Feinstein to Introduce updated assault weapons bill in new Congress Crimes & Incidents, posted by Editor, Pleasanton Weekly Online, on Dec 18, 2012 at 12:01 pm
Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), author of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban that expired in 2004, announced this week that she will introduce updated legislation early next year to stop the sale of assault weapons and ammunition.
Read the full story here Web Link posted Tuesday, December 18, 2012, 7:58 AM
Posted by Sensible Citizen, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Dec 18, 2012 at 12:01 pm
Once again, we see that Diane Feinstein has her head screwed on backwards. What needs to be done is to ban all of the fantasy "gun free" zones that are in reality free fire zones. It has been noticed that all of these mass shootings occur in areas that are supposedly free of guns. Obviously it just means that in these areas the shooter doesn't need to worry about someone shooting back. In several cases the shootings were stopped by someone who was armed. Some churches have armed people to prevent such things. (it's ironic that people who are horrified about the killing of children in these cases have no problem with the routine murders committed in the abortion mills.)
Posted by Sam, a resident of the Oak Hill neighborhood, on Dec 18, 2012 at 12:29 pm
"Obviously it just means that in these areas the shooter doesn't need to worry about someone shooting back. In several cases the shootings were stopped by someone who was armed."
The argument used to be that gun owners needed their guns to protect themselves and the rest of us from armed criminals. Now the argument seems to be that non-gun owners need to get guns to protect themselves not from armed criminals (who probably aren't much interested in robbing an elementary school), but from gun owners who go berzerk.
Posted by Michael, a resident of another community, on Dec 18, 2012 at 2:30 pm
"On April 28, 1996, a gunman opened fire on tourists in a seaside resort in Port Arthur, Tasmania. By the time he was finished, he had killed 35 people and wounded 23 more. It was the worst mass murder in Australia’s history.
"Twelve days later, Australia’s government did something remarkable. Led by newly elected conservative Prime Minister John Howard, it announced a bipartisan deal with state and local governments to enact sweeping gun-control measures. A decade and a half hence, the results of these policy changes are clear: They worked really, really well.
"At the heart of the push was a massive buyback of more than 600,000 semi-automatic shotguns and rifles, or about one-fifth of all firearms in circulation in Australia. The country’s new gun laws prohibited private sales, required that all weapons be individually registered to their owners, and required that gun buyers present a “genuine reason” for needing each weapon at the time of the purchase. (Self-defense did not count.) In the wake of the tragedy, polls showed public support for these measures at upwards of 90 percent."
Posted by Cholo, a resident of Livermore, on Dec 18, 2012 at 3:58 pm
Feinstein is just playing her game...she likes to say I did this and I did that...it never costs her anything...then she goes shopping for pretty jewelry...that ole sow but a wealthy one! yup...she's got lots of extra change!
Posted by Surprised . . . Not!, a resident of Livermore, on Dec 18, 2012 at 6:09 pm
Who didn't see this coming? I'm talking about Feinstein's push for more totalitarian restrictions on the freedoms Constitutionally guaranteed to every American citizen who has not forfeited such rights. Anybody else here aware that she holds a Concealed Carry Permit? Can you say, "hypocrisy?"
As for the proclaimed "success" of the Australian move further toward Draconia, I suppose it's their business if they want to voluntarily place themselves at the mercy of a government against whom they have no protection. In America, our heritage, guaranteed by a document wisely written by men who had experienced first-hand what dictatorial oppression is like, is to retain the right of self defense, even against the government.
From the "Declaration of Independence":
"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."
From the Constitution of the United States of America, Amendment II:
"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."
As ill-defined as the term "assault weapons" is, the U. S. Constitution guarantees the citizenry the right to "keep and bear" precisely such weapons. The very purpose of the Second Amendment was to safeguard the ability of the American citizenry to rise up against oppressive government, should the need arise, with weapons that were the equal of any army fielded by said oppressive government. Now we are talking not about "infringing" upon those rights, but abolishing them altogether. The Second Amendment is not about guaranteeing the right to hunt, or to possess "sporting arms;" it is precisely about the right of the PEOPLE to possess and bear, if need be, MILITARY arms, and to do so without infringement from the government.
From Thomas Jefferson:
"What country ever existed a century and a half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." (to William Stephens Smith, Paris, 13 Nov. 1787)
We have laws in place which deny possession of ANY firearm to convicted felons, non-citizens, etc. We don't need more or different laws; we need to enforce the ones we have and to do so consistently. But politicians from BOTH parties will always champion a new law purportedly addressing some public outrage, if for no other reason than to APPEAR to have done something about the problem. This is nothing but political and emotional pandering. It is offensive, it is disgusting, and it is not the act of a statesman.
But we, long ago, stopped electing statesmen because they will do what's best (read that "right") and stand on their convictions, even when it is unpopular. We have become a nation of spoiled children unwilling to hear or accept anything unpleasant. Popularity rules in this country; we have indeed become a "cult of personality," and we are suffering the consequences thereof.
