gun "restrictions" the crooks won't obey and your prosecutors WON'T ENFORCE?

While in this particular case it was Philly, the same song and dance happens in Detroit, DC, Chicago, and New York. You repeatedly turn coyotes loose in the henhouse and wonder why you have dead chickens. Pathetic!

1) mandatory physical fitness standards for cops (our unions consistently fight this)
2) punish violent criminals (and contrarily stop wasting time with silly nannystate drug laws against nonviolent offenders)
3) every officer gets a taser
4) promote concealed carry for citizens
5) make wearing of vests mandatory (some agencies still don't require them)
6) better training
7) better staffing levels

weed rock blows pistols, yes get a joint, some crack, some heroin (not blow, blows in chicago) and a gun to go rob someone so you can come back and get more drugs.

They're collectors items in the US, and even if you can find one for sale it'll cost you around $20,000 because they're so rare. That's on top of getting the federal Class 3 license.

There are, however, lots of semi-automatic lookalikes on the market. Functionally identical to any hunting rifle, but made to resemble an AK-47, a lot of people refer to them that way. That's probably what the guy in Pittsburgh had. Think of it as the difference between a genuine Rolex and a $20 imitation sold on a streetcorner.

Would you like to ban all shotguns too?

An AK-47, AR-15 or any other look-alike variant of these two does not make them "machine guns". You have to have a Class 3 license in order to own a fully automatic firearm - and they are very, very difficult to obtain and very, very expensive (the license AND the firearm). Fully-auto firearm ownership is VERY rare among US citizenry. Think ex-military brass and licensed dealers/collectors/historians who have collections going back to the early muskets.

The gunman who shot those cops in PA did not have a "machine gun". Neither did the gunman in New York at the immigration center.

OTOH, semi-auto rifles for sport, target and hunting are everywhere, require a federal background check and waiting period and can be relatively cheap. All as it should be. The only difference between any run-of-the-mill semi-auto hunting rifle and a semi-auto "assault" rifle is a handgrip and some black plastic.

Folks should learn what they're talking about before spouting knee-jerk opinions and demanding blanket laws. That's the road to fascist thinking.

While we're at it, what other part of the Constitution would you like struck down?

Which is the more likely scenario? That the cop said AK-47 as a generic term, or that a paranoid mook living in his mother's basement who got drummed out of boot camp could afford a $17,000 rifle, pass an FBI background check, get local LEO to sign off on the purchase, and wait four months?

Sheesh.

If it looks like an AK-47 and kills like one...

I'm not understanding the distinction of why it matters if it was a *real* AK-47 or a knockoff.

It doesn't 'kill like one'- it fires one round per pull of the trigger- just like hunting rifles.

I have no problem referring to an AK as an AK, the same way I would refer to any Remington rifle or shotgun as a Remington.

AK-47 is a catch-all term to refer to any Kalashnikov that fires a 7.62x39mm round. This distinguishes it from the AK-74, which is a Kalashnikov that uses the smaller 5.45x39mm round.

But the vast majority of AKs in private hands in America are semi-auto. I do not have an NFA license for full-auto, nor do I have the money to try to purchase a full-auto version. Besides, my wife would probably have something to say about that...

And functionally identical to any semi-auto .30 caliber rifle, the most popular rifles in the country, used in less than 3% of murders, nationwide.

If you want to ban them, you would need to ban about 80 million firearms in this country, because why would you ban one by name, and leave alone millions more, that function IDENTICALLY to this rifle?

80 MILLION firearms. How many people bothered to show up for the last election? 50 million total? The president won by what, about 10% in the most costly, divisive, painfully long election ever? I'd like to see us accomplish some real important legislation, like UHC, before we cut our own throats over a trivial, feel good piece of legislation that probably isn't going to save any lives anyway, thanks.

It is a cigarette lighter:

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=22a_1191084721&p=1

---

Civilian AK-47s are not "knock-offs" or "replicas".

The civilian versions have a slightly modified mechanism that will only fire semi-automatic but the rest of the weapon is the same. It is possible to replace, modify , or circumvent the mechanism.


One could make a case for limiting the availability of neutered machine gun based military assault weapons. I agree that the political costs would be too high..

The civillian knock-offs are not easily converted to fully automatic. Any weapon that is, is regulated AS a machine gun, whether it's been converted or not, post 1986.

You would have to not only make machinist modifications to the receiver, but you would also have to introduce metal that is not currently there, such as the auto sear, and parts that are missing catches, and part of the bolt carrier. You would need all the same metal fabrication one would need to manufacture a brand new, real AK-47 from scratch, as you would to convert one.

ANY semi-auto rifle would have been as effective, and many much more so.

ak-47's LOOK scary. that's the only difference between them and your average deer rifle

One, the guy in Binghamton was NOT able to unload 98 shots in a minute. You can't realistically do that with any semi-auto weapon, and all he had was two pistols.

An SKS is not an "assault rifle." It's not even an "assault weapon." It's a carbine (short rifle) similar to the M1 Garand that US troops used in World War II.

The reason those three cops died was not because they were outgunned, it's because the dispatcher had failed to warn them that there were guns in the residence. They were ambushed.

n/t

NY gunman fired 98 shots in about a minute, police chief says
http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/04/08/ny.shooting /

But what the hell does the police chief know, eh?


http://www.citizen.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090...

On March 10 in Alabama, 11 people, including the shooter, died after a barrage of bullets from a Bushmaster AR-15-style assault rifle and an SKS assault rifle. The shooter reportedly fired in excess of 200 rounds during the assault. He used high-capacity magazines taped together so when one was spent, it would be easier to reload.


