Democrats vow to push for gun control measures in Congress

By Andy Sullivan

WASHINGTON | Sun Dec 16, 2012 4:43pm EST

(Reuters) - Several Democratic lawmakers called for a new push for U.S. gun restrictions on Sunday, including a ban on military-style assault weapons, in the wake of the Connecticut massacre in which 20 children and six adults were gunned down in a school.

Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein, the author of an assault-weapons ban that lapsed in 2004, said she would introduce new legislation this week. Senator Dick Durbin, the chamber's No. 2 Democrat, said lawmakers would hold hearings on gun control, and several others said they would devote new attention to the long-ignored issue.

"I think we could be at a tipping point ... where we might get something done," Senator Charles Schumer, another top Senate Democrat, said on CBS's "Face the Nation."

Any effort to restrict access to high-powered weapons is likely to face fierce opposition from many Republicans in Congress who say restrictions violate the U.S. Constitution's right to bear arms.

Gun control has been a low priority for most U.S. politicians due to the widespread popularity of guns in America and the clout of the pro-gun National Rifle Association. Most Republicans and many Democrats, including Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, are firm allies of the group.

Opinion polls have found Americans to be divided on the issue even after other high-profile shooting incidents.

U.S. lawmakers have not approved a major new gun law since 1994.

Feinstein said her planned legislation would outlaw the high-capacity magazines and military-style assault rifles that have factored in many recent mass shootings, including Friday's massacre in Newtown, Connecticut. People who own such weapons now would not be required to give them up, Feinstein said.

She said she would introduce her bill in the Democratic-controlled Senate soon, and a companion bill would be introduced in the Republican-controlled House of Representatives.

Connecticut's Democratic governor and two senators, one a Democrat and one an independent, voiced support for an assault-weapons ban or restrictions on high-capacity magazines.

'AN ARMED PEOPLE'

A Republican lawmaker signaled ongoing opposition to gun control.

Asked on "Fox News Sunday" why Americans would need to own semi-automatic weapons, Republican Representative Louie Gohmert said, "Well, for the reason George Washington said: a free people should be an armed people. It ensures against the tyranny of the government, if they know that the biggest army is the American people."

Gohmert added, "Once you start drawing the line, where do you stop? ... Gun laws don't work."

MORE http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/12/16/us-usa-shooting-connectic...

Favorite

3 members favorited this

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by DTOM on December 17, 2012 at 10:46am

That bitch Feinstein has been itching for this for years...a bill is already ready to go - what a co-inkydink!!!

“I’m going to introduce in the Senate and the same bill will be introduced in the House, a bill to ban assault weapons. It will ban the sale, the transfer, the importation and the possession. Not retroactively but prospectively. And it will ban the same for big clips, drums or strips of more than 10 bullets. So there will be a bill. We’ve been working on it now for a year,” Feinstein said on NBC’s “Meet The Press” during a discussion about guns following Friday’s deadly mass shooting as a Connecticut school. - http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2012/12/16/feinstein...

"People who own such weapons now would not be required to give them up, Feinstein said."

For now...

Watch hi-cap mag, parts kit and AR upper and 80% lower sales soar...

Next step, will be outright ban and delaration of martial law...

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Nathan on December 18, 2012 at 4:28pm

Invincible Ignorance

Thomas Sowell

Must every tragic mass shooting bring out the shrill ignorance of "gun control" advocates?

The key fallacy of so-called gun control laws is that such laws do not in fact control guns. They simply disarm law-abiding citizens, while people bent on violence find firearms readily available.

If gun control zealots had any respect for facts, they would have discovered this long ago, because there have been too many factual studies over the years to leave any serious doubt about gun control laws being not merely futile but counterproductive.

Places and times with the strongest gun control laws have often been places and times with high murder rates. Washington, D.C., is a classic example, but just one among many.

When it comes to the rate of gun ownership, that is higher in rural areas than in urban areas, but the murder rate is higher in urban areas. The rate of gun ownership is higher among whites than among blacks, but the murder rate is higher among blacks. For the country as a whole, hand gun ownership doubled in the late 20th century, while the murder rate went down.

The few counter-examples offered by gun control zealots do not stand up under scrutiny. Perhaps their strongest talking point is that Britain has stronger gun control laws than the United States and lower murder rates.

But, if you look back through history, you will find that Britain has had a lower murder rate than the United States for more than two centuries-- and, for most of that time, the British had no more stringent gun control laws than the United States. Indeed, neither country had stringent gun control for most of that time.

In the middle of the 20th century, you could buy a shotgun in London with no questions asked. New York, which at that time had had the stringent Sullivan Law restricting gun ownership since 1911, still had several times the gun murder rate of London, as well as several times the London murder rate with other weapons.

Neither guns nor gun control was the reason for the difference in murder rates. People were the difference.

More here: http://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2012/12/18/invincible-i...

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Less Prone on December 19, 2012 at 7:53am

First step is to collect guns from law abiding citizens. The second step in response to the resulting rising crime rates is to complete the police state and put swat teams on the streets. A very gloomy outlook indeed.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by 3dstkr4yzrciy on December 18, 2012 at 6:54pm

One thing that confuses me is, with all the talk of terrorism and terrorists isnt being an armed populace to our advantage? After all we really dont have much of a military to speak of lingering around here in the country. I guess the talking heads dint think of that, or did they...hmmm.