Sen. Feinstein's New Assault Weapons Ban Proposal Is the Perfect, Pointless Response for the 'Do Something' Crowd

We have to do something about mass shootings. This is something. Therefore, we must do this. Or something.


Bill Clark/CQ Roll Call/Newscom

After another tragic mass shooting—one that likely could have been prevented if existing laws had been enforced—there has been another round of completely predictable calls to "do something" about America's apparent problem with gun violence.

For those who want to see something done, Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-Calif.) has done something. Along with more than 20 fellow Senate Democrats, Feinstein announced on Wednesday the re-introduction of a bill to ban so-called "assault weapons" and those bump stocks that took so much of the blame for last month's massacre in Las Vegas.

Specifically, Feinstein's legislation would ban the sale and manufacture of 205 different weapons (a full list can be found in the bill). One is the AR-15, a semi-automatic rifle used in several mass shootings, including the attack on the Texas church last weekend—and also used by Stephen Willeford, the former NRA instructor who engaged the church shooter and may have prevented further deaths. Feinstein's bill also targets specific gun accessories, including the bump stocks used by the Las Vegas concert shooter. Bump stocks allow semi-automatic weapons to fire at higher rates but with less accuracy.

The bill exempts weapons used for hunting, and it would allow anyone who already owns one of the proscribed guns to keep them. In other words, it would be completely ineffective at removing these weapons from American society. But that's not really the goal at all. The goal is to do something about gun violence, and Feinstein's proposal certainly counts as something. Something ineffective and useless, but still a thing. A thing that could be done.

Feinstein admits as much.

"We're introducing an updated Assault Weapons Ban for one reason," she said in a statement announcing the bill: "so that after every mass shooting with a military-style assault weapon, the American people will know that a tool to reduce these massacres is sitting in the Senate, ready for debate and a vote."

It's interesting that Feinstein sees that as the "one reason" why this bill has been introduced. Not because it will stop mass shootings, or because it will make it harder for bad people to get guns, or even because it's a small step toward a less violent society.

Nope. This bill has been introduced for "one reason": so Democrats can score political points by holding it up and waving it every time there's a high-profile crime with a gun. Look! There's a bill right here, ready for debate and a vote! Will the bill do anything to stop these horrific attacks from happening? Well, no, but that's not the point.

At least she's being honest about it. Feinstein has never been particularly good at masking the fact that her assault ban proposals are based more in emotion than reason; this is another entry in that long ledger.

The simple fact of the matter is that no amount of new laws will stop mass shootings. And when we can't even accurately enforce the gun laws already on the books—the Texas church shooter would not have been able to buy his AR-15 if Air Force bureaucrats had properly reported his domestic abuse problems, as they were supposed to do—it's even harder to see Feinstein's proposal as anything other than what it is: a nakedly political maneuver meant to score points with the vapid "do something" crowd.

NEXT: Proposed Tariff on Washing Machines Is Pure Protectionism

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 or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. one that likely could have been prevented

    Let’s not go that far. We should always be honest about the fact that the sheer number of guns in the US, available legally or via the black market, will more likely than not allow any nutbag do utilize a gun to commit mass murder.

    1. Just like the availability of alcohol will allow any nutbag to utilize alcohol to kill oeople in drunk dtiving accidents.

      1. But nobody cares about oeople, or for that matter dtiving accidents.

        1. I’m making over $7k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life.

          This is what I do…

      2. yes, and to the tune of 50,000 deaths per year

    2. Obama and Holder did their part to make sure the drug cartels in Mexico got “assault weapons” from their federal agents on the US side of the border making straw purchases at American gun dealers in “Project Gunrunner” and “Fast and Furious” – two programs that led to the deaths of Border Agent Brian Terry and 400 Mexican men, women, and children

      1. Guys and gals,
        This is all about marketing. My brand vs. your brand. Frosted Flakes vs. Honeycomb. To expect facts or logic should get in the way of marketing shows how naive you all are and why we libertarians are doomed. The major parties aren’t in this for debate points. They’re in this for pure power and cash in a way — with social media and psychosociological research — that Machiavelli would have creamed his breeches. We need to get with the program, people!

  2. Yesterday, Max Boot was on twitter demanding an assault weapons ban. Understand that Boot is a guy who got famous for writing a book called The Western Way of War. It is one of the most overrated books of the last 20 years. But that is for another time. Just think of the irony of a guy whose claim to fame is being an “expert on war” (this despite having never served in the military or heard a shot fired in anger) seems to think the term “assault weapon” means anything and that having an assault weapon is necessary to murder a bunch of unarmed people in a church.