Also, the third police officer to respond in Pittsburgh knew what he was walking into, as he was responding to help the first two. Didn't help him. Furthermore, all three laid there bleeding and dying while fellow cops were unable to reach them due to the gunfire.

After all- semantics, tortured metaphors and logic games are what this debate is about, not ways to reduce gun violence.

Take two pistols to a shooting range. Try to fire 98 rounds through them in one minute. You simply can't.

Second, don't cite grossly inaccurate news stories to back up the opinions that are formed by grossly inaccurate news stories. The media is famous getting information about guns completely wrong. For starters, the dictionary definition of "assault rifle" is a FULLY AUTOMATIC WEAPON. Those are only available as collectors items in the US. And this is an SKS:



Could you please point out to me what makes it an "assault weapon"?

Try reading the FBI statistics. You'll find out that "assault weapons" are used in less than 3% of all gun deaths. The paranoia about them is completely unjustified by facts. Most gun deaths, including most mass shootings like the one in Binghamton, are committed using pistols.

And I quite frankly don't care what the current dictionary defintion of "assault rifle" is. Unfortunately, the definition of "death" doesn't change.

With the damage these guns caused, if they're not already characterized as "assault rifles", maybe they should be.

At least they wont tell you about any solutions that the NRA and the majority of gun absolutists would actually support.

90% of criminals using a firearm obtained the gun illegally, so short-term you can go after illegal weapons sellers in order to reduce the available supply. However, long term there's only one solution to reducing gun violence, and that's to reduce poverty. Poverty feeds all of the major drivers of violence: gangs, petty theft, drug abuse, and hopelessness. Canada has nearly as many guns per capita as the US does, but only a tiny fraction of our gun death rate because they take poverty seriously. In England, though, guns of any kind are virtually illegal and you've still got to worry about getting knifed on the street.

Study after study has shown that poverty and violence track directly together. To minimize the latter, we've got to minimize the former, because it's also long since been proven that just attacking the symptoms with "feel good" laws like mandatory minimums for drug offenses, gun bans, anti-gang laws, etcetera, have not worked.

I agree with you- but 99% of your allies in the conservative gun culture and lobby does not.

As a result- I get the guns but not the social justice.

If you want to talk about the constitution you've got to respect all of it. People here talking about wanting to ban all guns because the public can't be trusted with them is, to my mind, little different then the wingnuts on the right going on about how people shouldn't be allowed to speak out against the war because they're getting troops killed.

And, as I noted, gun control is an ineffective exercise in "feel good" law, which is something we should always avoid.

The NRA is the greatest, most important, most well funded ally a gun absolutist has- in fact- I see NRA talking points on every thread that involves guns at DU.

I'm not responsible for defending whoever you want to pin the problem on.

Better to split hairs over what we should call guns, say that cars kill people too, etc.

You are not responsible for defending the positions of gun absolutists? My bad- I thought you were already doing that in this very thread.

When it comes to the tough question- ie actual solutions to gun violence, the gun absolutists have nothing viable to add. That is no suprise here.

On any given day, more people die in auto accidents than are killed in 10 years by guns. I am a gun owner. I target shoot but also own for defence of my home.

We might save lives if we confiscated all the guns in the country but the Centers for Disease Control disgrees. They did a study that resulted where the results showed that crime was less in communities which allowed gun ownership and carry. That is simply the facts.

To me, it is not so important that you know I have a gun. It is important that you don't know.

What does the NRA have to do with poverty? They are an advocacy group for the safe exercise of their members second amendment rights.

That makes about as much sense as asking why the ACLU isn't addressing pedophilia control legislation because some people are abusing their first amendment rights by posting child pornography.

While the majority of conservatives who argue against gun control oppose such efforts 100%.

It would be benefical if the gun advocates would work with everyone else on ways to reduce gun violence, as opposed to spending their time learning "gotcha" debate tactics and semantics.

I've had that same line thrown at me when pointing out the holes and myths in the Bush administration's spying programs elsewhere.

It's not "semantics" to point out that there's a huge difference between a machine gun and a semi-auto rifle. Or the fact that you can't wave a magic wand and turn one into the other. Nor is it "semantics" to point out that media sensationalism aside, the use of rifles in crime is practically non-existant. Twice as many people are killed every year with hands and feet than are killed by rifles. Yet some people obsess on the subject to the detriment of anything else, and to the loss of Democratic seats.

Imagine for a second if all the lobbying effort that's gone into ineffectual bans on weapons not used in crime had been put into hard-core anti-poverty efforts.

What "inconvenient facts" did you present us with?

My point is it doesnt really matter what kind of gun was used. It certainly doesnt matter to the victim's family or the average guy.

My point is that your semantics over what gun is what does nothing to solve the problem after the smoke clears.

We agree that DEMS will lose seats if they dont bow down to the NRA- banning guns is not my position.

For most people, the major point worth discussing is viable ways to reduce gun violence. No one really cares about all gun culture fasiciantion with cataloging guns and the "gotcha" arguing games.

That pistols account for infinitely more deaths than "assault weapons."

And the fact that when you strip away the polish, it's not really about banning "more dangerous weapons," it's just about scoring points. All the effort expended over scary looking guns that are rarely used in crimes, how much of that could have been dedicated to actually fixing the underlying problems?

"dedicated to actually fixing the underlying problems?"

That is where we could agree- but shouldnt the gun absolutists share as much blame for avoiding this topic as anyone else- if not more?

For instance, you seem to be avoiding the topic in this very thread.

For instance, the NRA and the top gun lobbists in the U.S. are diamertically opposed to any viable solutions as to the underlying problems.