An Update From Senator Dianne Feinstein
October 7, 2017
COMMONSENSE GUN SAFETY
Feinstein, Sanders, Blumenthal Press Conference (October 4, 2017)
“I hope senators would finally summon the political courage to stand up and say enough is enough. We can’t sit by this deadliest mass shooting. It is time to act. We cannot do nothing.” To watch the press conference, CLICK HERE.
Feinstein Introduces Bill to Close Automatic Weapon Loophole (October 4, 2017)
“Automatic weapons have been illegal for more than 30 years, but there’s a loophole in the law that can be exploited to allow killers to fire at rates of between 400 and 800 rounds-per-minute. The only reason to fire so many rounds so fast is to kill large numbers of people. No one should be able to easily and cheaply modify legal weapons into what are essentially machine guns.” To read the full press release, CLICK HERE.
Senators Introduce Bill to Close Background Check Loophole (October 5, 2017)
“Current law allows gun sales to proceed after 72 hourseven if background checks aren’t approved. This is dangerous loophole that could allow criminals and those with mental illness to complete their purchase of firearms even though it would be unlawful for them to possess them.” To read the full press release, CLICK HERE.
Feinstein Speaks Out on Las Vegas Massacre (October 2, 2017)
“We must not allow ourselves to become numb to these massacres that can snuff out so many lives in such a short time. It should shock every American that one individual, with easy access to weapons and ammunition, can inflict such devastation.” To read the full statement, CLICK HERE.
Her district is like Democrat + a million, right? Any democrat would win there, right?
I would think it’d be very likely whichever Dem ran in her stead would win, if she retired. The last Republican Senator from CA left in 1992 when Feinstein replaced him. Need some new blood.
She’s a senator, so… yes.
Just think. You too could have a limited imagination and an inability to understand hobbies that others find fun, and still become a US Senator one day! No qualifications necessary!
Hey man, some people find beheading folks with machetes fun, but we have some laws against that, too!
Oh, great. Now Diane Feinstein thinks the only reason for machetes is to behead people. Think of our overgrown jungles.
Besides, it wouldn’t be so bad if Hollywood didn’t glorify machete use when the alpha male knocks down branches so the girl and the nerd can walk through unscathed on the deserted island.
There are no practical uses to firing at that rate. Her point was pretty clear.
Sure, you could issue a string of disclaimers every time you open your mouth. For instance, “Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country, unless you are incapable of abstract thought due to young age or advanced dementia, in which case your primary caregiver may ask on your behalf.”
How tiresome to live in a world of lawyers.
If you were prevented from owning 20 rifles, what negative impact would that have on your life? If you were prevented from owning fully automatic firearms, what negative impact would that have on your life?
Those of without imagination will apparently just never understand how awesome it is to masturbate with a weapon that can fire a zillion rounds per second.
It’s a bad way to make a case against them though. I mean, look at what this thread is about, there’s plenty of grounds to make your case for increasing gun control restrictions of one type or another because of the harm that has been done without resorting to “No you tell me why the government shouldn’t impose this restriction”.
I don’t understand this part, maybe I missed a post or a reference.
I totally agree her point was clear to people that believe all things are disallowed by default unless permitted by civil government for practical purposes.
That’s a straw man, nobody including Feinstein believes that “all things are disallowed by default”.
On the other hand, all things that inflict mass casualties should require some justification or be disallowed.
You don’t even need to go down this road.
You can still accept that they are allowed by default, until some rationale is given to limit access to them.
But at this point, we have clear rationale. Not limiting access to these weapons allows people like this dude to murder dozens of people, and injure hundreds more.
So the debate then should become, “Can we limit this access in a way where the benefits to society will outweigh the limitations on rights such restrictions would impose?”
Yeah, I’m happy to have that debate. It just becomes silly when wrong thinking and wrong language cloud the situation before it’s even begun. That’s not even counting the prejudice against the type of people that typically enjoy these kinds of things.
Feinstein: “Automatic weapons have been illegal for more than 30 years, but there’s a loophole in the law that can be exploited to allow killers to fire at rates of between 400 and 800 rounds-per-minute. The only reason to fire so many rounds so fast is to kill large numbers of people. No one should be able to easily and cheaply modify legal weapons into what are essentially machine guns.”
That bolded part is just wrong. That’s what people are bristling against, and it rubs me the wrong way too. You barely have to change the wording, and certainly not the actual bill, to explain that the danger of a weapon that can fire that many rounds outweighs the rights of gun owners to have/create one, so why not just say that instead?
Yeah why can’t we own heavy machineguns, hand grenades, flamethrowers, VX nerve canisters and briefcase tactical nukes?
It’s kinda like you have to draw the line somewhere, you know?
I have a script to auto-mute the thread for 48 hours when someone brings up crossing the line for nukes!!!1!
It’s absurd of course.
The question is where the line goes. The fun-factor of hobbies does not automatically override the reasonableness of restricting weapons.
For the same reason in practice that Feinstein is introducing this bill to limit the rate of fire on these guns, no one’s disputing that.
What we’re (Tim, stop me if I’m overstepping when I say we) upset about is Feinstein slipping in this dig about there being no reason for these weapons other than killing a bunch of people.
There are people for whom this is a hobby who could enjoy high powered, automatic weapons, and it has nothing to do with killing a bunch of people, and it is possible to believe and be sympathetic to that and then still say that unfortunately, the dangers these weapons present overall mean this is an area where that freedom needs to be further restricted.
But instead it’s just “lol if you like big guns it must be murder time!”