No law could have prevented Vegas shooting, Feinstein says

[dutch508]

Star Member DonViejo (32,372 posts) https://www.democraticunderground.com/10141884383

No law could have prevented Vegas shooting, Feinstein says


Source: The Washington Post




By Tory Newmyer October 8 at 12:07 PM

No law could have thwarted last week’s massacre in Las Vegas, the top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee said Sunday.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), a longtime advocate of stricter gun laws and author of the 1993 ban on assault weapons, said the shooter, Stephen Paddock, legally acquired the arsenal he used to carry out the attack. Asked by CBS's “Face the Nation” host John Dickerson whether any law could have stopped him, Feinstein said, “No. He passed background checks registering for handguns and other weapons on multiple occasions.” But Feinstein is pressing for a ban on “bump stocks,” devices that allow semiautomatic rifles to fire nearly as rapidly as a fully automatic weapon. She said she has 38 co-sponsors, all Democrats, though the idea has attracted “Republican interest.”

Feinstein said she appreciates the National Rifle Association's call for a regulatory review of bump stocks but said such a move would be insufficient. “Regulations aren’t going to do it. We need a law,” she said. “It can’t be changed by another president. Right now we’re seeing one president change actions of a president that came before him. And that would happen in this area. And I would hope that Americans will step up and say ‘Enough is enough. Congress, do something.’ ”

For gun rights advocates nervous that her bill will lead to a ban on semiautomatic weapons, Feinstein said, “That’s just plain wrong. This is written in clean English. You can take a look at it. It’s a two-page bill. I’ll send a copy of it to anyone who calls our office and you can look at it yourself. It does not take anyone’s gun.”

###

Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/10/08/no-law-could-have-prevented-vegas-shooting-feinstein-says
0

      
wait for it....

Snackshack (342 posts)
1. Shes right.

No current law could have prevented it.

Star Member TexasBushwhacker (10,083 posts)
10. And most of his 49 guns were purchased in the last 12 months

The 2nd amendment gives you the right to keep and bear arms. It does not say:

1. That you can have any variety of weapon. Hence, private citizens cannot own rocket launchers.

2. That you may have an unlimited number of weapons.

3. That you may have an unlimited amount of ammunition.

4. That you may have any kind of ammunition including armor piercing and exploding ammo.

Garion_55 (1,147 posts)
5. My law could have saved most of the victims.

accepting 'have the right to bear arms' in the constitution I would ask 'does the constitution spell out how many arms you can have?' i would also ask 'does the constitution spell out WHICH arms one can bear?'

from what I understand the answers are no and no.

that said I would allow people to own 2 guns. 'bear arms' is plural so allowing only one gun seems unconstitutional. so everyone can have up to 2. I would also only allow people to own 2 handguns. something small and light and easy enough for an 80 year old woman to use. for people who go hunting i would allow one handgun and one hunting rifle.

the guns have to be what you'd find in the wild west. 6 shooters hand loaded. bolt action rifles.

semis are gone. huge magazines gone.

so put that shooter up on the 32 floor with a hand gun and a hunting rifle. lets see how many of those people would have survived that attack then.


right wingers keep wanting to see a law that would have prevented or cut down massive amounts of gun violence, there it is. are they ready to accept it?

  Yes- DUmpmonkiez are calling for limiting the amount of guns and ammo per person...

Star Member BigmanPigman (5,719 posts)
11. I know this is probably naive but why can't we change the 2nd

Amend. to update it? England's system seems to work well, why can't we strive for the same? If only 3% of Americans own most of the guns it seems to me that 97% would vote for laws similar to other countries and that are successful in having much fewer gun related crimes and incidences.
http://www.bbc.com/news/10220974

 

Star Member Loyd (50 posts)
12. Excuse me, but a law COULD have prevented the massacre

Too bad Congress doesn't have the stones to pass it!

