Dianne Feinstein’s lonely anti-gun crusade - By Joan Walsh

[DonViejo]

Harry Reid drops her assault weapons ban from the Democratic gun-control package as the NRA cheers
BY JOAN WALSH

Everyone knew that Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s assault weapons ban was going to be the toughest gun-control reform to achieve in the wake of the Newtown massacre. Although it passed out of the Senate Judiciary Committee last week on a party line vote, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid told Feinstein last night that it won’t be part of the still-undefined gun control package he’ll bring to the Senate floor. Feinstein is free to introduce her bill, which bans 157 models of assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines, as an amendment to the package, but it will almost certainly fail.

“People say, well aren’t you disappointed; I say, of course I’m disappointed,” a visibly frustrated Feinstein told reporters (including Salon’s Alex Seitz Wald) Tuesday afternoon. “Because if it was in a package it would take 60 votes to get it out.” She suggested asking Reid directly about his reasoning, and a little while later, Reid obliged. “Using the most optimistic numbers,” the Senate leader insisted, the assault weapons ban has less than 40 votes. “That’s not 60.”

Still, dumping the ban from the Democrats’ official package is a sign that the NRA still holds sway over Democrats. Clearly Reid cares more about red-state Democrats beholden to the gun lobby than he does about gun safety. Remember, this is the same NRA-backed Reid who put an amendment in the Affordable Care Act declaring that wellness and prevention efforts should not collect or disseminate information about whether patients had guns in their home.

Feinstein has had some of her finest moments on gun safety issues, most recently dressing down the insufferable Ted Cruz, who lectured her on why an assault weapons ban is unconstitutional. “I am not a sixth grader,” Feinstein told the arrogant mansplainer. “Congress is in the business of making the law. The Supreme Court interprets the law. If they strike down the law, they strike down the law.”

more;
http://www.salon.com/2013/03/19/dianne_feinstein%E2%80%99s_lonely_crusade/

[NaturalHigh]

1. I hope it remains a lonely "crusade."

Crusade is the right word for it. It makes about as much sense as the originals.

[Peter cotton]

2. +1

[zipplewrath]

7. You're right, for all the wrong reasons

The previous efforts at limiting gun availability have been of dubious effectiveness, and I am dubious this one will be much more effective. Strangely, we wouldn't be allowed to even propose a more effective version. This country is not willing to face, much less address, their violent nature. As such, no truly effective efforts at gun control will be allowed. It is going to require a huge shift in our very nature to get to the point where we realize that the guns aren't making us safer, they are killing us.

[CTyankee]

8. Are American fatally flawed, then? The Australians did something about their gun violence.

Are you saying that some mysterious force acts upon us, even tho it doesn't appear to act upon any other civilized nation on the planet. I see your argument but I can't believe that we are all just violent savages, incapable of being civilized.

[zipplewrath]

9. Immature

American culture is behind much of europe in terms of development. Our "wild west" period corresponds heavily to the european feudal period. So our culture is about 200 - 400 years behind european culture. Depending upon how one wants to adjust for an accelerated rate of cultural change, we are still several generations away from reaching the point that europe did when they began to reject violence at a societal level.

Australia "imported" much more of the British culture than the US did (especially when one considers the more expansive source of immigration in the US). Slavery was ended in the US nearly a century after much/most of europe. Even worse if you consider the segregation/jim crow period to be part of that. Our Civil war was about 60 years behind France. I strongly suspect that our proximity to our westward expansion, culturally speaking, still influences our views on violence as a solution technique. That, combined with our recent tendency toward imperialism through military supremacy, means we are a few generations away from recognizing that the primary threat to ourselves are our own weapons.

[CTyankee]

10. A very interesting point. thanks.

This is why we have no business lecturing other countries on their democracies. Over the past 30 years or so, emerging democracies around the world stopped using our Constitution to model their own. As Justice Ginsburg has pointed out (to the derision by the RW) the new democracies would be better served by South Africa's Constitution. It is absolutely reprehensible that women are not represented in our Constitution! S.A.'s lists women's rights in theirs, as do other constitutional democracies. We are sadly behind. It is a shame.

[SunSeeker]

3. I am proud to have Diane Feinstein as my senator.

The 1994 AWB made a difference. This one would have too. It is a shame our representatives still tremble at the feet of the NRA.

[Skip Intro]

4. The public mood shifted faster than they anticipated.

I think some were counting on the collective public to be "in shock" and angry (and more easily manipulated) for a longer time than reality provided.

[dmosh42]

5. Kind of ironic that she opposed the filibuster reform, but wants to get her bill to pass on 60votes!

[sir pball]

6. It's the least effective but most emotionally appealing legislation

Universal background checks, toughened mental health reporting (the DOJ should simply be exempt from HIPAA), and magazine limits would save orders of magnitude more lives than an AWB, but there's no pictures of scary guns that can be trotted out in support of the rest of them. It's a shame, really, watching some good political capital get wasted like this.