People are asking how we can prevent tragedies such as Sandy Hook in the future. No one can prevent tragedies. We can, and should, be vigilant against those which are foreseeable. But the very nature of tragedy is that it is often UNforeseeable. Sacrificing our freedoms to the gods of public outrage and frustration over not being able to justly punish a criminal who cowardly took his own life, will do nothing to secure our future. On the contrary, it will only make us more ready victims to the next criminal who chooses to disregard and violate the standards of conduct already enacted by the society in which he or she lives.
Posted by Sam, a resident of the Oak Hill neighborhood, on Dec 18, 2012 at 6:34 pm
Citizen said: "Pass all the new laws you want to. They can't enforce the ones that exist. I'll still be able to get more weapons!"
Oh? We have laws against private citizens owning automatic weapons. How easy is it for you to get an automatic weapon? How about hand grenades? Claymore mines? Seems that enforcement is working pretty well to me.
Posted by b, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Dec 18, 2012 at 6:34 pm
If the United States of America declares war on Livermore, do you really believe you and your stash of assault weapons stands a chance against the US military? Rather than arming yourself, your best defense against an oppressive government is to cut military spending back to 1776-era levels. Your weapons might stand a chance against bayonets...
Posted by Sam, a resident of the Oak Hill neighborhood, on Dec 18, 2012 at 6:41 pm
Surprised wrote: "The very purpose of the Second Amendment was to safeguard the ability of the American citizenry to rise up against oppressive government, should the need arise, with weapons that were the equal of any army fielded by said oppressive government....The Second Amendment is not about guaranteeing the right to hunt, or to possess "sporting arms;" it is precisely about the right of the PEOPLE to possess and bear, if need be, MILITARY arms, and to do so without infringement from the government."
Your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is pretty far out there. The US Supreme Court doesn't agree with you. Heck, even the NRA doesn't agree with you. I would like to take a ride in the M-1 Abrahms tank parked in your front yard, though.
Posted by Truth, a resident of the Birdland neighborhood, on Dec 18, 2012 at 9:27 pm
Really..another law for those who don't obey laws? It would take over 100 years to exhaust the current 30 plus round magazines they seek to make illegal. What we need is armed teachers..kids would behave better and the teachers could " eliminate" the threat rather than shelter the babies with their bodies as they are executed.
Posted by David Cannon, a resident of the Birdland neighborhood, on Dec 18, 2012 at 10:32 pm David Cannon is a member (registered user) of PleasantonWeekly.com
BTW, I notice none of the above posters state their real names next to their opinions. What does that say about the strength of the values you stand behind? I am a 59 year old veteran that has seen enough violence and needless loss of life. In my humble opinion, I do know enough to stand behind what I say.
Posted by dublinmike, a resident of Dublin, on Dec 18, 2012 at 11:29 pm dublinmike is a member (registered user) of PleasantonWeekly.com
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,..." You missed a major point: "A well regulated Militia"...not sure what part about "A WELL REGULATED MITILIA" you didn't get?
Posted by Nosy Neighbors, a resident of the Pleasanton Heights neighborhood, on Dec 19, 2012 at 9:11 am Nosy Neighbors is a member (registered user) of PleasantonWeekly.com
Well golly gee, what a great idea,this sure should stop all future gun violence! Now every criminal, murderer, robber, rapist, drug dealer, etc. now has to take into consideration the fact that they will also be charged with a misdemeanor if they are caught/convicted with a gun during the crime that they are committing.
That oughtta scare the bejeezus out of those pesky criminals and scare them straight!
Posted by Daniel Bradford, a member of the Foothill High School community, on Dec 19, 2012 at 2:03 pm Daniel Bradford is a member (registered user) of PleasantonWeekly.com
Murderers break the law. Rapists break the law. Should we repeal the laws prohibiting those crimes? By the logic of the NRA nutjobs, we should answer "yes".
Having more guns CANNOT prevent more violence. Has everyone forgotten the example not of Sandy Hook Elementary School but of the Fort Hood, Texas shootings in 2009?
A soldier killed 13 people and wounded 30 more. On a US Army base. The base was filled with professional soldiers, all of them armed, who had not only trained for combat but had fighting experience in Iraq and Afghanistan. Even given the odds against him, the soldier was STILL able to shoot 43 people before he was stopped.
The idea that civilian amateurs could do better than professional soldiers at preventing violence is just another part of the completely delusional world the gun nuts live in. In their Dirty Harry world, a single flint-eyed lone vigilante with nerves of steel and ice water in his veins calmly draws his weapon and shoots the bad guys as if they are tin cans on a fence.
It doesn't work that way. Only people who have never been under real fire could *ever* believe in that fantasy.
It's time to take military-style weapons out of the hands of the civilian population NOW. I'm tired of the rest of us being told that if we don't like all this mayhem and murder around us, our only option is to join the gun nuts and start stockpiling ammo and weapons ourselves.
No, we have another option (and the majority of Americans agree with me on this): we need further restrictions on the ownership of weapons and ammunition. We can't totally stop this violence, but we can reduce it. Unlike the gun nuts, most Americans love our nation's children more than we love guns.