    But hey, Boot went to Yale and is a “top man”. His pig-ignorance in no way disqualifies him from demanding everyone else give up their rights.

  3. Retiring from office is also something.

    1. This would be a Feinstein proposal we could all get behind.

    2. “Retiring from office is also something.”

      If you look at who might replace her, you’d probably be working on a way to preserve the corpse and keep it upright. Jeff Dunham could to the voicing.

    3. What about disarming the DEA, ICE, FBI, IRS, asset-looting dog-shooting cops and similar force-initiating thugs? Of banning cars? Cars people and Mohammedan truck terrorists kill a lot more people than guns, and aren’t protected by the Bill of Rights. If the idea is to “do” and “save” lives and uphold the Constitution superannuated entrenched politicians are sworn to defend…

      1. Those that want to ban guns, like cars, they find utility in them. They hate guns, they believe the is no utility in them.

        Their attitude is ban guns because their is no legitimate use for people to own them. Hunting is bad, Cops are for your protection, ect.

  4. And understand, the monstrosity would ban anything with a rifled barrel and a detachable magazine. So it basically bans all guns except shotguns and revolvers. What do you want to bet the GOP manages to pass this. They can’t be bothered to repeal Obamacare, cut spending or cut taxes. But they can get right on banning guns.

    1. John discovers buyer remorse. Next up: BUT THEY’RE BETTER THAN HILLARY BITCH CLINTON

      Ahhh… it’s like I could have the conversation myself.

      1. Don’t confuse me with the voices inside of your head. And don’t you have somewhere you are supposed to be explaining how the victims of the Killing Fields got what was coming to them?

        1. Sure, 2 million people died, but we got a pretty kickass Dead Kennedys song out of it, so ya know, doesn’t that mean it was totally worth it in the end?

        2. Those kulaks weren’t going to organize themselves.

        3. No, but seriously John. Now that you’re seeing how the people who you voted for suck ass, how much warmth does it give you at night knowing that Clinton isn’t President? Do you slap yourself on your dick thinking about that. I didn’t vote for her either so I know how you feel.

          1. If you think I have any great love for the GOP in Congress, you have not been paying any attention to what I have been saying for a very long time.

            1. John, No one here is saying you don’t bitch a lot here. Nono… you’re a big ol’ bitch. It’s just you don’t actually do anything about it. you just impotently bitch and then vote for the same whiny right-wing bitches bitches like you always vote for and then you bitch about it some more. Bitch, please.

              1. So I gu as the solution is to become a market. Look I am not a fucking retard like you are. God gave me brains. He didn’t give you any. Sorry about that

          2. Robespierre Josef Stalin Pot|11.8.17 @ 3:19PM|#
            “No, but seriously John.”

            No, but seriously shit-bag, fuck off.

            1. That’s no way to talk to a Mao-worshipping parasite who would send us all to camps if he could.

    2. Then there is a loophole. Rifled barrels and non-detachable magazines.
      Excerpts from “the mad minute” using a Short Magazine Lee-Enfield bolt action rifle.
      “Lying. Rifle to be loaded and 4 rounds in the magazine before the target appears. Loading to be from the pouch or bandolier by 5 rounds afterwards. One minute allowed”
      “Second Class Figure” target at 300 yards”
      The “Second Class Figure Target” was 48″ square (approximately 1.2 x 1.2 meters), with 24″ inner (61 cm) and 36″ magpie (92 cm) circles.
      Military record is 36 aimed hits in the one minute.
      Civilian population (hunters in Norway) shot at a round 400 mm diameter target at 200 meters; average of 11 shooters was 29 aimed hits. They were also using bolt action rifles, but not SMLE.
      More recent loophole, the M-1 Garand.

      1. Any kind of rifle that is tube fed or has an internal magazine is not covered. So, as you point out, the M1 would not be covered. Neither would a Marlin .270 lever action, because how could anyone do any harm with an M1? We are talking about military Assault Rifles here!!

        These people are comically ignorant.

        1. DiFi has been trying to get this bill passed since 2004. It was probably written before the first AWB in 1994. Never assume ignorance with this type of legislation when it can obviously be attributed to malice.

      2. Other than a Garand, I can’t think of any semi-auto, bolt-action or pump-action firearm that can’t be modified to accept a homemade detachable high-capacity magazine. And 3d printers mean you don’t even have to deal with that much trial and error in the manufacture and installment thereof.

  5. There’s no way they’re going to get an AR-15 ban passed.

  6. Also, stop punishing innocent people for something a maniac did.

    1. Where’s the fun in that?


    Amanda Marcotte discovers maths is hard.

