PDA

View Full Version : 60 Minutes on Sunday - Di Fi & AWB


CaliforniaLiberal
04-09-2009, 7:14 PM
Senator Feinstein says that now is not the time to renew the AWB.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/04/09/60minutes/main4931769.shtml?source=RSSattr=60Minutes_4931769

The Obama Gun Buying Frenzy is a topic on this Sunday's 60 Minutes and a Feinstein interview is a part of it.

CL

Arkalius
04-09-2009, 7:46 PM
Well... uhh... hmm I don't know what to say. If Feinstein is uninterested right now then that's gotta be a good thing right? Of course it's no reason to rest on our laurels and forget about it... but I like what I hear.

Of course, all of this "forget about the guns, the economy is more important" sentiment goes both ways, and if pro-gun lobbies start pushing too hard we are going to look... I dunno... like we don't care about the economy? I guess we have to continue tread carefully through all this political crap.

lioneaglegriffin
04-09-2009, 8:01 PM
for those too lazy to click

Feinstein: Not The Time For Gun Control

The California senator who authored the nation's now-lapsed 1994 ban on assault weapons says she will hold off trying to renew that ban.

Dianne Feinstein (D.-Calif.) tells 60 Minutes correspondent Lesley Stahl that the political timing isn't right and she will move to renew the ban at a future time of her own choosing. Feinstein appears in Stahl's report on the increase in gun sales taking place in America to be broadcast this Sunday, April 12, at 7 p.m. ET/PT.

Asked by Stahl if trying to renew the assault weapons ban would start a culture war and pose a distraction for an already overburdened Obama Administration, Feinstein replies, "I agree with you." "So you are going to hold off?" asks Stahl. "That's correct. I'll pick the time and the place, no question about it," Feinstein tells Stahl.

But even if she pursued the renewal, the votes may not be there today in either the Senate or the House. Both Houses of Congress gained pro-gun Democrats this past election, some of whom won the support of the National Rifle Association. "I am not going to disagree with that at all," says Feinstein. "The National Rifle Association essentially has a stranglehold on the Congress."

Has Congressional leadership or anyone from the Obama administration influenced her decision to put off the fight for renewal of the assault weapons ban? "No. Nobody said a word to me," Feinstein tells Stahl.

Feinstein appears in Stahl's report on the increase of gun sales in America. Stahl talks to gun enthusiasts who tell her Americans are buying more guns now, in part, due to fear of impending social unrest as a result of the financial meltdown.

Philip Van Cleave, president of the Virginia Citizens Defense League, a pro-guns advocacy group, explains: "We're being told all the time that, ‘The economy could just collapse and we could fall into chaos.’ Well, chaos is a good reason to be able to protect yourself… You could imagine if we truly had a collapse of the economy and it was hard to find food, those that did manage to hang onto food-might…find themselves in a precarious position.'" Van Cleave tells Stahl the other main reason is fear of potential gun control under new President Barack Obama.

KylaGWolf
04-09-2009, 8:08 PM
In otherwords she is saying she will hold off on getting it reinstated when they can get rid of the pro gun members of congress AND it will make her look good.

pdq_wizzard
04-09-2009, 8:16 PM
In otherwords she is saying she will hold off on getting it reinstated when they can get rid of the pro gun members of congress AND it will make her look good.

If they keep running things like they are she will have a long wait :thumbsup:

I know people that voted for the Dems just to get all the Bush tast out of there mouth, they are talking like that about the big O alredy and it is just comming up on 100 days :eek:

69Mach1
04-09-2009, 8:17 PM
Check out KCAL9 right now (so cal). They are featuring a DF interview regarding a new AW ban soon.

Vtec44
04-09-2009, 8:25 PM
"Now is not the time" isn't the same as "there won't be one". They, the anti-2A, are just not in the political position to push it yet and are just waiting for the right time.

yellowfin
04-09-2009, 8:40 PM
Misdirection as usual. "Now" may mean not at that minute she was speaking, but maybe 10 minutes later. It will be a sneak attack.

dfletcher
04-09-2009, 8:45 PM
It has nothing to do with not wanting to start a culture war or being disruptive or distracting. All it means is she knows the count and can't get it passed for now. She'll work behind the scenes to lay the ground work, do favors and build up some political capital.

