Were I to come up with a list of anti-gun cliches, the sort of emotionally driven misinformation our opponents trod out whenever they launch into an attack on our rights it would read like a transcript of Senator Feinstein’s Thursday press conference revealing her pipe dream legislation to ban some of the most popular sporting rifles in America. It was as if Senator Feinstein had her housekeeper bake us all a delicious cliche pie with such delectable treats as “since the 1994 law expired there has been an influx of new models of assault weapons. These models are more powerful, more lethal, and more technogocially advanced than the weapons were in 1993.” Really? I didn’t realize the 5.56mm rounds of today are more powerful and the AR-15s of today more lethal than the ones from the 90s. And to think I have been making due with a barely lethal early 90s AR-15. At least i have today’s more powerful ammo. Of course, it seems to look and perform the same as the old ammo. Hmmm … The Senator also informed us that her bill “will not affect hunting or sporting firearms.” Seriously? Does Dianne Feinstein know what the hell a sporting firearm is??? Apparently not, since she wants to ban mine.
In addition to Feinstein’s blathering about guns she is only aware of because her legislative aids set up some briefings with top firearms experts like the people at the Violence Policy Center or the Brady Campaign—you know, the sort of people who have actually seen guns on display at events like today’s press conference, and have possibly even touched a few at some point—there were some choice statements from other Democrats intent on realizing their dream of making the United States gun free like Mexico.
Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) offered up his usual eloquent and erudite analysis of the limits of the American people’s right to keep and bear arms: “It comes down to this: Assault weapons were designed for and should be used on our battlefields, not on our streets… There is no inalienable right to own and operate 100-round clips on AR-15 assault rifles.” That’s the Chuck I know! Really digging down into the meat of scholarly examinations of the Second Amendment and demonstrating a sophisticated and nuanced understanding of the issues.
Senator Chris Murphy (D-Conn) noted that “kids would be alive today if the law we are proposing today was in place.” Of course this statement was made with the benefit of a time machine the Senator constructed out of some things he picked up at Radio Shack, thus allowing the Senator to explore possible alternative futures to make certain he strikes the perfect balance between preserving individual liberty and public safety. His statement was also made without reference to Connecticut’s already strict ban on “assault weapons” and generally onerous gun ownership process, which of course DID NOT prevent the Sandy Hook tragedy. I suppose in one of the many alternative futures the Senator explored during his time safari he saw how a national ban on the sort of guns already banned in Connecticut would have prevented Sandy Hook by setting off a chain of bizarre events culminating with the Newtown killer dying in a hang gliding accident in the Rockies.
Representative Elizabeth Esty (D-Conn) asked “what does it take? What does it take for us as a nation to act?… I hope, I pray and I believe that this horror in the little town of Newtown, Conn. is our wake-up call. It is our call as Americans to act and to act now to save lives.” Representative Esty doubtless arrived at those conclusions after what I’m sure was a careful analysis of the costs and benefits of allowing people to own semiautomatic rifles, including the implications for human liberty and the reality that such weapons are not substantially more lethal than many weapons that would continue to be legal under Feinstein’s legislative tribute to the great dictators of the 20th century. I’m sure she could explain why, despite the failure of a state-level gun ban on modern sporting rifles to prevent the very tragedy she claims to be so motivated to stop from occurring again, she is supporting a Quixotic effort to implement legislation that even Harry Reid (D-NV) and Patrick Leahy (D-VT) are reluctant to support.