NRA clout is outgunning Feinstein

Status
Not open for further replies.

Waitone

Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2002
Messages
5,406
Location
The Land of Broccoli and Fingernails
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/06/28/MNGQK7D4RU1.DTL&type=printable


NRA clout is outgunning Feinstein
Assault weapons ban renewal in doubt

- Edward Epstein, Chronicle Washington Bureau
Monday, June 28, 2004


Washington -- Sen. Dianne Feinstein knows the odds are increasingly daunting as she tries to win congressional renewal of her 10-year-old assault weapons ban before it expires Sept. 13, and she warns that if the law lapses "you can expect the market to become flooded'' with such guns as AK-47s and Uzis.

The California Democrat will be home in San Francisco on Tuesday to join her colleague Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., and San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom in marking the 11th anniversary week of the 101 California St. shootings that killed eight people and left six others wounded. The shootings helped persuade Congress to pass the assault weapons ban a decade ago. A frustrated Feinstein is looking toward November's elections to produce a president and a House leadership more supportive of gun control.

"I really believe passionately in this,'' Feinstein said in an interview about her bid for the renewal. "I'm not going to give up.''

Feinstein won a momentary victory on March 2 when the Senate voted 52-47 to adopt the renewal as an amendment to a gun manufacturers' liability shield legislation backed by the National Rifle Association. But the NRA scuttled the entire bill when it told its supporters that it didn't want the liability shield, which was the industry's main legislative goal for the year, to pass with Feinstein's assault ban amendment.

Feinstein is searching for another piece of legislation to serve as a vehicle for her amendment, which bans the manufacture and sale of 19 types of semiautomatic weapons and ammunition clips of more than 10 rounds. But there are only about 20 legislative days left in Congress before Sept. 13, and even if the bill passes the Senate, the House Republican leadership has said it won't allow the renewal to come up for a floor vote.

The NRA and other elements of the powerful gun lobby say the Feinstein's assault weapons ban has been ineffective and violates what they consider Americans' Second Amendment rights to own guns. The groups have lobbied vehemently to keep the legislation from reaching the floor.

On its legislative action Web site, the NRA tells its members it is girded for action. "The stage is now set for a showdown, and you can be sure we're in for a sustained political battle over the next three months,'' it said.

During his 2000 campaign, President Bush pledged to sign a renewal of the assault weapons law, a pledge repeated since then many times by Bush spokesmen. But Feinstein and her allies blast the president for not lobbying Congress to pass the bill.

"The president has done nothing,'' Feinstein said. "His party is in control and is controlled by the gun industry.

"We need a president who doesn't want assault weapons on our streets,'' added Feinstein, who warned that after the ban ends, "you can expect more incidents'' such as the July 1, 1993, shootings at 101 California in which a gunman used two TEC-9 semiautomatic weapons on a rampage through the office tower. The guns were among those banned under the law passed narrowly the next year.

Feinstein said the percentage of assault weapons used in crimes has fallen by two-thirds since the legislation took effect. Opponents, using a separate set of statistics, say such weapons were used in 2 percent of violent crimes before 1994, a figure that has remained constant.

Robert Spitzer of the State University of New York at Cortland, who has studied gun legislation, said Feinstein can claim some success.

"There is truth in that the assault weapons ban put a partial brake on guns and that effect will be gone after Sept. 13,'' he said.

Even with the law in effect, semiautomatic weapons have been readily available since 1994 through the largely cosmetic changes manufacturers have been allowed to make to keep their guns on the market. Hundreds of types of semiautomatics remained legal.

Also, as Feinstein points out in response to critics who say she is out to seize their weapons, all pre-1994 guns are still legal.

None of the arguments matter to the rifle association. The group's executive vice president, Wayne LaPierre, told the NRA annual convention in Pittsburgh in April that once Sept. 13 comes, Feinstein's law will be history.

"I'm here to promise you that's the end of it. It's over,'' he said. "On Sept. 14, the sun will rise and it will never see the light of day again as long as we stay strong.''

On the NRA's new radio program, host Cam Edwards has told listeners that he expected Feinstein and her supporters to claim that the law's demise would mean a flood of guns, a claim he described as false.

"What you are going to hear in the media is the line that there'll be Uzis in the hands of terrorists. ... There will be an effort to paint it as an antiterrorism bill,'' he said on Thursday's program.

For Bush, the fading chances that the ban renewal will reach his desk is good news, said Richard Feldman, a lobbyist for gun manufacturers.

"It would be close to his political death if he signed it before the election,'' he said, because gun rights supporters would take it out on him at the polls, probably by staying away rather than voting for Bush's Democratic opponent, Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, who voted for the ban's renewal.

