General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsFeinstein: Election year not ideal for gun debate
WASHINGTON (AP) Sen. Dianne Feinstein says the nation needs to have a "sane" discussion on gun control and ban military-style assault weapons. But the California Democrat acknowledges that probably won't happen before the November election.
Feinstein tells "Fox News Sunday" that "people haven't rallied" in years because of the power and reach of the gun lobby, and that with the election looming, "it's a bad time to embrace a new subject."
President Barack Obama called for reinstating the ban during his 2008 presidential campaign. But since his election, he hasn't worked to get that done or back other proposals.
Wisconsin Republican Sen. Ron Johnson challenged Feinstein on Fox by saying the issue wasn't about guns, but rather "sick, demented individuals." Feinstein disagreed, saying "people use these weapons because they can get them."
http://news.yahoo.com/feinstein-election-not-ideal-gun-debate-153421106.html
As much as I dislike the Senator from California, I have to agree with her this time.
Does anyone believe a deep discussion of gun control will help Obama and Democrats in the upcoming elections?
otohara
(24,135 posts)assault weapons are here to stay - The NRA sez so and they are in charge.
hack89
(39,171 posts)AndyA
(16,993 posts)Priorities much, Feinstein?
I'm certain a discussion on guns right now will not be beneficial to Democrats, but when will it ever be a good time? The gun lobby (and every other powerful lobby) has bought Congress. Money is free speech. As long as this condition exists, there will never be a good time to discuss guns.
There are other rights besides the right to bear arms. Rights such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Are the rights of those whose life was cut short because of someone else's right to bear arms less important? It seems there's a conflict, because the rights of one cannot be sacrificed for the rights of another.
Is removing all guns from the citizenry the answer? No. Is doing nothing the answer? No, it is not. We need to have a discussion about this in this country. Rights are to be protected, but whose rights are supreme?
Without life, there is no need to have a debate about guns.
The bought and paid for Congress needs to go. Congress is supposed to look after the rights of we the people, not powerful and wealthy lobbyist groups, corporations, and only the people who are millionaires, yet that's the way it's been.
Which rights must be protected? How do we address the rights of one if those rights are compromised by the rights of another? There is no simple answer. Doing nothing is certainly not the answer, either.