Democrats Propose More Gun Bans & Where are the Republicans?

Gun Banner Dianne Feinstein
Gun Banner Dianne Feinstein, finger on the trigger.

Ammoland Shooting SportsFayetteville, Arkansas -(Ammoland.com)-  Dianne Feinstein has introduced a new ban on what she labels “assault weapons.”

This comes as no surprise to anyone who is aware of her virulent attack on gun ownership over the decades.

It’s a recycling of her efforts in the past, listing features that she regards as icky—threaded barrels, magazines that require her to take off her shoes to count the number of rounds held, and on and on—and listing by name the firearms that she wants to be explicitly forbidden and the firearms that she’s gracious enough to let us keep buying and selling for the time being.

Predictably, law enforcement officers are exempted [only ones], including those who have “retired in good standing.” Facilities under the authority of the Atomic Energy Commission would also be allowed to have such weapons. But ordinary Americans would not be able to acquire a new one legally or transfer the ones that they legally own at present to anyone who isn’t licensed to have them.

As I said, all of that is nothing new. She knows that it would be impossible to round up millions of guns by force, so she isn’t going to insist that we turn ours in—though she includes a program funded by Byrne grants to buy these weapons from their owners.

However, there is one line added to the title that is new: “to ensure that the right to keep and bear arms is not unlimited.”

She is, of course, quoting Antonin Scalia’s comments in the Heller decision here, but the attitude displayed is worth critiquing.

I understand that in society, some things cannot be permitted. When the light turns red, I have to stop to allow other to go through the intersection.

I used to believe that I’m not allowed to spill toxic chemicals on the land of others, though I don’t own the Keystone pipeline. The general principle is that we don’t get to bumble around causing harm at will.

But we should always be cautious and never gleeful about restricting the private behavior of citizens. This is especially the case when we’re asking good people to give up their rights because of what bad people have done. Feinstein might have said that the goal is to prevent mass shootings or to reduce violence. What she chose is instead a rare exercise in honesty—she just wants to restrict rights.

Lest anyone think that she is alone in this, the bill has numerous co-sponsors. And regarding the general idea of preventing as many people as possible from legally owning firearms, a state representative in Massachusetts, Marjorie Decker, declared in a Public Safety Committee hearing on the state’s gun laws that “it is a privilege that we allow individuals to hold onto something that causes harm and death. It is a privilege to have a car license; it is a privilege to have a gun license.”

Are we supposed to feel gratitude toward such politicians who will condescend to allow some of us to own a list of approved guns? The gun control freaks would likely say yes. Nothing in what they declare or propose comes as a revelation at this point. The question that I have is where are the Republicans? That party has been in control of Congress and the White House since the start of the year. The Supreme Court in Heller and McDonald—even with Scalia's musings—provided a solid basis for action. And while advocates for gun control tend to be Democrats, there are enough members of that party who are in purple states or districts to make overcoming a filibuster possible.

 

Each One, Teach One: Preserving and protecting the Second Amendment in the 21st century
Each One, Teach One: Preserving and protecting the Second Amendment in the 21st century

And yet, suppressors are still heavily restricted. Carry licenses are still burdened by the whims of reciprocity agreements. Importation of guns is again caught in a web of requirements to demonstrate a “sporting purpose.” Add whatever infringement on gun rights is of particular interest to you. But what are our elected representatives waiting for?

 

The answer is that they’re waiting on their jobs being at stake. Their donors can afford to pay security companies to protect them and can, shall we say, persuade law enforcement to authorize them to possess whatever they want. If the rest of us want our government to be responsive to us, we have to make it clear that our votes depend on our rights being respected.

About Greg Camp

Greg Camp has taught English composition and literature since 1998 and is the author of six books, including a western, The Willing Spirit, and Each One, Teach One, with Ranjit Singh on gun politics in America. His books can be found on Amazon. He tweets @gregcampnc.

  • 34 thoughts on “Democrats Propose More Gun Bans & Where are the Republicans?

    1. She is definitely dumber than a box of rocks and that is one step lower than being dumber than a fence post. She is the poster child for term limits in crooked congress.

      1. Feinstein is also smart enough to use her natural talents to lure a big business man into marriage, and then steer government contracts his way. He finances her campaigns. Corrupt to the core. She should be hanged from a lamp post.

    2. Where are the Republicans strikes one as a good question.

      Oh by the way, regarding the lady from Mass. who spoke of “the privilege that we allow”, one wonders as to exactly sho this “we” might be.

      1. No she was an official in San Francisco government. That said, take a look at the photo of the lady where it sure looks like she has her finger on the trigger.

        1. She Is a Sworn Officer of the S.F.Police Dept.
          She turned in her carry permit in a well publicized event, And was sworn in as a officer the next day.
          Again notice the finger on the trigger that’s what S.F.P officers know about gun’s.

    3. Magazine in place, bolt closed, finger on te trigger. She’s about to murder someone.
      Some facts, just a short list in order.
      1775-The British are coming, to arms
      1776 The Declaration of Independence
      1788 The Constitution of the United States includes the Army, Navy and Militia
      1789 The Bill of Rights to amend the Constitution to protect the rights of the people that were not adequately protected.
      1858 The Supreme Court lists the Rights of a citizen, including the right to travel signally or in comany, to cross state lines and to keep and bear arms where ever they went. That sparked the Civil War.
      1939 The Supreme Court knew only one thing for sure, that when summoned the militia was expected to come bearing their private arms of current military kind and type.
      2008 & 2010 The Supreme Court ruled that the right to keep and bear arms was an individual right that did not depend on actual service in the militia. They also said that the Court had only considered a narrow question and that some gun laws MIGHT be constitutional and should be obeyed. That was Scala in 2008, the 2010 McDonald case made that moot since State laws that might have been lawful were now to be viewed under the U.S. Bill of Rights and Article 14.

      This may help…
      A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state? [yes, therefore]
      “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

    4. Wouldn’t it be something to see if someone handed her a full auto and she ripped off a string ? Would she be smart enough to let go of the trigger , would she just drop it , or would she turn to the left ?

    5. Just like a crazy leftist, the Senator from San Francisco hounding America for gun safety laws has her finger on the trigger.
      This could be ignorance or bred into her leftist brain to have a itchy trigger finger.
      You decide.
      My opinion is that if the leftists want to confiscate guns of leftists, it may not be a bad thing…after all leftists are 9 out of 10 people who kill people using guns.

    6. The setting of that photograph is a rooom that appears to have plenty of live people in nearly every direction. Yet she is standing there, holding the weapon at low ready, finger on trigger, muzzle nearly level. We don’t know, but I’d guess SHE never “safed” the weapon, and even if she did she is STILL violating two out of the three most critical gun safety rules. Further, I’ll lay soe pretty high stakes at some fairly long odds she’s got the third shattered in pieces on the floor. ANyone else want to bet the safety is NOT in the “safe” position?? That puts her at nought for three….. and SHE has the inmitigated gall to stand there and prattle on and on about “comon sense gun safety” as she violates at least the two firsr rules of gun safety?

      What a wretched example of humanity

      1. Yes, but aside from that, she has held a number of elected offices, currently having long sat in the U.S. Senate, dumb though she may be.

      2. That “wretched example of humanity” – a truly correct description – has sworn (in open congressional session) that she is an “expert” on guns. That same day, this ridiculously-ignorant ass testified that she is such an expert specifically because she has “looked at millions of pictures of guns.” This kind of stupidity is staggering! First, “millions” of pictures, even at just ten seconds per perusal, would take an enormously long time. Second, pictures provide absolutely no information regarding ballistics, marksmanship, safety, maintenance, cleaning, or any other aspect of firearms expertise. .

        [By her logic, every teenage boy in America is an expert gynecologist !!]

        She is a waste of human skin.

    7. There is a class of protected people in Kalifornia which should be on the endangered list or on a wanted poster but unfortunately they are the legislatures majority party. Until the status quo gets tired of stupidity reigning over them the idiots are still in charge.

    8. Diane put the barrel under your chin pointing upward and pull the trigger. You have been ripping off the public for a long time, do sometime good for a change, blow your weekend brain out.

    9. Ok we have Mrs Common Sense with her finger on the trigger. Did she check the weapon? Prob not.
      Dont talk to me about gun safety when she goes around whipping the pont of the gun around with improper trigger management.

    10. You missed the new trend here in Kalifornia. The gun-hating politicians are writing legislation that fails to include an LE (law enforcement) exemption. The ultimate goal is to just disarm everyone, including the cops.

    11. Again democraps who get to stand behind Secret Service or private paid Body Guards who by the way carry guns even Assault Rifles to protect them. They want to take our rights away to protect our selves but yet keep there tax paid protection. I am tired of it, if we the common folks start sending them messages by voting there a** out, maybe they would get it and stop there bullshit and start working for the people that voted them in and working for this country to.

    12. REMEMBER folks.
      that COMMUNIST DEMORAT FEINSTEIN ONCE SAID AND I QUOTE.
      THAT IF SHE HAD OF HAD THE VOTES SHE WOULD HAVE TOLD MR AND MRS AMERICA TO TURN THEM IN, TURN THEM ALL IN.
      well she and all of THEM CAN GO STRAIGHT TO HELL, because if they HAVE THE GUTS TO TRY, WE THE PEOPLE WILL STOP THEM, ALL OF THEM.
      that’s NOT a threat, that’s a FACT.

      1. Communist, fascist or whatever, that is what she said, and if she had had the necessary votes, there was The House to consider too, that is exactly what she would have done.

    13. On the other side of the aisle, where are the leftists, really? What drives leftists to such extremes when they know a hundred million owners won’t tolerate confiscation without unimaginable fury? Leftists were badly beaten during the last administration and have started over with little things like magazine size, ammunition taxes, license fees, sound suppressors, bullet shapes and so on. But eventually, they’ll temporarily settle for universal registration because it fundamentally transforms a hundred million owners into dependents. Once they know who the owners are, they’ll proceed to choose which of them are allowed to be licensed. Permission to own a firearm is the grandest of all entitlements. And leftists need the hundred million owners to be dependent on the government in order to convince them to vote for more leftists. It’s a flimflam.

      1. @Gene R, The government will use food as a weapon. Hundreds of thousands will stand in line to turn in their firearms and beg to get rations.

    Leave a Comment 34 Comments

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *