Monday, August 10, 2020

Assault weapon ban will be proposed on 1st day of Congress by Democrats

Sen. Dianne Feinstein

America is reeling from a week which saw an unprecedented amount of gun violence. Now Sen. Diane Feinstein has announced plans to introduce legislation for an assault weapon ban on the first day of the new Congress in 2013.

Over the last week the country has seen 26 dead at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, CT; 3 killed at a Portland, Ore. suburban mall earlier in the week. In Saturday alone there were three incidents of shootings in Alabama, including police killing a man wielding an AK-47 assault rifle, following the murder of three, a carjacking and police pursuit; and police killed a man who shot others in a Birmingham hospital.

Also in an incident which did not receive a lot of national attention, a man was arrested at a Newport Beach, California mall when he shot 50 rounds in the parking lot on Saturday, Dec. 15. Fortunately, no one was injured.

Earlier in the year Feinstein called for a similar action after the shooting in the movie theater in Aurora, California where 12 people were killed and 58 were injured.

On Sunday Feinstein during an appearance on Meet the Press indicated, “It will ban the sale, the transfer, the importation and the possession, not retroactively, but prospectively,” and ban the sale of clips of more than ten bullets, Feinstein said. “The purpose of this bill is to get… weapons of war off the streets.”

To read more visit Huffington Post.


  1. Why not ban alcohol it kills more people by the thousands in vehicle related deaths. What the hell happened to our 2nd amendment?

  2. I can understand your concern, but do does the 2nd amendment mean that you are entitled to carry a gun that can shoot 30 rounds in 30 seconds? Is this truly necessary for hunting or to protect your home? Also, even the 1st Amendment is not absolute – you cannot yell fire in a movie theater for example.

    Assault weapons were intended for the purpose of military action, not hunting or protecting your home and family.

    Changing gun laws are not the only answer – but the conversation should begin. Is your right to carry an assault weapon really worth the lives of 20 MORE children?

  3. Is it turning out that the far right “crazies” were correct when they said that the U.S. government was going to initiate a massive push to “disarm” the people of the U.S. and thereby have no problem setting up martial law?

    As a matter of fact, the original text of the constitution stated somthing like – “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”. This clearly indicates to me that the quality of weapon indicated was the type which was to be used by the current militia or military (like the M16 and AK-47, etc). The idea being that the people could be called to staff the militia/military with their own weapons if necessary.

    That being said; things are clearly getting out of hand. If destructive tools like guns can’t be kept out of the hands of “crazy” people, we might need a whole set of new rules. Maybe the way we deal with people who are at risk of this type of behavior needs to be reconsidered. I agree with Obama, we need to do something. But on the other hand, like Gil Scot-Heron said in an old song; “when everybody gives up theirs’, I’ll give up mine”…

  4. @NDG staff – please don’t distort the truth. This ban on so called “assault weapons” would ban semi-automatic rifles like the AR-15. They are NOT automatic weapons that can “shoot 30 rounds per second” as you claim – weapons like those (fully auto) were banned in 1986 and that ban remains in place. With a semi-auto, you are shooting really fast if you can get off 1 round per second, and you’d have very little accuracy. At any rate, please stop the distortion of truth & sensationalism, and learn a little bit before you post. Thanks.

  5. I will admit I am by no means an expert and the intention was not to distort or sensationalize, it was in fact a mistake because I was referring to weapons which can fire 30 rounds in 30 seconds. I will modify the statement in the comment, but perhaps instead of presuming, inquiring is an option to consider next time.

  6. Sorry, but you are not just some random guy on the internet. You are (presumably) a journalist, and as such you have an obligation to do fact checking before making statements. Please take your responsibility as a member of the press seriously. Thank you.

  7. Please also note that if the rate of fire is your big concern, then semi-auto pistols can also shoot about one round per second. Should those be banned too? The 2nd Amendment is in regards to the people being able to form a capable militia to be able to defend the country & Constitution at a moment’s notice from enemies both domestic and foreign. If the people are reduced to weapons that have a far inferior rate of fire, that goal of a citizen ‘minuteman’ militia that would be readily effective against enemies is destroyed. Taking weaponry away from the 99.9999% of legal, safe gun owners because of the actions of a few crackpots is counter productive. Better to tighten the background checks and address the dismal state of mental health treatment in this country.

  8. Finally, another point to keep in mind is that each state is free to regulate firearms as it sees fit. If the good people of Connecticut want to ban semi-automatic rifles, fine. But they have no right to tell folks in the other 49 states how to live. Ms. Feinstein’s state, California, already does have bans on semi-auto “assault” weapons. Why does she feel the need or right to tell folks in Texas how to live & what weapons they may purchase/possess? When it comes to outright bans, if they are going to occur at all they ought to be done at the state & local level.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!