Gun Control

If It Makes Sense to Ban Adam Lanza's Gun, What About His Car?

|

Today (three weeks late!) Sen. Dianne Feinstein finally followed through on her threat to introduce a new federal ban on "assault weapons." Or so news reports claim. So far I have not been able to locate an actual bill, and The Washington Post reports that Feinstein was still fiddling with the text yesterday. There is no link to the bill on Feinstein's website, and the lines at her office are too busy for me to get through, presumably because many other people are wondering where the hell the bill is. So for now all I have to go on is the summary that her office posted in December, plus the details that her aides have divulged to the press.

The bill bans the manufacture and sale of more than 100 guns by name, including the Bushmaster rifle that Adam Lanza used to murder 26 people at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, last month. That may seem emotionally satisfying, but it would have been equally logical to ban the car he drove to the school. After all, had he not been able to reach the school, the massacre never would have happened. Even if the particular model of car that Lanza used to commit his crimes had been unavailable, of course, he could have driven a different, equally effective car. Yet for people who think like Dianne Feinstein, it is inconceivable that such substitution might occur with guns as well as cars.

In addition to the specifically listed guns, Feinstein's bill, like the "assault weapon" ban that expired in 2004 (which she also sponsored), covers guns that accept detachable magazines and have military-style features such as pistol grips, folding stocks, and flash suppressors. But while a rifle needed two military-style features to qualify as an "assault weapon" under the old law, it needs only one under the new bill. That might count as an improvement if these features had anything to do with the ability to kill defenseless schoolchildren and moviegoers, but they don't. Judging from her office's summary, here are the features Feinstein considers especially menacing: pistol grips, folding stocks, thumbhole stocks, and grenade launchers (not very useful unless you have grenades, which are already illegal for civilians).

This sort of legislation makes sense only to people who don't understand what it does. The folks at CNN, for example, who put this headline on their story about Feinstein's press conference: "Feinstein Proposes New Ban on Some Assault Weapons." Since "assault weapons" are defined by law, how is it possible for the law that defines them to cover only some while missing others? In case that's not confusing enough, CNN adds that "not all of the weapons in the bill meet the technical definition of assault weapons." What "technical definition"? It can't be Feinstein's, since any gun covered by her bill is an "assault weapon" by (arbitrary) definition. Maybe CNN corresponents Dana Bash and Tom Cohen mean that Feinstein's definition is different from Connecticut's, which is essentially the same as the old federal definition; or California's, which is broader; or New York's, which is based on a somewhat different list of military-style features. More likely, they do not know what they mean. Evidence for the latter conclusion:

Supporters of more gun control acknowledge the constitutional right to bear arms, but argue that rifles capable of firing multiple rounds automatically or semi-automatically exceed the reasonable needs of hunters and other gun enthusiasts. 

It is amazing that, a quarter of a century after California passed the first "assault weapon" ban, journalists who cover this issue still think such laws are 1) aimed at machine guns, 2) aimed at all semiautomatics, or 3) both, as Bash and Cohen seem to believe. But maybe we should not be too hard on them. After all, President Obama, who supports Feinstein's bill, suffers from a similar misconception.

Even if you accept Feinstein's false premise that there is something especially assaulty or murdery about the guns she wants to ban, her bill would not actually get rid of them, since millions of existing "assault weapons" would remain in circulation. Feinstein says her aim is to "dry up the supply of these weapons over time." But guns are durable products that remain usable for decades, not a puddle that evaporates when the sun comes up. Feinstein claims her bill will "help end the mass shootings that have devastated countless families and terrorized communities." How exactly will it do that?

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

224 responses to “If It Makes Sense to Ban Adam Lanza's Gun, What About His Car?

  1. “Aim for right about here”

    1. “What heart?”

      1. “You gotta put one in his brain. The first shot puts him down, then you put one in the brain.”

  2. Bans weapons by name, huh? So if they change the name, they escape the ban? Delightfully devilish.

    1. Yeah, so it’d be exactly like the first “assault weapons” ban. HERP DERP U CIRCUMVENTED THE LAWZ BY COMPLYING WITH IT.

      The stupids never learn.

    2. Would proggies hate it if it was an Obamamaster and not a Bushmaster?

      I doubt it.

      1. Unless they decided it was racist to imply Obama has (or could have) a master, of course.

      2. I suppose the “BarackBlaster” simply wouldn’t do as a (legal) marketing wrap.

        How about the “Diananator”?

        1. Obamanator.

          Messiah M1.

          Kenyanator.

          Murderdronanator.

          1. OK Dr Doofenshmirtz.

  3. The bill bans the manufacture and sale of more than 100 guns by name, including the Bushmaster rifle that Adam Lanza used to murder 26 people at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, last month.

    So… the exact same guns sold under a different name would still be legal? Say, a “Bushnaster” XM15?

    1. They ought to go with Bushamster.Far less scary and threatening.

      1. I dunno man, I dated this girl once whose Bushamster looked like it could swallow a cantaloupe.

        1. That’s a big hamster.

          1. It is the size of a bus.

        2. John would fuck her.

  4. Senator Feinstein violated DC gun law today.

    1. Laws are for little people, silly.

    2. If she still carries concealed she has been violating DC laws of decades.

      1. Unfortunately, the document prohibits them from being arrested going to or from the capitol. The only part of the constitution these people take literally.