"Come January, it's a different story. Then, if he's re-elected, he'd be forced to sign the bill, if he gets a clean one that just contains an extension of the existing law,'' Feldman said.


Feinstein and her allies are trying to stir up public interest in the debate, but it's hard in a political climate where the war in Iraq, the battle against terrorism and economic concerns are at center stage. "Those three issues loom large and will dwarf any others,'' Spitzer said.

In such a climate, the rifle association and other gun lobbies gain political traction because their adherents tend to be single-issue voters who can punish those in Congress who support the assault weapons ban or other gun control measures.

That's one reason that even Feinstein admitted that some House members are breathing a sigh of relief that they won't have to vote on her legislation this year, going into tough races in some closely divided districts.

But she insists she will persist.

"Right is on our side. Public opinion is on our side. It's only the sheer power of the gun lobby that stands in the way,'' Feinstein said.
 
Robert Spitzer of the State University of New York at Cortland, who has studied gun legislation, said Feinstein can claim some success.

"There is truth in that the assault weapons ban put a partial brake on guns and that effect will be gone after Sept. 13,'' he said.

Funny, since even the Brady Bunch no longer contends this. Goes to show you can always find an "expert" somewhere to support your views, even if he works at the world-renowned State University of New York at Cortland. Doesn't say if he's a professor. Maybe he's the janitor there, except that in my experience janitors have more sense than this.


"Come January, it's a different story. Then, if [Bush is] re-elected, he'd be forced to sign the [Assault Weapons Ban] bill, if he gets a clean one that just contains an extension of the existing law,'' Feldman said.

Forced? Surely he jests. A second-term president is forced to do two things: jack and shhhhhhh. If a Black Gun Ban comes before a re-elected Dubya, we'll get to see his true colors on gun control.

316SS
 
Fiendswine reminds me of Carry Nation; the old crone that railed and lobbied for a "dry" america for years, and finally got her wish (posthumously) with prohibition. We all know how well that worked!:rolleyes:




nero
 
I re-read the article a few times and noticed that the "expert," Robert Spitzer, doesn't say that ban has had any effect on crime, but the article seems to make it sound like he did say he supports Feinstein's position.

Doesn't say if he's a professor. Maybe he's the janitor there, except that in my experience janitors have more sense than this.

According to their website, he is a poli-sci professor. Take that FWIW.

Spitzer, Robert J.
Distinguished Service Professor
Political Science
Old Main, Room 214-E
Phone: 753-4106
[email protected]
 
If a Black Gun Ban comes before a re-elected Dubya, we'll get to see his true colors on gun control.

In which case it will almost certainly end up signed.

First, by now, we all know that Bush signs EVERYTHING that reaches his desk. He has never vetoed ANYTHING, even bills he'd sworn he'd veto if Congress passed them. Want the President's signature on your grocery list? Leave it on his desk, and he'll sign it by reflex, without even thinking. :banghead:

Second, the evidence that gun control is a national loser, especially for Republicans, was overwhelming by 2000. It contributed to both his father, and Dole's, defeats. There's no way he could have thought coming out for renewal of the AWB, (And the several other gun control proposals he advocates.) was smart politics, except wishful thinking. He thought it was good politics because it's something he wanted enough to blind him to the reality of it.

We can't depend on this President to veto gun control laws. It's foolish even to hope for it. We stop gun control in Congress, or get it shoved down our throats, (The courts aren't about to stop it, either.) and that's that.

By 2008, we have GOT to make sure we get a decent candidate out of the GOP, one who's actually on our side, not just unmotivated about attacking us. In fact, we should be grooming somebody already; We have enough clout, if we go all out, to dictate the outcome of the Republican primaries and caucuses. Turnout is really low at that point, after all.
 
According to their website, he is a poli-sci professor. Take that FWIW.

I don't take it to be worth much. I work at a very conservative university that shall remain unnamed, in the college that houses the Political Science department. Even here many if not most of the political science professors are rabidly liberal, and certainly far from well versed in gun control and its true effects from what I've gathered in my conversations with some of them. They deem themselves experts in all things even remotely political, even if they don't know the first thing about the subject. Nor are they very polite to me and my fellow peasant co-workers.:cuss:
 
Hmm.... maybe I shouldn't have my location set to display if I don't wish to reveal the university I attend. Oh well!:p
 
Spitzer huh? Any relation to Eliot Spitzer the New York AG who was REALLY into the Smith and Wesson agreement, as well as a whole host of other very heavy gun control ideas? I'm guessing that these two snakes are related.
 
