November 9, 2017

In the aftermath of the horrific church shooting in Sutherland Springs, Texas, Dianne Feinstein and 22 other Senate Democrats have already introduced a new “assault weapons” ban bill. I don’t like to accuse people of politicizing a tragedy, but it’s curious that they already have a bill written and ready to go this quickly, and that it so closely resembles a 2013 bill to revive the 1994 assault weapons ban that was sponsored by…Diane Feinstein.

The sponsors admit the new law “wouldn’t stop every mass shooting,” but they say we’ve got to start somewhere. That sounds like common sense, but it has more flaws than a $2 diamond. First of all, there really is no such thing as an “assault weapon.” Any weapon is an assault weapon; that’s just a made-up term to describe a weapon that exhibits a combination of various features that make it look more like a scary military weapon but may not make it more deadly, and in some cases are actually just safety or convenience features.

Commentary continues below advertisement

Second, the ten-year 1994 assault weapons ban wasn’t allowed to expire because of the evil NRA, as liberals like to claim, but because it had no demonstrable effect on crime or murder rates. An exhaustive study by criminology Prof. Christopher S. Koper found that crimes involving the banned weapons declined, but they made up just 2 percent of all gun crimes anyway, and that was offset by a rise in crimes using other types of guns. Proponents such as Feinstein pointed to a drop in gun crime during that decade, but Koper could find no evidence that gun crime became less lethal or that the gun ban had any discernable impact on the gun crime rate.

He did find that because of the grandfathering of previously-available “assault weapons,” the ban might have led to a small reduction in shootings if it had gone on much longer. Or, I would posit a more likely scenario: criminals might have just switched permanently to other types of guns, most acquired illegally.

Commentary continues below advertisement

I think the problem lies in the pro-gun control side's inability to be completely honest. I believe that in their heart of hearts, what they sincerely want is to ban all guns and confiscate them, as other nations have done that they point to as examples. But what it’s done in those nations is turn the law-abiding into unarmed sitting ducks for the lawless to prey upon. Advocates seem to think that the lack of firearms would end violence, which conveniently ignores everything from knife attacks to vehicle attacks to flying planes into buildings to sucker-punching your neighbor while he’s mowing his lawn. Besides, too many Americans cherish their Second Amendment rights and would never comply with gun confiscation. The only explanation for their inability to come up with a new law that would do any good is that they don't have one. So they have to fall back on “do something that feels good, even if it’s pointless.”

You know, it’s ironic that the left has become emboldened about attacking people of religious faith, even openly mocking prayers for victims of mass shootings as useless superstition. Yet when pressed on what they would actually do to stop mass shootings, the best they can come up with is to pass more laws like the ones we already have that didn’t stop the Texas shooter, or to revive a gun ban that was already proven to have had no effect.

And they accuse people who believe in prayer of “magical thinking?”


Leave a Comment

Note: Fields marked with an * are required.

Your Information
Your Comment
BBML accepted!

Comments 1-25 of 25

  • Bruce Deming

    11/15/2017 11:20 AM

    Typical libtard democrat never waste a tragedy rhetoric. Adolf Cuomo got away with it in New York just after the Sandy Hook false flag hoax. He clandestinely rammed through the Safe Act limiting rifle upgrades to 1, and magazine size to 7 rounds, without the required 72 hour wait. Albany NY makes DC look like a monastery.

  • Michael R Brannick

    11/14/2017 11:19 PM

    As even The New York Times pointed out in a 2014 article headlined “The Assault Weapon Myth,” Clinton’s DoJ looked at the law and concluded that “Should it be renewed, the ban’s effects on gun violence are likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement.” So a ban on the most popular sporting rifle in the country won't do a bit of good. But it WOULD do damage. EVERY day law-abiding American gun owners use their guns to STOP violent crimes. How often? The SMALLEST estimate of that I've found is in the National Crime Victimization Survey put out by the Violence Policy Center, not exactly a bastion of conservative thought. It states legal firearms are used to stop crimes the equivalent of 129 times per day. Approximately 50% more than the 88-92 lives lost to "gun violence" Hillary and Ex-Mayor Bloomberg's minions often quote. And this allows the gun controllers to include in their figures 66 suicides and a number of justified homicides such as police shooting criminals and those law-abiding citizen who actually had to shoot their attacker.
    (Most criminals run at the sight of a gun, but not all). Pursuant to Obama's Executive Order telling the CDC to investigate gun violence as a health problem their report said guns are used defensively between 500,000 (a359/day) and 3 million (8219/day) times per year. So if AR-15s are banned how many of those violent crimes won't be stopped? How many more deaths due to "gun violence" will there be because the citizens couldn't use their rifles to defend themselves?

  • Wendell Hurst

    11/13/2017 11:07 PM

    I wonder how many currently legally armed citizens would be prevented from stopping attacks if this "new" law were passed?

  • Glenda Kimberlin

    11/13/2017 02:39 PM

    A huge step towards stopping hate crimes, would be the left stopping their spewing of hate towards anyone that doesn’t agree with them! The news media and the leftists seem to enjoy and embrace tragedy , if they can twist it to promote their agenda. An agenda of control and profit!

  • Glenda Kimberlin

    11/13/2017 02:39 PM

    A huge step towards stopping hate crimes, would be the left stopping their spewing of hate towards anyone that doesn’t agree with them! The news media and the leftists seem to enjoy and embrace tragedy , if they can twist it to promote their agenda. An agenda of control and profit!