Yup- Ban ALL Guns

[SVPete]

Star Member BigmanPigman (5,719 posts)
11. I know this is probably naive but why can't we change the 2nd

Amend. to update it? England's system seems to work well, why can't we strive for the same? If only 3% of Americans own most of the guns it seems to me that 97% would vote for laws similar to other countries ...

I won't say anything about my gun ownership beyond that I am not a 3%er. Maybe BigPig and other DU-folk are assaholic enough to casually hyper-vehiculate each other's rights, but I would not toss 3%ers under the hoplophobes' bus!

Edited for clarification.

[diesel driver]

Garion_55 (1,147 posts)
5. My law could have saved most of the victims.

accepting 'have the right to bear arms' in the constitution I would ask 'does the constitution spell out how many arms you can have?' i would also ask 'does the constitution spell out WHICH arms one can bear?'

from what I understand the answers are no and no.

that said I would allow people to own 2 guns. 'bear arms' is plural so allowing only one gun seems unconstitutional. so everyone can have up to 2. I would also only allow people to own 2 handguns. something small and light and easy enough for an 80 year old woman to use. for people who go hunting i would allow one handgun and one hunting rifle.

the guns have to be what you'd find in the wild west. 6 shooters hand loaded. bolt action rifles.

The reason the 2nd Amendment doesn't state a "limit" on the number or type of "arms" someone can own is because...THERE ISN'T ONE!!!!!

As for "bolt action rifles", I believe Oswald shot Kennedy with one...

[SVPete]

The reason the 2nd Amendment doesn't state a "limit" on the number or type of "arms" someone can own is because...THERE ISN'T ONE!!!!!

As for "bolt action rifles", I believe Oswald shot Kennedy with one...

Exactly. What the USC limits it specifies. "(S)hall not be infringed" is intentionally broad.

[FiddyBeowulf]

Star Member Loyd (50 posts)
12. Excuse me, but a law COULD have prevented the massacre

Too bad Congress doesn't have the stones to pass it!

Someone should just make it against the law to commit murder.

[BlueStateSaint]

Exactly. What the USC limits it specifies. "(S)hall not be infringed" is intentionally broad.

I have heard that most of the artillery that laid siege to Boston in 1775, or was put into position to lay siege to Boston in 1775, was privately owned (with the exception of the artillery brought from Fort Ticonderoga).  If you could afford it, you could own it.

[SVPete]

Star Member BigmanPigman (5,719 posts)
11. I know this is probably naive but why can't we change the 2nd

Amend. to update it? ...

BigPig isn't very bright. The reason the hoplophobes keep going for laws to circumvent the 2nd Amendment is the the hoplophobes KNOW that an amendment repealing or gutting the 2nd Amendment would never get ratified.

[VelvetElvis]

The reason the 2nd Amendment doesn't state a "limit" on the number or type of "arms" someone can own is because...THERE ISN'T ONE!!!!!

As for "bolt action rifles", I believe Oswald shot Kennedy with one...

Not to mention, both six shooters and bolt action rifles would have been viewed as big a transformative technological breakthrough by the Constitution's authors as were machine guns were in WWI.
But muskets!!!

[Old n Grumpy]

My law could have saved most of the victims.

I have a great idea for a new law. the first amendment doesn't apply to you unless you have served in the military and tyou are a conservative.
And you can't vote unless you have served and have a job and pay taxes.

[J P Sousa]

I have a great idea for a new law. the first amendment doesn't apply to you unless you have served in the military and tyou are a conservative.
And you can't vote unless you have served and have a job and pay taxes.

Now THAT is an amendment I could get behind. 

[67 Rover]

I have a great idea for a new law. the first amendment doesn't apply to you unless you have served in the military and tyou are a conservative.
And you can't vote unless you have served and have a job and pay taxes.

Can I add one more qualification to voting?  How about being a home/land owner.

[J P Sousa]

Can I add one more qualification to voting?  How about being a home/land owner.

That would solve some problems as well.