"The Gun Lobby" is not some faceless entity, it is people like us - mostly working class men & women, law abiding, decent, responsible and trustworthy.

So yeah, let's outgun her.

"Get some!"

i mean outgun her politically, of course
 
"Flood of Ak-47s"

Its not like Bushmaster has had sales increase by 300% since the ban took affect (I know those are not AK's but you get my point).




I dont even know how to respond. How can there be a flood when the importation is already restricted and the AWB has nothing to do with that.

It not like AK clones made in the US will suddenly become cheaper.
 
The California Democrat will be home in San Francisco on Tuesday to join her colleague Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., and San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom in marking the 11th anniversary week of the 101 California St. shootings that killed eight people and left six others wounded.

I'm sure it was one of the most joyful days in her sorry excuse for a life.
 
These people seem to think of gun manufacturers and supporters as big evil corporations that skirt the law in order to make billions of ill-gotten dollars on criminal sales and the blood of innocent children. :rolleyes:

I was wondering though, do you guys think Feinstein and her group really believe their own BS, or are they just drumming up public support while they push for an eventual semiautomatic ban in the future? I know people can be hardheaded and stupid, especially when it comes to emotional and political things, but they seem to be taking it pretty far in that department. I'm not sure which would be worse though.
 
It's amazing to me how these people make meaningless statements sound as if they convey information. More to the point, it's amazing to me how the american public listens to meaningless statements like this, and act as if they've understood what they've heard.
Feinstein said the percentage of assault weapons used in crimes has fallen by two-thirds since the legislation took effect.
What if this means that crimes, overall, went up, and the number of crimes where "assault weapons" were used in remained constant?

What if this means that crimes, overall, remained constant, and that people found different weapons to commit them with?

A meaningless soundbite from a woman who is either insufferably ignorant and misguided, or calculatedly evil and dishonest; either way, she's discovering her own incipient political impotence.

She sounds like the Wicked Witch in The Wizard of Oz.

-BP
 
I was wondering though, do you guys think Feinstein and her group really believe their own BS, or are they just drumming up public support while they push for an eventual semiautomatic ban in the future?
You're unlikely to find the useful idiot in charge of the operation.



Feinstein said the percentage of assault weapons used in crimes has fallen by two-thirds since the legislation took effect.
This is actually the truth. Sort of. Prior to 1994, so-called "assault weapons" were used in about 2% of all crimes that involved firearms. Since then that 2% has gone down, but when you're talking about two-thirds of 2% you're looking at a sample that's statistically insignificant and therefore meaningless. Think of it like this: We live in a world where statistical differences of up to 5%* are considered normal. And yet Feinstein, Lugar, etc. go parading about as if .0132%** is some sort of massive watershed event.

*Regarding the so-called social sciences. I know that any real engineer or scientist would probably scoff at such a claim.

**Someone please check my math on this by calculating out what .66 of 2% is.
 
2%? Some states must have had a lot of "assault weapons" used in crimes. The police chief of Trenton, NJ testified that less than .0018% of any crimes in his district were committed with AW's. In Wisconsin, from 1998 to 1994, only one of 1200 homicides was committed with an AW.
 
"you can expect the market to become flooded'' with such guns as AK-47s and Uzis.

W00T! Does that mean I can look forward to two for one sales on Ak's? Buy one get on free deals on AR's? Oooooh the joys that will come from my meager paycheck and a "flood" of "assault weapons" "next door."
 
Well, the definition of "assault weapon" is flexible enough that their use in crime can expand or contract, depending on what Feinstein is trying to prove. Sometimes they count post ban lookalikes as "assault weapons", sometimes they don't.

It's pure crap of course. You can shoot someone with a semi auto that has no evil features. It's a stepping stone to banning all mag fed semi autos, then all semi autos, and then . . .
 
Anyone else have this fear that the ban will indeed sunset, only to be brought back to the floor again and again and again? Especially as soon as someone who shouldn't have any kind of a weapon uses one of these EBR's in a crime?

- 0 -
 
Anyone else have this fear that the ban will indeed sunset, only to be brought back to the floor again and again and again?

That isn't a fear, that is fact. When antis started proposing the original ban they offered over nine different bills and continued to offer them every year until 1994 when they finally got their wish.

You can bet money they will continue to offer them in 2005.

That is why it is important to take advantage of the great opportunity we have with five (four of them antis) Senators retiring from pro-gun southern states and make sure they are replaced with pro-gun votes. We also need to show Tom Daschle the door in South Dakota.

With a pro-gun majority in the House and Senate, they can offer until they are blue in the face but nothing will happen.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top