  • Gary Drummond

    11/13/2017 11:31 AM

    Okay, we the people then demand a law that will require all the omniscient Godless politicians and "Hollywood Sophisticated/Nashville Country Elite" types to first ban their own armed security guards, tear down their property protection fences and show us how to love their neighbor more than they love themselves. In other words, lead by Christian example. If they can't do that, don't bore us with their idiotic and stupid ideas and "solutions" that apply to us and not them. Vote out all the career politicians, require term limits NOW. Thanks President Trump for all that you do FOR AMERICA.

  • Floyd Kimmel

    11/13/2017 02:46 AM

    I don't want to sound mean or cruel, but once again law abiding citizens with guns are being punished by the actions of one man.
    I hear all the screaming about common sense gun control, that's all fine and dandy but tell me If they come up with any more laws will
    the criminals abide by them. We have laws on the books but this time the law didn't work do to human error..

  • JohnEastlund

    11/12/2017 08:24 PM

    This might give some insight.

  • David Shute

    11/12/2017 05:25 PM

    Dianne Fienstien is a perfect example of why we need to limit the terms of all elected officials!

  • Michael Egbert

    11/12/2017 04:00 PM

    Knee jerk responses...something the Left is all too quick at...I haven't seen any yelling about banning automobiles yet many thousands of people are killed with them every year

  • Ben Johnston

    11/12/2017 02:55 PM

    No more laws! Strictly enforce what we have.

    (BTW, people like Feinstein have been in congress far too long!!)

  • De Ette Moon

    11/12/2017 02:15 PM

    Moreover, when no citizens have guns, they have no protection against a government out of control. Remember Tianamin Square. It's still true: When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.

  • Larry Dozier

    11/12/2017 01:54 PM

    A little research of the history of the American founding fathers will reveal the main motivation for the right to bare arms amendment was to protect themselves from a corrupt government. Any government that wants to take that away is just another version of an autocratic self-serving and controlling government that wants to control, not serve the people their suppose to be serving. Besides, "When guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns".

  • Mary Gentry

    11/12/2017 12:30 PM

    Liberals, including Feinstein, have admitted (like we don't understand their intent) their real goal is banning all guns, leaving law-abiding folks at the mercy of thugs who do have guns illegally. Feinstein and her liberal friends know nothing about guns in general and AR-15s in particular, as evidenced by her many clueless comments to the left-wing media. Good article. Thank you.

  • Bobbi Lively

    11/12/2017 11:26 AM

    Guns - always a controversy. Should we be allowed to protect ourselves? Definitely. But, the only purpose of a gun is to kill. When our forefathers created the amendment allowing us to bear arms, the only weapon was a single shot rifle. The problem with today's mass shootings is the ability to fire multiple rounds at one time. Our problem lies not in the right to bear arms, but what type of arms are we allowed to bear?

  • Sandy Ronecker

    11/12/2017 10:42 AM

    We need to get politicians out of politics and replace them with those "gullible" small town folk that Clinton talks about.

  • Tom Bennett

    11/12/2017 10:23 AM

    No one in the CMSM (controlled) refuses to talk about these mass shootings is the fact most are psyche drugs that cause thoughts of destruction to themselves and others. Time to get rid of the so-called legal drug pushers.

  • Bobby Cruce

    11/12/2017 09:52 AM

    I wish they would quit calling it Assualt Rifle. The “AR” in AR-15 does not stand for Assault rifle in any way. It stands for “ArmaLite Rifle” after the firm that designed the weapon in the 1950s. Therefore, since the "Assault rifle" is already banned this is a moot point.

  • Michael D Harper

    11/12/2017 09:19 AM

    Mike,We cant allow Another Useless ban come into Existiance. Diane is a Gun grabbing Bay Area Liberall. She has Stated she wants all guns Gone.

  • Patsy R Prince

    11/10/2017 10:55 AM

    Don't know who penned this,however, It is right on the Money!!!!
    When Guns are Outlawed only Outlaws will have GUNS!
    God Bless America

  • roger abraham

    11/10/2017 02:18 AM

    All due respect to the good senator Feinstein, but assault weapons are allready banned! Perhaps the dishonesty of many members of our congress is why they never get anything done!

  • roger abraham

    11/10/2017 02:09 AM

    Assault weapons are already banned! I think our worst problem in this country is people with a low education level in our congress!

  • Brandon Johnson

    11/10/2017 12:38 AM

    Also, the media is doing its best to hide the blatent truth and the testimony of Stephen Willeford the NRA MEMBER who ran out of his house barefoot with his AR-15 and shot this evil church active shooter who was on his way back to his truck likely to get more weapons for more killing. This law abiding AR owner Shot him in between his Kevlar body armed which caused him to flee. He perused him till he died. I listened to his entire testimony. The media fails to point out that if this law abiding citizen was not able to obtain or train with formitable assault rifle there likely would have been even more dead in the building or up the street at the next church.

  • Ron Stephens

    11/09/2017 06:47 PM

    I recall the Lord telling some folks, "Judge not after appearances but judge righteous judgment." But He told the same folks, "but because I tell you the truth you believe me not." That is, folks close their minds to what they do not want to be true. That is supposed to make it powerless. More magic.....

  • Larry Johns

    11/09/2017 06:04 PM

    Since we have to start "somewhere", why not enforce the current law. So far that is not being done with violations of felons trying to buy guns and they lie on their applications. How about that for an immediate impact......huh? Criminals know they can get away with not compliance, so there you go! We do not need more laws, unless you are ready to enforce the ones already passed. Simple as that.