        1. Not true. They have to be on the way to a vote at the Capitol, or to an official function of their office. They just can’t use it any time they get stopped in the District.

          1. Yeah, but the founders really meant all the time.

            /SCOTUS

          2. And can you imagine any way to prove they’re not on official business or on the way to it?

            1. I can’t imagine the DC Police doing anything other than kissing her ass.

              1. The DC police deserve that duty.

  5. They should call this bill the “Democrat 2012 Political Suicide Pact.”

    1. After the elections, I’m a little leery of making predictions, but…

      Yeah, this.

    2. I’m going to start referring to the bill this way, inspired by your name:
      “2013 Democratic Party Political Suicide Pact”

  6. If Adam Lanza didn’t have a flash suppressor, those 1st graders would still be alive today. They could have tackled him while changing mags if there were a 10 round limit, too. Or at least grabbed onto his legs.
    [/sarcasm]

    Actually I might support a storage requirement for semiauto weapons with muzzle energy higher than 1600 joules or something. If it came in return to relaxing some of the stupid federal gun laws like GFSZs covering 99% of every large city, foregrips on pistols being banned, etc.

    1. His gun didn’t have a flash suppressor.

      It did have a pistol grip though.

      That’s what we need to take away: Guns don’t kill people, pistol grips kill people.

      1. I remember during the last assault weapons debate under Clinton, Feinstein said that the reason pistol grips should be outlawed is because they allow the shooter to fire from the hip. Yea, because firing from the hip is so much more lethal than using the god damn sights. And people called Sara Palin an idiot. I wouldn’t want Palin on my Jeopardy team but she’s sure as hells not as dumb as Feinstein who the media fawns over.

        1. Some one told me in all seriousness that pistol grips relieve trigger fatigue and allow mass shooters to shoot longer, and that’s why they should be banned. No lie.

          1. I hope you killed that person. It would have been the merciful thing to do.

          2. “No lie” So, it’s true that their fingers get less tired with a pistol grip? Good to know. I will pass on this important information in my newsletter. Would you like to subscribe?

      2. M14 woulda been cool then. Better than an AR15 anyway.

    2. Actually I might support a storage requirement for semiauto weapons with muzzle energy higher than 1600 joules or something.

      Then you are a fool.

      First, of course, I am curious about requiring that you keep your guns in a certain, state-approved way doesn’t infringe your right to keep arms.

      Second, of course, such a requirement would do nothing to prevent the criminal use of guns, and could significantly impair their effectiveness for self-defense.

      Oh, you think Lanza couldn’t have gotten to the guns if they’d been locked up? That a guy bent on mass murder and matricide would have gone back to his room if Mom hadn’t given him the combination after he asked nicely?

      1. You missed the “If it came in return…” portion, it seems.

    3. NO, fuck you, Second Amendment.

    4. “Actually I might support a storage requirement for semiauto weapons with muzzle energy higher than 1600 joules or something”

      Which would be most rifle calibers including .223. I would agree to say a 4?10^69 Joules muzzle energy storage requirement. Out of the spirit of compromise.

      1. I can live with that limit. Covers my starfleet phaser rifle, 40w phased plasma rifle, and my 2376 model Romulan style disuptor.

        I’ll get behind a magazine capacity limit of 100,000,000 also out of the spirit of compromise.

  7. Apparently Adam Lanza initially had driven to the high school, but decided to go to the elementary school after seeing a police cruiser in the parking lot. Definitely bolsters the NRA’s argument, even if it was likely only made as a diversion tactic.

    1. [citation needed]

      1. They got this information when they interrogated him. Or crazyfingers just made that up (or heard it from someone who made it up).

    2. Given that he specifically targeted his mothers class I find that HIGHLY unlikely to be true.

      1. I thought it had been shown that his mother had no connection to the school. If details lile that are still unclear to the general public, how is anyone supposed to make an informed decision about anything related to it?
        Yes, yes, I know: the last thing the opportunists want is an informed decision.

        1. “If details lile that are still unclear to the general public, how is anyone supposed to make an informed decision about anything related to it?”

          you’re catching on

        2. BINGO.

          Look at the video floating around from 12/15 saying that only handguns were used.

          I’ll agree that he did use the rifle as all sources now seem to agree on that.

          So fine, he used the rifle.
          The one thing we do know is that the media can’t deliver accurate information for days or more after a tragedy.

          How long did it take them to stop saying the class was his mother’s, that his mother was a substitute, that it was Adam, not Ryan, that he used only the rifle and not the rifle and handguns, etc.?

          No ones mentioning that they found multiple partially loaded magazines around the school, so he didn’t even leverage the 30 round capacity of the magazines he had.

          1. Not all sources do agree. WaPo reported (in their mass shootings article) that he used handguns and shotgun, not rifle.

  8. It is amazing that, a quarter of a century after California passed the first “assault weapon” ban, journalists who cover this issue still think such laws are 1) aimed at machine guns, 2) aimed at all semiautomatics, or 3) both

    Most journalists are fucking morons. I mean drooling fucking morons, and viciously partisan to boot.

    1. It is not so much that they are silly and ignorant. It is that they are so partisan they are proud to be that way.

      1. Just go read a media article on something you are very knowledgeable on, John. The epic stupidity and complete misunderstanding of the subject matter that is par for the course in most articles is off the charts. Journalists are made stupider by the fact that they think they aren’t stupid, in fact they may even think they’re smart.

