Qualified Support for Democrats' Assault Rifle Ban Proposal

Local advocacy group Sandy Hook Promise says they "welcome" all proposals, but have not reached consensus on whether to support the legislation.


Senate Democrats proposed a bill Thursday that would both military-style assault rifles and high-capacity clips, and local groups have been quick to respond. The legislation is the first congressional response to the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School that took the lives of 20 children and six adults.

Dianne Feinstein (D-California) introduced the bill at a press conference surrounded by assault rifles, including AR-15s, according to ABC News. 

"I remain horrified by the massacre committed at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown," she said, according to ABC News. "I’m also incensed that our weak gun laws allow these mass killings to be carried out again and again and again." 

The bill is in line with proposals President Barack Obama sent to congress last week, which also included enforcing background checks for gun buyers.

U.S. Representative Jim Himes (D-4) was a co-sponsor of the bill.

"It does not take a military-style gun to kill a deer, have fun at the shooting range, or protect your family,” said Himes in a statement his office released Thursday. “This bill strikes an ideal balance between keeping our communities safe and preserving the freedoms of American gun owners. I look forward to working with my colleagues to send this bill to the President’s desk.”

Sandy Hook Promise, the Newtown-based advocacy group started in the wake of the tragedy, offered qualified support -- but said they had not yet come to a consensus on endorsing legislation. The group had "applauded" Obama's proposals last week, but said change could not stop at legislation.

"As we search for solutions to preventing another tragedy like Sandy Hook, we have learned that there are no easy answers," said a release from Sandy Hook Promise co-founder Tim Makris. "We hope that our elected officials will review the wide range of ideas that have been put forward since the tragedy with an open mind and engage in a constructive debate that leads us to a better, safer place.  The one thing we cannot afford is inaction."

Connecticut Sens. Richard Blumenthal and Chris Murphy also join the coalition to introduce the legislation, according to the New Haven Register.

“This measure is a signature moment in this campaign to help stop gun violence,” said Blumenthal, according to the Register.