Or maybe she'll just let that miserable yente Barbara Boxer sponser the bill - no difference between the two.

tiki
04-09-2009, 8:47 PM
In otherwords she is saying she will hold off on getting it reinstated when they can get rid of the pro gun members of congress AND it will make her look good.


No, they are waiting for Obama to change the Supreme Court makeup.
They don't want to have a challenge hit the current court.

kap
04-09-2009, 9:54 PM
says Feinstein. "The National Rifle Association essentially has a stranglehold on the Congress."


How about the will of the people has a stranglehold on Congress!

jacques
04-09-2009, 10:11 PM
Depending on how things go in the next couple of years, there may be a whole different situation in congress than there is now. Hopefully for the better.

gcvt
04-09-2009, 10:16 PM
It's no different than the schoolyard bully not wanting to fight you just quite yet because you've got too many friends around. Once that changes, the fight is on.

I throw up in my mouth a little every time I see DiFi...she sickens me.

lioneaglegriffin
04-09-2009, 11:58 PM
It's no different than the schoolyard bully not wanting to fight you just quite yet because you've got too many friends around. Once that changes, the fight is on.

I throw up in my mouth a little every time I see DiFi...she sickens me.

thats why you stay in the cafeteria where its safe and full of teachers. :D then run like a bat out of hell when lunch is over. (not speaking from experience)....

or you get your friends and go all bush doctrine on him and beat him up before he can do the same to you when your alone.

Then give him a N.AT.O like creedo: you mess with one of us you mess with all of us you got that you f__kin pusi. :chris:

wash
04-10-2009, 7:14 AM
They are trying to make the "Obama Gun Buying Frenzy" die down.

As soon as she thinks she can ram a ban down our throats, it will happen.

Hopefully we can get 2'nd amendment incorporation before then and block any future bans.

Regulus
04-10-2009, 7:43 AM
I think Feinstein's decision to hold off has more to do with the 2010 U.S. Senate elections than any other reason.
At least 36 of the 100 seats will be contested. 34 are Class III six-year terms in the U.S. Senate.

2010 Elections (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_elections,_2010)

History (and some pro-gun Democrats) is probably telling Feinstein to wait until at least after these elections for fear that they may lose control of the Senate again over an AW ban. If they can retain control, she would surely try then.

Untamed1972
04-10-2009, 7:51 AM
"But even if she pursued the renewal, the votes may not be there today in either the Senate or the House. Both Houses of Congress gained pro-gun Democrats this past election, some of whom won the support of the National Rifle Association. "I am not going to disagree with that at all," says Feinstein. "The National Rifle Association essentially has a stranglehold on the Congress."

WOOHOO!!! Way to go NRA...choke the life out of the anti movement!!:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::party: :punk: :taz:

superjc
04-10-2009, 8:34 AM
How do you like that verbal subterfuge.... "a stranglehold on congress"?

How about "enough senators know the stance of their constituents regarding gun rights, and know they will be voted out if they pass treacherous & unconstitutional laws, and I can't stand armed serfs!"

Would be more honest, no?




http://i278.photobucket.com/albums/kk107/strrizi/feinstein.jpg


1. Finger on trigger? check
2. Safety off? check
3. 75-round drum mag inserted? check.
4. muzzle sweep of a room full of people too stupid to know they are in mortal tanger? check.

glockman19
04-10-2009, 8:45 AM
Someone should call 60 minutes and ask that in all fairness of reporting let the public know that DiFi is a gun owner and a CCW holder. Eventhough she has the financial wharewithall to pay for security.

Aegis
04-10-2009, 8:55 AM
The Democrats know that attempting another sporting rifle ban is a loser for them. It is easy for DI FI to push it, because her constituency in San Francisco wants it. It is not politically viable for some of these senators from traditionally conservative states to vote for a new ban. Many of these more moderate Democrats know that pushing more gun control will cost them the election in 2010.

RomanDad
04-10-2009, 8:59 AM
Someone should call 60 minutes and ask that in all fairness of reporting let the public know that DiFi is a gun owner and a CCW holder. Eventhough she has the financial wharewithall to pay for security.

She claims not to be anymore. That she melted her pistol down to make a dog collar or some such crap. Of course, she has 500 uniformed police officers at her beck and call 24 hours a day providing whatever security she may want.

Maestro Pistolero
04-10-2009, 12:04 PM
Actually it was CBS. I was unable to edit and correct the subject line of this post.

The NRA is not the only roadblock to a gun ban. There are more than thirty million guns in the hands of law abiding citizens in the US, and there are many powerful gun rights organizations besides the NRA. And remember, the Supreme Court's 2008 landmark ruling on the Second Amendment was not funded by the NRA but privately funded by Robert Levy of the CATO institute, with his own money.

Because these rifles have a menacing appearance, they make excellent targets of proposed gun bans, a fact which anti-gun folks use to propose laws which are cynical, incremental, and disingenuous infringements on our right to keep and bear arms. This point leaves aside the fact that one of the many reasons our founders saw fit to include the Second Amendment in our Bill of Rights, was as a safeguard against future tyranny, both foreign and domestic. That's why the first clause of the amendment states a militia, or military purpose.

Let's be perfectly clear. The problem isn't that the Second Amendment isn't working. It's just that it doesn't work well enough in states that infringe on the right. The nutcase in Binghamton, NY somehow had a pistol permit, but in NY that's rare and arbitrary.

If Binghamton, NY were located an hour South in "shall issue" Pennsylvania, the chance that an ordinary law abiding citizen could have shut down this miscreant's rampage would have been exponentially greater.

No gun restriction is ever going to prevent a person, who is bent on evil, from accomplishing his ill will. Anyone capable of brutal murder is so far beyond having any concern for a weapons law as to make the point mute. We are wasting valuable time and energy proposing laws which a criminal is in the business of ignoring. These futile efforts amount to re-arranging the deck chairs on the titanic. We ought to be looking at the real causes of violence, hate, anger, disenfranchisement, poverty, ignorance and the empathy and compassion that too many in this generation seem to lack.

The Second Amendment is, first and foremost, an insurance policy for Americans to prevent the possibility of future tyranny. There is the argument that no handguns, rifles or shotguns are going to keep a government from becoming tyrannical. The Supreme Court weighed in on this in June 2008.

As Justice Scalia put it recently in the Heller vs. D.C. decision: "It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right. "

The government has clearly shown that over time, it develops a greater willingness to infringe on 1st (Speech), 2nd (Bearing Arms) and 4th (Search and Seizure), but it's doubtful that our government may have the stomach to infringe on these rights, when doing so requires them to turn their arms against a law abiding, armed populace.

In short, so-called assault weapons in the hands of law abiding folks (and yes, there are millions of them) act as the final gatekeeper which secures and protects the rest of the guarantees enumerated in the Bill of Right for our great-grandchildren.

There is reassuring irony in the fact that the exercise of the right virtually guarantees that it will never be needed for one of it's most important purposes, to prevent the future tyranny of government.

dreyna14
04-10-2009, 12:10 PM
"I'll pick the time and the place.."

Translation: I'll wait until some guy mows down 20-30 kids with an illegally purchased "AW" then I'll have all the rest of the irrational morons behind me.

Hoop
04-10-2009, 12:17 PM
I think Feinstein's decision to hold off has more to do with the 2010 U.S. Senate elections than any other reason.
At least 36 of the 100 seats will be contested. 34 are Class III six-year terms in the U.S. Senate.

2010 Elections (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_elections,_2010)

History (and some pro-gun Democrats) is probably telling Feinstein to wait until at least after these elections for fear that they may lose control of the Senate again over an AW ban. If they can retain control, she would surely try then.

What he said.

When they say "now's not the time" they are referring to impending elections. You know, the time they have to pretend they actually give a **** about their constituents.

yellowfin
04-10-2009, 12:38 PM
Shouldn't we flag the doubtful senators and kick them out anyway to make sure she doesn't have the materials after the election?

radioburning
04-10-2009, 1:02 PM
Hmmm, this is interesting. I just heard her on NPR a couple days ago saying that we need a new AWB because "the clips hold 30 bullets".

:banghead:

cousinkix1953
04-10-2009, 7:57 PM
Someone should call 60 minutes and ask that in all fairness of reporting let the public know that DiFi is a gun owner and a CCW holder. Even though she has the financial wharewithall to pay for security.
Dianne Feinstein isn't the only hypocrite! Leslie Stahl isn't gonna ask those kind of questions; because she has a CCW permit in Florida!