        1. Oh, they definitely think they are smart.

          1. And that is the most laughable conceit of all.

            1. You laugh, I stroke out. Not fair!

              1. Citizen Nothing is a pretty smart guy. Just sayin’.

          2. That’s not true. Some of them are so modest that they don’t even append a byline to their articles.

          3. They confuse educated with smart.

            1. They confuse regurgitating shit they read that sounds cool, with critical thought and honest inquiry.

        2. They always get it wrong. They usually know just enough to be dangerous and to misrepresent what is actually happening.

        3. Journalists are made stupider by the fact that they think they aren’t stupid, in fact they may even think they’re smart.

          Science (sort of).

        4. Jesus H. Christ!! Just read the Sac Bee once and you’ll find yourself pining for the authoritarian state….any authoritarian state…to control the morons that write and live among you.

      2. John, they’re people who weren’t smart enough to get into law school. And that’s saying something…

      3. It’s not that they’re silly or ignorant, it’s that they’re partisan hacks who don’t care whether what they write is true.

        They’re a propaganda arm of the Progressive Party.

      4. It is not so much that they are silly and ignorant. It is that they are so partisan they are proud to be that way.

        No, they’re all high functioning retards.

    2. But you repeat yourself…

    3. Most journalists are fucking morons. I mean drooling fucking morons, and viciously partisan to boot.

      NO citation needed.

    4. I saw a perfect example of this yesterday:
      http://money.msn.com/taxes/new…..hare=0a117

      MSN says the IRS losing that lawsuit is terrible for everyone, quotes “a Washington lobbyist who represents some tax preparers” and the Chief Tax Officer of Jackson-Hewitt. I actually laughed out loud at this garbage.

    5. I mean drooling fucking morons, and viciously partisan to boot.

      Truly, is there anything worse than vicious drooling?

  9. All gun control is contingent upon the premise that black markets can be prevented or controlled. As long as there is a viable black market, gun control fails. Therefore every gun control effort that fails to destroy every gun in existence is doomed to fail. I have to believe they know this. The idea is for these efforts to fail because when they fail, they have justification for more controls. And the more controls they have, the more of their political opponents they can make into criminals.

    1. All gun control prohibition is contingent upon the premise that black markets can be prevented or controlled.

      Fixed it for you.

    2. There’s a black market for contract murders too. Does that mean we repeal laws against murder?

      The point of gun control isn’t to make all guns disappear, it’s to decrease the number of guns available. And banning will do that.

      Of course, it will have other horrible consequences too, and violates people’s rights, but in theory it could accomplish what it sets out to do.

      1. There’s a black market for contract murders too. Does that mean we repeal laws against murder?

        You confuse the harm with the means. Sure there is a black market for murders. And certainly the law against murder doesn’t prevent all murder. But since murder, unlike owning a gun is an actual harm that demands justice, we are still okay punishing murderers even though we will never eradicate murder.

        The point of gun control isn’t to make all guns disappear, it’s to decrease the number of guns available. And banning will do that.

        The entire drug war shows that statement to be a complete lie. We have spent 70 years and hundreds of billions of dollars trying to make drugs less available, yet drugs are more available today than they have ever been.

        1. It’s funny how Tulpy-Poo equates direct harm (murder) with possession of a tool. It’s almost like he doesn’t understand the difference. How…odd.

          1. It’s almost like he doesn’t understand the difference. How…odd.

            How red.

        2. As available as drugs are, you still have to try to find them.
          I went several years without touching the wacky weed in part because after leaving the restaurant industry (I firmly believe that there does not exist a restaurant with at least one drug dealer in the kitchen or dish pit) I had no where to find the stuff. Then I caught my neighbor smoking it.

          I still couldn’t find hard drugs, even if I wanted to. It’s difficult to be a casual hard drug user because you’ve got to be part of the culture to even find the stuff.

          So yeah, more gun control would make guns less available than they are now, but they would still be available.

          1. They would be available to anyone determined enough to commit a crime with one. And that is all that matters. That the odd law abiding citizen could no longer get one would make no difference to the rate of gun crimes.

            1. I think it would make some difference to the rate of gun crimes. But a lot of them would probably be replaced with knife crimes or plain old beatings. I think that looking at other countries that have more or less banned guns bears this out. Hard core criminals will still get guns if they want them. But the guy who murders his cheating wife, or whatever, will probably find some other means.

              But whatever the effect would be is beside the point. Being able to arm yourself is a very important right and defense against tyranny.

              1. “I think it would make some difference to the rate of gun crimes.”

                There are over 300,000,000 guns in the US today. It won’t do shit.

                1. I meant assuming that they actually make it difficult to get a gun and reduce the number of guns available significantly. This would mean an outright ban on guns, not anything that is remotely likely to pass. Which would require a lot of confiscation, which is not going to happen.

          2. Sarc, I work in an office downtown and I have been offered several different “Hard drugs” at office parties.You could easily find hard drugs if you wanted to. It’s incredibly easy to be a casual hard drug user because there are so many other casual hard drug users. You just have to get close enough to people for them to trust you to not get them arrested or fired. Barging in on political discussions and letting slip that you’re a libertarian usually does the trick.

            1. Let’s just say we work in different offices.

              1. Maybe it’s just because I work with a bunch of lawyers and tech geeks?

                1. I’m not in government, but I’m close enough to it that any talk of drugs outside of “the shit rots your brain,” “we need to live in a moral society” or “execute the motherfuckers” draws suspicion. Outlandish talk like “if someone own their own body, what business is it of government to tell them what they may or may not consume?” outside NYC soda bans will draw curious glances of the unfriendly kind.

          3. Pablo, come to Florida.

        3. We have spent 70 years and hundreds of billions of dollars trying to make drugs less available, yet drugs are more available today than they have ever been.

          Why I agree with the sentiment, I don’t think that’s true. There would be far more people using drugs if they were legal; there would be far more drugs available if they were legal. Think two types of bathtub gin in 1932 versus a bar with a 100 craft beers on tap today.

          Prohibition works by raising prices, lowering quality and limiting choice / competition even before you get to the violence required to enforce it. Saying that prohibition doesn’t do those things makes it seem like there is no reason to get rid of it.

          1. There would be far more people using drugs if they were legal

            This is not necessarily true. Portugal decriminalized pretty much all drugs in 2000, and their usage rate has stayed flat. To this day, a higher percentage of people in the United States use cocaine than people in Portugal smoke pot.

            1. Wait a minute! Are you trying to say that if heroin was legal everyone wouldn’t rush out and buy some?

              Don’t you know that everything that is not forbidden is compulsory?

            2. Portugal decriminalized pretty much all drugs in 2000, and their usage rate has stayed flat.

              I wonder at this though. Totally anecdotal, but I can think of a dozen people that would be occasional to casual users if it were legal–including me.

              I don’t think everyone would be 0-60 junkies, but to suggest that illegality–especially given the social and criminal penalties we impose in America–doesn’t suppress use.

              The amount of people who have tried it in their lifetime might remain flat, though.

            3. And legal and decriminalized are different. If you get caught with heroin in Portugal, they will still, uh, strongly encourage you to seek treatment. And you can’t just go to the store and buy it.

              I tend to agree that there would be more drug use if it were legalized. But it would cause far less harm.

          2. As far as your bathtub gin analogy you are just plain wrong. There were far more than 2 varieties because every rum runner and bathtub brewer had their own recipe or their own particular method. So what you got was a complete clusterfuck when it came to quality control and taste. And not just from dealer to dealer but in batch to batch. What might have been great Gin in batch 1 will make you go blind in batch 2.

            There are far fewer types of Gin out there now, just more labels.

            The statement that there would be more drugs available is also patently false. Do you think anyone would be messing with crappy, headache inducing fake marijuana of the real thing weren’t prohibited? Prohibition created K2 and bath salts.

            1. Do you think if pot were legal there would be only a single brand or strain that is sold? Ever been in a medical dispensary?

              As for the gin, I was speaking of the offerings in a typical bar (speakeasy) on a given night, and the quality of the limited offers. Hence the 100 craft beers in a bar today.

              Go to a large liquor store and look at the brands and varieties offered. If you think that was available to the average Prohibition era consumer, I’m not sure what else I can do for you.

              1. There are far fewer types of Gin out there now, just more labels.

                vs

                Go to a large liquor store and look at the brands and varieties offered.

                I think you guys are in agreement, but don’t know it.

                1. I think you guys are in agreement, but don’t know it.

                  Not really. It’s about access. It doesn’t matter if there a thousand types of gin if it is illegal. The average person is going to be limited to the few types of gin they can access through contacts (and it will be an inconsistent product) and to the fact that much of it is shitty.

                  Here’s the point: Imagine a six pack of beer. If you had to know somebody that knew somebody to find any six pack of beer, and you couldn’t ask most of the people you know if they knew that someone who could get you that pack of beer, and when you did find someone that could sell you that beer, you had to go over to their house with way more money than the six pack should be worth and buy it from someone who either is a cop or a risk-taking individual to be in the business of breaking the law everyday, and that beer is a completely random style of beer and you could only dimly perceive the quality of that particular six pack (and you knew that you’d probably never get to buy that same brand of six-pack every again) and then you had to carefully drive home to draw the shades and consume it in private or with a few select people, all while worried that an asshole neighbor or a passerby would smell the open beer and call the police.

                  How many six packs of beer are you going to buy compared to being able to go to a big liquor store, with a huge selection, where no one bats an eye if you swing by and get one for 1/6th the price?

                  1. In the case of drugs, most synthetic ones exist only because others are illegal. Prohibition created variety.

                    Before Prohibition the cocktail didn’t exist. It came about to cover the taste of bad booze, and because chicks were not excluded like they were when men went to taverns. Prohibition created variety.

                    Access is another matter entirely. Yes, it totally depends on who you know and it’s going to cost more, because that’s how the black market works.

                    I think you guys are talking past each other.

                    1. Wrong. The cocktail started as a cut down of punch recipes and punch recipes go back hundreds of years.

                      The first published cocktail recipes was in 1798.

                      In the case of drugs, most synthetic ones exist only because others are illegal. Prohibition created variety.

                      Variety of garbage. Whoop-de-doo.

                      How many styles of beer were available before the lifting of the home-brew ban compared to now? That’s the kind of variety that matters.

            2. I wonder at the swing in govt spending and tax revenue that would accompany a movement away from prohibition.

        4. The point of gun control isn’t to make all guns disappear, it’s to decrease the number of guns available. And banning will do that.

          He’s right, you know. It will decrease the number of guns available for self-defense, hunting, target shooting, collecting, etc.

          What it won’t do is decrease the number of guns availabe to criminals. Via the black market.

      2. Just when I think you couldn’t come up with a more idiotic analogy, you go and prove me wrong!

        1. Tulpa never disappoints in the outdoing his own previous stupidity sweepstakes.

      3. The point of gun control isn’t to make all guns disappear, it’s to decrease the number of guns available. And banning will do that.

        And even if you believe banning will do that, all efforts short of banning will produce something less than that. Therefore, all efforts less than outright banning will “fail” and just be used as justification for something closer to and finally amounting to an outright ban.

        That is the whole point I am making Tulpa. These people will never be satisfied until there is an outright ban of all weapons and anything they propose is going to later be deemed a failure and justification for more control. That is why any compromise with them is foolish.

        1. Precisely. We must keep the camel’s nose outside the tent or else we’ll have the whole camel inside.

          1. Once you pay the Danegeld . . .

        2. Let’s not forget 2chilly’s article with the run down of the official figures of unreported possession of weapons in Europe being magnitudes higher than popularly assumed. In cultures where people are not prone to bow to emperor and samurai, banning is not effective.

          However, that is the aspect of our culture proglodytes are bent on changing. Those of us who know our weapons, how to build them, care for them, accurately shoot them are not their idea of model citizens. We possess forbidden knowledge.

        3. The point of gun control is to make more criminals out of law abiding citizens.

      4. “The point of gun control isn’t to make all guns disappear, it’s to decrease the number of guns available.”

        I thought the purpose of gun control was to decrease violence (or at least gun violence). And that’s crucial, because to accomplish that it must make it very hard for people who would use guns violently to get them. Simply decreasing the number of guns from 100M to 50M, or whatever, won’t do if it’s just as easy for a potentially violent person to get a gun.

        Also, the black market for contract murders is not a good analogy. We prohibit murders because they are wrong in themselves, and because we think it’s appropriate to punish a person that does such a wrong. We’d continue to outlaw murder even if criminologists told us that jail sentences didn’t deter any murders. No one, to my knowledge, thinks that owning a gun is wrong in itself. The purpose of gun control laws is to achieve a secondary purpose of removing a means of committing violence. That is, their only purpose is deterence. And if they can’t be justified as effective deterrence, then they are useless.

      5. “There’s a black market for contract murders too. Does that mean we repeal laws against murder”

        No because murder is actually harming a person, possessing any prohibited object in and of itself harms no one.

        “The point of gun control isn’t to make all guns disappear, it’s to decrease the number of guns available. And banning will do that.”

        Your evidence for this VERY dubious assertion? Alcohol was more frequently available during prohibition, Same with drugs today.

        I am unaware of a single instance in recorded history where a law against possession of something which is in demand by the populace was effective in reducing the supply of that thing.

        Hell given what I have seen on the subject I would be completely unsurprised if the supply of contract killers is higher today in a world where murder is illegal than it would be in a world where there were no laws against murder, it is just that in either world the market for contract killers is extremely small.

        1. “I am unaware of a single instance in recorded history where a law against possession of something which is in demand by the populace was effective in reducing the supply of that thing.”

          Querns, Poles in Poland, German Occupation Laws, WWII

          Food, Jews in Auschwitz, German Occupation Laws, WWII

    3. The idea is for these efforts to fail because when they fail, they have justification for more controls.

      And then you have those, like Tulpa, who want to compromise with them along the way.

    4. “All gun control is contingent upon the premise that black markets can be prevented or controlled.”

      That’s your mistake.

      Criminal laws like these aren’t aimed at preventing crime, they’re about justifying greater *control*.

      More regulations, registrations, inspections, warrants, raids, trials, and incarcerations.

      The law will be very effective at *that*.

  10. http://washingtonexaminer.com/…..QGInqzW70-

    As Sen. Diane Feinstein opened her press conference on gun control, she invited Dean of the National Cathedral Rev. Canon Gary Hall to offer a prayer.

    Hall spoke briefly before the prayer, calling for Washington legislators to stop fearing the gun lobby and fulfill their “moral duty” to restrict guns.

    “Everyone in this city seems to live in terror of the gun lobby,” Hall said. “But I believe that the gun lobby is no match for the cross lobby.”

    Remember kids, it is the Republicans who are the evil unthinking religious fundies. Shreek told me so.

    1. You’d think calling yourself the “cross lobby” would get your tax status a look from the IRS…or, you know, not.

      1. Exactly what I was thinking.

      2. Again, anything in service of the “Big People” incurs no penalty.

      3. Seems like the “cross lobby” is transforming into the “broken cross lobby”.

    2. You got there first, dang it.

    3. “Christfag” is the term you’re searching for. And I’ll take this pointy-headed rector’s cry of “moral duty” seriously, when he tells the tyrants on the Hill about their “moral duty” to preserve the rights and liberties of the American people.

    4. It’s funny how fundies of either side don’t just pray away whatever they oppose. If I didn’t know any better, I’d almost start to think that they had more faith in government than in their deity.

      1. I’d almost start to think that they had more faith in government than in their deity.

        This is the very definition of the “religious left”

        1. Or, you know, the “religious right”.

    5. ” . . . those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”

      1. Ah yes, the CS Lewis robber barons vs moral busybodies quote, a favorite of mine.

        1. I left out the bit about robber barons to protect good ole Clive.

  11. Feinstein claims her bill will “help end the mass shootings that have devastated countless families and terrorized communities.”

    The mass dronings, however, will continue until the Pakistanis and Yemenis learn to love the Pax Americana.

    1. Countless? Are there also countless victims of five-gallon buckets?

      The garishness of the political class never ceases to amaze.

      1. She’s calling them ‘countless’ because she can’t count past 5.

    2. Aren’t there federal state and local agencies specifically set up to count these crimes.

      Lying liar lies. In other news…

  12. i knew this was coming and forgot to buy gun stock. shit. would have been easy $$$

  13. http://washingtonexaminer.com/…..QGH6PKd6aS

    As Sen. Diane Feinstein opened her press conference on gun control, she invited Dean of the National Cathedral Rev. Canon Gary Hall to offer a prayer.

    Hall spoke briefly before the prayer, calling for Washington legislators to stop fearing the gun lobby and fulfill their “moral duty” to restrict guns.

    “Everyone in this city seems to live in terror of the gun lobby,” Hall said. “But I believe that the gun lobby is no match for the cross lobby.”

    Hall said that he could no longer justify a society that allowed ordinary citizens to keep and bear “assault weapons.”

    During the prayer, Hall asked God to “bless our elected leaders with the wisdom and the courage needed to bring about the changes that the people demand.”

    We’re such a scourge that he can no longer make excuses for us.

    1. The people have long since stopped being worthy of their government. You should be thanking people like Feinstein, you ungrateful retch.

      1. Clergymen with soft hands and softer minds, war profitess senators, I feel such shame from not measuring up to their standards.

      2. If only they would give up on us unworthy citizens.

    2. What happened to all of this separation of church and state shit the Progressives love to go on about?

      Keep religion out of the public sphere!

      1. White House is blue now, so anything is fair game.

        1. When it comes to “separation of Church and State”, Jefferson was the wisest man to ever live. When it comes to keeping and bearing arms, and that the tree of liberty must, on occasion be refreshed with the blood of patriots and tyrants, he’s a dead white slaveowner who couldn’t have possibly foreseen automatic and semi-automatic mass killy weapons that come in the dreaded color of MILITARY BLACK.

          1. Mine is a dark olive, can I still keep it?

            1. I went with the tasteful USMC dark earth color for my battle rifle.*

              *Yes, an M1A fits the actual real-world definition of a battle rifle.

            2. No. Turn it in before it springs to life and of its own volition shoots up a school full of children.

      2. Separation of church and state refers to someone else’s church. Progs routinely justify entitlements and Obamacare on the basis of WWJD. Never mind the blatant rewrite of both the First Amendment and the New Testament.

      3. They’re exempt because their church is the state.

      4. “Keep religion out of the public sphere!”

        I don’t think that you hear that much from national level politicians. You have to at least pretend to be Christian if you want to run for president.

    3. I’m reminded of a couple of lines from the movie Demolition Man:

      “You’d use these weapons of mass destruction against men and women who uphold the law?”

      “We use these weapons to shop for groceries, dick.”

  14. Have any legislators considered just banning murder? I mean, once something is banned people never do it anymore right?

    1. I think a law banning all bad things would probably be more successful, Hugh. Why let anything slip through the cracks?

      1. Slipping through cracks definitely sounds bad.

        1. “Naughty” bad, or “not good” bad?

          1. Why can’t it be both?

            1. I’m just curious. Stop confusing me!

              1. Either, but not both.

      2. Hugh’s always been a monster. He doesn’t care about the children and I have it on good authority he personally started the War on Women.

        1. Which was a lot easier to wage before Panetta okayed them for combat, let me tell you.

          1. You’re an Anti-Dagoite, aren’t you?

      3. You need to ban good things too just in case someone might use a good thing to do bad think. I mean who doesn’t love candy canes but they can be turned into ice pick like weapons rather easily. And who “needs” a candy cane anyway.

        1. Candy canes would already be banned under my proposed law because as all bien pensant know, candy is bad because it has sugar. See? It’s perfect!

          1. You can have my Mars bar when you remove it from Marianne Faithfull’s cold, dark vagina.

            1. Insert Sticky Fingers joke here.

            2. That is a good way to get a yeast infection, Killaz. Or give someone one, I guess.

              1. What’s a little bread and brew between lovers?

            3. By the way, her denial is worth repeating:

              The Mars Bar was a very effective piece of demonizing. Way out there. It was so overdone, with such malicious twisting of the facts. Mick retrieving a Mars Bar from my vagina, indeed! It was far too jaded for any of us even to have conceived of. It’s a dirty old man’s fantasy — some old fart who goes to a dominatrix every Thursday afternoon to get spanked. A cop’s idea of what people do on acid!

              1. A cop’s idea of what people do on acid!

                Love it.

                1. Has derpfee weighed in on this?

                  1. I would prefer that he didn’t given he is a troll and not a cop.

                  2. FUCK. HIS. ASS.

      4. Banning “all bad things”. That’s perfect for politicians and bureaucrats. All encompassing and wide open to interpretation. The ultimate carte blanche…

        1. “encompassing and wide open to interpretation”

          Just like terrorism.

  15. We need to get back to some common sense regulation, namely that one must yell “They’re coming right at us!” before firing any gun. This only covers the shooter for up to 3 rounds, at which time they must yell it again before resuming firing.

  16. Gun control is the left’s equivalent of the abortion issue. They don’t have a chance in hell of enacting anything with teeth, so it makes a very effective tool to continuously agitate the true believers enough to open up their wallets and keep them voting the right way.

    1. But when it comes to abortion, the Republicans don’t have the media on their side.

  17. Why in the hell has that ancient curse not yet retired.

    1. “You must find the Jade Monkey before the next full moon.”

      1. I thought you had it in your glove compartment? Don’t tell me you lost it.

      2. Actually, sir, we found the Jade Monkey; it was in your glove compartment.

        1. EXCELLENT. It’s all coming together.

      3. Shit. That’s tonight.

    2. Retire? Hell we’ll be lucky to get her out of office when she’s actually dead.

  18. I’m sure it’ll be all but 24 hours before we start hearing about how “it’s a ‘post Sandy Hook’ world” and that this justifies…everything the progs want.

  19. “Feinstein claims her bill will “help end the mass shootings that have devastated countless families and terrorized communities.”

    It’s funny how the media never calls out these liberals to prove their affirmative condition claims about such things.

    After all, the burden of proof of such things is supposed to be on those claiming affirmative conditions. No one is required to prove a negative.

    The lapdog press acts as if the burden were exactly the opposite – on this issue and pretty much all the rest of the left wing litany of affirmative condition claims about government intervention “solving” all sorts of problems or making things better.

    1. Contrast that with the treatment given to things like school choice. The fact that school choice doesn’t solve every educational problem in the country is considered proof it is a horrible idea. In contrast, any proposal for gun control, no matter how crackpot and unlikely to work is considered sacred because we must do something.

      1. School choice is a horrible idea because the teachers’ unions who have no self interest and are only looking out for the children say it is a horrible idea.

        1. Just ask Matt Damon.

  20. What the fuck is going on over at NPR?

    Is this a lucid dream or did those Obama-fellating journalists actually print something critical of the Nobel Peace laureate?

    1. I didn’t read it but can only assume…it is NPR after all….. that they’re mad because he’s not using more drones.

    2. I am sadly blocked from reading the comments. Are there any? Or are the liberals over there too much in shock over questioning Big Daddy to comment?

      1. There’s a few Alex Jones-y lefty types who are ranting about the banks, but nothing delicious, unfortunately.

      2. Somehow, this gem got through:

        I preface by saying both Bush and Obama are mere puppets of big banks and the military industrial complex. Before Obama became President, people were outraged with Bush on the drone strikes and secret CIA activity. Now that Obama is doing the very same thing, there is silence over the NPR circles. Hypocrisy so thick, you can slice it with a knife…

        I’m sure his account will be deactivated within the next few minutes.

        1. Tolerant liberals do not tolerate that level of intolerance. In the name of inclusiveness that person must be excluded. You see, we’re all equal here. Well, except that guy.

          1. Not true! He is certainly equal, the others are just more equal.

          2. He was as free to sing hosannas of praise for Obama as the next guy.

        2. “I’m sure his account will be deactivated within the next few minutes.”

          Commenter’s accounts burn at Fahrenheit 451?.

      3. The comments are going up and coming down. The entire board just disappeared completely.

    3. They just want to investigate and solidify the judicial cornerstone that is the Eric Holder school of legal argumentation.

  21. Post’s byline is missing

  22. OT: Dis anybody see this trade coming that sends Justin Upton to Atlanta and Martin Prado to Phoenix?

    1. The Dbacks were obviously sick of Upton for one reason or another, but even so, that’s not a terrible haul–Prado has surprisingly good WAR since ’10 and Delgado’s an okay prospect.

      But since Kevin Towers is uniformly moronic, I’m going to go with Upton turning into an eight-win player next season and Prado falling off the cliff after the Dbacks sign him to a five-year extension.

  23. As has been noted elsewhere, I “need” an AR the same way that Rosa Parks “needed” to sit at the front of the bus.

    Fuck off, slaver.

    1. Hadn’t heard that one. Will be using it.

    2. You know whats funny? I ride the bus through the ghetto and today’s black folk WANT to ride in the back of the bus, not up front.

    3. Almanian.| 1.24.13 @ 3:01PM |#

      As has been noted elsewhere, I “need” an AR the same way that Rosa Parks “needed” to sit at the front of the bus.

      You know else who needed to sit at the back….? uhm…. hitler.

      I admit – I don’t really know how that joke works.

      Enough About Palin| 1.24.13 @ 3:48PM |#

      You know whats funny? I ride the bus through the ghetto and today’s black folk WANT to ride in the back of the bus, not up front.