marty January 25, 2013 at 12:45 AM
Gun grabbers still can not grasp the 2nd amendment. The only thing more restrictive legislation will do is prevent law abiding Americans from being able to defend themselves from people who are not law abiding and could care less about the law. Take the time to actually read the bill of rights instead of getting it 2nd hand from the main stream media.
Robert Jochim January 25, 2013 at 01:47 PM
Hard-core "liberal" author Naomi Wolf "gets it"; from her Facebook page: "Wow, this is the whole thing. It is so short and simple. I used to think I did not understand the grammar -- did it only refer to 'a well-regulated militia'? -- but now, having been reading a lot more Eighteenth century language lately, I think I do: 'A well regulated militia' is necessary for the protection of a free people, SO the people's right to keep and bear arms must not be infringed -- it is a preparatory clause -- so really the stress as I now understand it is on the latter -- ''the people's right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.' period. I hate guns but it seems pretty damn clear that the constitution gives us the right to keep and bear arms and 'shall not be infringed' is clear also." AMENDMENT II A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Kurt Lang January 25, 2013 at 01:53 PM
Kristallnacht " Night of Broken Glass" read about thus and what happened the years before this happened.
Concerned Parent January 25, 2013 at 03:03 PM
I'm amused by some of the arguments being voiced by people...Liberal this, Conservative that...The one thing I don't hear is an acknowledgement of the issue and those affected by it. It appears some people do not see a problem with things as they stand and choose to lower Newtown to a statistic. That's tragic and as a parent, find it unacceptable. I'm not about to argue the Constitution because none of the people on this post are Constitutional scholars. However, bringing in the Constitution into any argument to fight an issue is a recipe that has been followed for many years. The one thing that many people are unwilling to accept is that the Constitution is subject to interpretation and people should be careful on how they leverage it because it may come back to bite them.
Anthony Piselli January 25, 2013 at 03:42 PM
Ed, You said "The one thing I don't hear is an acknowledgement of the issue and those affected by it." Unfortunately ONE person caused a catastrophe. So In my understanding of what you are saying is that, because you don't understand or are familiar with the Constitution and the rights that it gives to EVERY American, these rights should be infringed upon because of the actions of ONE. Understand that there are over 64 MILLION LEGAL gun owners in this country and in the past 50 years less than 15 INDIVIDUALS ILLEGALLY possessed Guns and wreaked havoc, The rest of the Legal Gun Owners ( over 64 Million) WHO DO NOT BREAK THE LAW. Need to have Laws enforced against them? Is that correct? Regardless of the fact that those who have the specialty Arms that are NOT BREAKING THE LAW -- NEED to have them taken away - and for those who are legally sound and by all rights have the opportunity to own said guns can't because of the actions of a few? Why is it the MAJORITY get PUNISHED for the Actions of the few? Constitutionally we all have the right to defend our selves and to protect as a whole the country from a tyrannical regime as did our fore fathers, which is why they made this possible for us and our children - to legally defend ourselves. With a well regulated militia-- which cant be done if we only have pea shooters and sling shots to defend ourselves.
Anthony Piselli January 25, 2013 at 03:42 PM
Part II-- Also - the Second Amendment as mentioned in the article is NOT INTENDED FOR HUNTING!!!! As a point of History which with a little research on your behalf you can verify for FACT-- that JOSEPH STALIN and ADOLF HITLER - BOTH -Instituted "GUN CONTROL" for the safety of the Populace....and look where that lead those countries...
Concerned Parent January 25, 2013 at 07:17 PM
@Anthony, we've been hearing same argument against gun control for YEARS. It's stale and people know it. I'm not sure who you are trying to convince, but believe me when I say its not going to work this time. If your reference to the Constitution and Bill of Rights was valid, you would still be able to purchase automatic weapons, but as we all know, they were banned long ago. Gun owners are unwilling to accept and admit that they will still be able to excercise their right to bear arms without these weapons.
JP January 25, 2013 at 07:23 PM
Yeah, Blumenthal knows all about guns from his service in Viet Nam . . . oh, never mind.
Concerned Parent January 25, 2013 at 07:30 PM
Here's news for all opponents...NY just passed a ban and CT can do the same. I know that may be a hard pill for some to swallow.
Anthony Piselli January 25, 2013 at 07:39 PM
Ed, Just because it's stale to you doesn't change the facts. If you can't support your standings on more than emotion and without COLD HARD FACTS - Then you have no argument. And Just because one idiot jumps off of a bridge doesn't mean that we all have to! Another fact for you to ponder Chicago has the strictest gun control laws in the US- It is very difficult to LEGALLY purchase a gun! Texas has less strict gun control laws. In 2012 Chicago had 506 gun related homicides - Austin TX 35... Please explain to me how the strictest gun control laws saves lives....
Ginger2012 January 26, 2013 at 01:22 AM
Please Read and research British statistics who have banned guns for as long as I can remember yet has had increased crime waves over and above US per capita using guess what - guns- illegal guns - sadly, a little late citizens are now attempting to rescind those laws- remember the UK fellow that used a machete to kill small children - maniacs (no political correctness required here) will always find their weapons of choice - we in America have the constitution and 2nd amendment to give citizens(militia ) the right to bear arms against a tyrannical governments - hmm? doesn't that make one ponder why the "politicians" interestingly liberal politicians are pushing this questionable gun control agenda while dissecting and destroying the 2nd amendment - could they be closet Tyrants? Reality - If the only two groups that have guns are the Government and the criminals, guess what that makes us? SHEEP! End of story. As dr. Stephen Lambert so astutely writes .......Government possessing malevolent and self-aggrandizing intents how to set about subverting a free society for the purposes of vanquishing it—namely, dismantle and decimate its ideological and spiritual substructure.
Concerned Parent January 26, 2013 at 04:57 AM
@Anthony, I don't need to make a case for gun control to you, our Senator is doing it for me.
Anthony Piselli January 26, 2013 at 12:41 PM
Ed, You are right!, No argument from me....Let the wolf lead the sheep! Baaaa!
RONALD M GOLDWYN January 27, 2013 at 03:45 AM
Purchase a semi-auto handgun with a laser sight. That is more than adequate for you to defend your castle. Your are not going hunting. As for the 2nd Amendment it does not state that you may own any type of weapon so the Government may restrict what you possess. PS I'm a 50+ year Republican Committeeman and a multi-gun owner (all registered with the local police.
RONALD M GOLDWYN January 27, 2013 at 03:52 AM
Robert, what is your definition of arms? Is the definition limited? Is ammunition limited? May anyone buy ammo or just legal gun owners. May the government require that all guns be kept in a non-key approved gun safe under the SOLE control of its owner?
RONALD M GOLDWYN January 27, 2013 at 03:54 AM
Kurt, Are you Jewish as I am?
RONALD M GOLDWYN January 27, 2013 at 04:09 AM
I'm old enough to know what happened in Natzi Germany I also know the origin of the term "Never Again" and the reason for the existence of the State of Israel along with home movies of Displaced Persons disembarking ships to go to refugee tent cities. I recall my great grandmother who died a Palestinian in Jerusalem, whose tombstone was used by some Arab to build his home. Yes I remember, but I don't need an assault rifle with a magazine of 30+ shells.
Anthony Piselli January 27, 2013 at 01:03 PM
Ronald, these are technically "Assault Rifles" As they do not have full automatic fire buttons as they do in the military. The Media has done much to besmirch the gun owners of America and are using FEAR tactics in their favor for those who only listen to what THEY say. Those who make themselves informed KNOW BETTER! As far as the 30 round magazine - it is justified by the second amendment for the forming of a "regulated militia" so that those who would find the need for defense against a tyrannical government - ( Which is not too far away...in my opinion) to be on equal grounds - i.e. the founding fathers were on equal grounds with the British Empire. So that scenario should not change with TODAY's technology.
Anthony Piselli January 27, 2013 at 01:09 PM
May I quote President Ronald Reagan? The greatest lie "TRUST ME... I'M FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT I'M HERE TO HELP YOU"


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »