Warren and Feinstein on Fire Against Guns

We may never get the comprehensive gun reform that Progressives want in this country, but it's not due to lack of trying on the part of Senators Elizabeth Warren, D-Massachusetts, and Dianne Feinstein, D-California.

Warren gave a speech to the Consumer Federation of America in which she slammed the NRA for not allowing basic research on Gun violence so we can study just how far-reaching an epidemic it is.

Via Alternet:

“If as many people were dying of a mysterious disease as innocent bystanders are dying from firearms, a cure would be our top priority,” Warren said. “But we don’t even have good data on gun violence. Why? Because the NRA and the gun industry lobby made it their goal to prevent any serious effort to document the violence."

Feinstein had it out with Texas Tea Partier and NRA proponent Ted Cruz this week when he began lecturing her about the Second Amendment of the Constitution.

SEN. TED CRUZ (R-TX) The question that I would pose to the senior Senator from California is would she deem it consistent with the Bill of Rights for Congress to engage in the same endeavor that we are contemplating doing with the Second Amendment in the context of the First or Fourth Amendment, namely, would she consider it constitutional for Congress to specify that the First Amendment shall apply only to the following books and shall not apply to the books that Congress has deemed outside the protection of the Bill of Rights?

Likewise, would she think that the Fourth Amendment's protection against searches and seizures could properly apply only to the following specified individuals and not to the individuals that Congress has deemed outside the protection of the Bill of Rights?

SEN. DIANNE FEINSTEIN (D-CA): Let me just make a couple of points in response. One, I'm not a sixth grader. Senator, I've been on this committee for 20 years. I was a mayor for nine years. I walked in, I saw people shot. I've looked at bodies that have been shot with these weapons. I've seen the bullets that implode. In Sandy Hook, youngsters were dismembered.

Look, there are other weapons. I'm not a lawyer, but after 20 years I've been up close and personal to the Constitution. I have great respect for it. This doesn't mean that weapons of war and the Heller decision clearly points out three exceptions, two of which are pertinent here.

You know, it's fine you want to lecture me on the Constitution. I appreciate it. Just know I've been here for a long time. I've passed on a number of bills. I've studied the Constitution myself. I am reasonably well educated, and I thank you for the lecture.

Incidentally, this does not prohibit — you use the word prohibit — it exempts 2,271 weapons. Isn’t that enough for the people in the United States? Do they need a bazooka?

Do they need other high-powered weapons that military people use to kill in close combat? I don’t think so. So I come from a different place then you do. I respect your views. I ask you to respect my views

Dianne Feinstein to CNN's Wolf Blitzer

FEINSTEIN: I just felt patronized. I felt he was somewhat arrogant about it. And, you know, when you've come from where I've come from and what you've seen, and when you found a dead body and you put your finger in bullet holes, you really realize the impact of weapons. And then as you go up the technical ladder with these weapons, and they become more sophisticated, and more the product of a battlefield, and you've got these huge clips or drums of 100 bullets out there that people can buy.

When you see these weapons becoming attractive to grievance killers, people who take them into schools, into theaters, into malls, you wonder, does America really need these weapons? My answer to that is no. And so it's based on my experience. And I think -- well, the bottom line is, we passed the bill out of committee by a vote of 10-8. The president has issued a very strong statement in support of it.

. . . BLITZER: Did you have a chance to speak to Senator Cruz after that public exchange?

FEINSTEIN: No, I needed to cool down.

BLITZER: Have you cooled down yet?

FEINSTEIN: I've cooled down.

BLITZER: So when you see him the next time, what will you say?

FEINSTEIN: Yes. Yes. Well, I did say, look, I'm sorry. But, you know, this is one thing that I feel very passionately about. And I appreciate the lecture, but -- that's all I'm going to say.

Children in Connecticut Had a Right to Life - but Guns Took it Away

There are really no words for what happened to the children of Newtown, Connecticut today. Kindergarten students were slaughtered at school. Five-year-old kids are bright, curious, trusting, imaginative, sensitive, and above all, innocent. But someone walked into their normally safe school here at Christmastime and took away their right to live. Someone armed with an assault rifle he shouldn't have had, bent on some unknown mission that was all in his head.

A tragedy, people say, unpreventable. This guy must have been an "isolated nutcase" and no amount of mental health screening would have caught him. We are helpless in the face of the gun lobby, especially in red states. Blah Blah Blah. You know we can't protect everyone 24-7, especially children trapped in school buildings. It must be the parents' or teachers' fault (the shooter killed both his parents, and his mother was a teacher). It must be the principal's fault (the principal was shot). Remember Columbine? That was just as isolated an incident, and the shooters were just bad seeds, and all of this really means nothing, and should change nothing - according to the Tea Party and the NRA.

Innocents dying in vain is the new patriotism that protects the Second Amendment.

In the days to come, we will hear a lot of shoulda-woulda-coulda, and Republicans in thrall to the National Rifle Association with spread their usual manure like filth over the graves of these little innocent babies. They will moan and weep about how "terrible" it would be for politicians to take any action at all, that it would be an invasion of gun owner rights to request any type of new restrictions even on assault weapons, which can't be used for hunting any creature except other humans. It's a right to own one for "sport" you know.

That's right - assault weapon shooting is a sport to these cretins, and we better not get in their way, by God, or they will just buy more guns and join militias and burn crosses and send their goons to threaten politicians. It's been that way for years and we have rolled over and accepted things like spineless wonders.

But today I think something changed. The right for these small trusting innocent children to live should trump the right to bear arms everywhere. What militia did this shooter represent? There shouldn't be a constant open season on children and unarmed people. Enough. State Legislatures shouldn't be passing laws to carry handguns in day cares, schools, and libraries. ENOUGH. These children and their families were free citizens, too. They deserved to live, and not be shot down like animations in some redneck game. Enough!!!!!!!


Joel Achenbach on Washington Post

Newtown, Conn., became Everytown, America, on this grim Friday. By mid-afternoon, the scale of the horror became clear: Twenty children had been slain, plus six of their protectors. The crime took another sick turn with news that the killer was the son of one of the teachers, who died separately in her home. This appeared Friday night to be a matricide that evolved into mass murder.
All this happened during the holiday season, as people around the country prepared for a big shopping weekend, or got ready for relatives coming to town or kids coming home from college. This is family time, a season of joy. Light the candles, decorate the tree.