      Well OBVIOUSLY. a) cool people sit in the back, and b) if some crazy white man decides to go on mass shooting spree, he’ll run out of ammo before he gets to you

      1. And in India, that’s where all the action is.

  24. The key difference between banning a car and banning a gun is that Diane Feinstein likes cars.

    1. “No one NEEDS a 420hp Mustang GT convertible. Or a 186mph Ninja or Hayabusa…”

      1. Guess I should have refreshed before posting:) You beat me to it.

    2. Give the climate chage nazis some time and cars will be next. I mean who “needs” a camaro?

    3. I bet she doesn’t like trucks. Or “gas guzzlers” or SUVs that “no one needs.”

      Her passion for banning guns versus cars is difference in degree not kind.

      1. Seriously. The one time I was tempted to get into a “you don’t need” discussion with a serious liberal I was like, “I can’t actually think of anything this bitch wouldn’t be okay with banning.” Really.

        1. It gets scary dealing with people who have no principles.

          I mean, everyone wants to get rid of something, right? I’d love to give the death penalty to anyone who ever plays “Friends in Low Places” again. I mean, just fucking shred them to pieces and make their kids watch. But I don’t advocate it. I have principles and people are entitled to have the shittiest taste in music fucking imaginable if they so wish.

      2. I bet she doesn’t like trucks. Or “gas guzzlers” or SUVs that “no one needs.”

        Well,..except for the fleet of trucks needed to haul all of her shit to her next taxpayer/lobbyist funded junket. The SUVs needed to transport her crew of gunmen and mercenaries security detail with her on a daily basis, but otherwise….

    4. Can’t we just ban Diane Feinsteins?

      1. Or at least pictures of her?

        1. That truly is obscenity (but not pornography).

  25. Feinstein claims her bill will “help end the mass shootings that have devastated countless families and terrorized communities.” How exactly will it do that?

    Maybe she thinks that by making it harder for law abiding citizens to defend themselves future mass killers won’t even bother because it will too easy. I mean, they wouldn’t even be able to get the slightest adrenaline rush because it would be a little too much like shooting fish in a barrel, so they won’t even bother because it will be too boring.

  26. “That may seem emotionally satisfying, but it would have been equally logical to ban the car he drove to the school. After all, had he not been able to reach the school, the massacre never would have happened. Even if the particular model of car that Lanza used to commit his crimes had been unavailable, of course, he could have driven a different, equally effective car. Yet for people who think like Dianne Feinstein, it is inconceivable that such substitution might occur with guns as well as cars.”

    Ugh. Arguments this bad flourish on both sides of this argument. Inapt analogies like this one and Tulpa’s above make if very difficult to discuss this topic.

  27. After all, the burden of proof of such things is supposed to be on those claiming affirmative conditions. No one is required to prove a negative.

    I think you need to prove that there is no such requirement?

    1. The burden of proof of such things is supposed to be on those claiming affirmative conditions

      I think you need to prove that this burden exists as you affirm.

      1. Your thinking is incorrect.

  28. Here’s a poignant, thought-provoking argument from another statist twat on NPR concerning the “assault” weapons ban:

    JP H
    These weapons are not protected by the 2nd amendment (otherwise, we’d have to let people own stinger missiles and grenade launchers), and they are not reasonably needed for hunting or self-defense. I have yet to see a single news story from a credible source where someone needed to use one of these weapons to defend themselves and could not have used a shotgun that could shoot 10 bullets. I hear people enjoy shooting these guns at ranges. You know, your right to enjoy dangerous toys does not exceed the right of people to survive mass shootings. These weapons make it extremely easy to shoot large numbers of people in a short amount of time, and thus make it easier for mass shooters to kill more people. Banning their sale and transfer will not stop mass shooters; they’ll just kill less people.

    The lack of critical-thinking skills completely eludes these mongoloids.

    1. Goddamnit.
      Critical thinking skills completely elude these mongoloids.

  29. Is it just me or does that picture of Feinstein look like Ted Kennedy in drag?

  30. IF OBAMA WOULD JUST BAN DEATH THEN THEY COULD SAVE THEMSELVES A LOT OF BANS

    1. But what would he do with his drones?

  31. Sounds like she wants to get it on man! Lets get ready to rumble!

    http://www.Anon-ids.tk

  32. Well one could be a smartass and say he didn’t run them over, but vehicular homicide and road deaths do occur quite often. We all know speed kills, so why do you need a hot rod? Enforce national speed limits of 15 mph and be done with it.

  33. We have historical proof “assault weapon” bans do not stop criminals from committing crimes or spree shootings:

    1. The Columbine massacre occurred during the ’94 federal “assault weapon” ban. The killers were not only not old enough to legally buy weapons but they managed to kill dozens without an “assault weapon”
    2. The North Hollywood Shootout occurred in the middle of the ’94 federal “assault weapon” ban. Not only did the criminals use AK-47s but they also broke a nearly 80 year-old law against fully automatic weapons
    3. The Virginia Tech killer murdered unimpeded at will using only pistols and a backpack full of magazines
    4. The murderer at Sandy Hill Elementary was too young to legally buy any of the weapons he used, so he stole them. As has been pointed out the AR he allegedly used was legally purchased in Connecticut by the murderer’s mother despite there being a state law banning “assault weapons”.
    5. Here in California where Feinstein outlawed “assault weapons” 24 years ago, just two weeks ago during a high-speed freeway chase a passenger in the getaway car fired at pursuing police with an AK-47.

    Hey! They can’t do that! Don’t these criminals know they are breaking laws? I guess passing more laws will fix the problems of people breaking existing ones.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.