    1. …I don’t even know that that’s a problem with math. It’s just…how does…

      …I think the stupid is hurting my brain.

      1. Yeah, it is so stupid, it is hard to even categorize it. Does she not understand math or does she not understand how people reproduce or both? It is like a vortex of stupid.

    2. Hard and racist, just the way she likes it.

      1. And you know it’s true because they’ll quote surveys about large numbers of people who report average number of sex partners or similar metric by gender and offer up a breakdown of hetero, homosexual, and transgender and when you start to actually dig into the math they tell you to shut the hell up.

        The data set could be entirely accommodated by one trans person masturbating but the important thing is that they were underrepresented and discriminated against.

    3. It used to just be math, or maybe mathematics. Now it’s maths?

      1. It’s always been “maths” to Brits.

        I tell ya, they’re an odd bunch.

  8. Dear Reason eds.,

    I have a request and since I am a small monetary contributor to your magazine I hope you’ll take the subject up. Can we just stop printing articles in response to the ~monthly horrible mass shooting. I think we’re ok. I mean, really, if Congress could sit on their ass after a bunch of elementary kids were killed by a nut with a gun are they really going to do something about a bunch of yokels getting shot by a nut with a gun? I don’t think so. We’re good.

    1. From what I have read of your posts, I am glad I own plenty of firearms.

      So please clarify for me; You are a communist sympathizer who thinks communists are misunderstood. You are also a gun rights activist?

      1. He is a troll. He doesn’t think or believe anything.

        1. I know but he could at least do a little homework before making a fool of himself.

          1. This site has always attracted a very poor quality of troll.

        2. is that better or worse than you John who basically thinks whatever Dear Leader say means is good? You’re nothing if not Pavlovian. Good boy.

          1. In a desperate attempt to accomplish something, I can definitely see Trump getting on board with some silly pointless legislation to control gun rights.

            Although he has tried a few things that were absolutely correct(good judge, Devos, Tillerson, cutting regs, attempting to repeal obamacare at first), he has proven above all that he likes some big government and some insane spending.

          2. Robespierre Josef Stalin Pot|11.8.17 @ 3:15PM|#
            “You’re nothing if not Pavlovian.”

            This from some thug who loves mass murder.

          3. “”John who basically thinks whatever Dear Leader say means is good?””

            Actually, I think this describes the Hillary can do no wrong crowd pretty well.

    2. Yokels? You are an idiot…

  9. We can only hope the war on guns is as successful as the war on drugs and the war on terror.

  10. I propose a new bill: the “Do Something” bill.

    Every time a crisis occurs, for whatever reason, the Vice President will take a fiver out of his pocket, go down to the local candy store/drugstore/convenience store, purchase a full-size candy bar (such as a Zero), and eat it while crying. This will be filmed for future reference. In this manner, we can all agree that the government has fulfilled its role of “doing something.”

    1. I’d like to propose a rider that stipulates, if available, that he must consume an entire side of a box of Nerds in one attempt.

    2. $5 for a candy bar?

      Fuck You Cut Spending!

      1. It’s coming out of the Vice President’s pocket. No, he doesn’t get an extra stipend, he’s gotta pay for it with his own money. I chose a fiver because full-size candy bars aren’t cheap.

  11. The simple fact of the matter is that no amount of new laws will stop mass shootings.

    How about one new law requiring white men to be incarcerated between the ages of 14 and 64?

    1. Have you thought about sending a copy of your newsletter to Senator Feinstein?

    2. This is horrible PR for white guys.
      Its almost how stereotypes are born. Of course, in America, we know there are no such things as stereotypes bearing themselves out.

    3. How about we get rid of the 2A. I wouldn’t miss it.

      1. No ignorant leftists miss something like the 2A until the water cannons come down the street a’ la Venezuela.

        That is why marxists are first and foremost an ignorant simple herd.

        The value and genius of the first amendment is that it is a last deterrent of tyranny. That is what the founding fathers were getting at.

        Even if you don’t like guns because they scare you, you should get one and all amercians should have one or more. It keeps statists psychos and scum from going too far.

      2. Robespierre Josef Stalin Pot|11.8.17 @ 3:20PM|#
        “How about we get rid of the 2A. I wouldn’t miss it.”

        Yeah, mass murderers don’t like competition.

      3. Actually, that is the only constitutional method available. Repeal the second amendment through the constitutional amendment process. Any attempt at using laws, common sense or otherwise, is itself unconstitutional.

        So have Dimples Diane get to work on it.

      4. Might as well drop 1A at the same time.

    4. How about outlawing murder?

  12. At least in this pic she’s not pointing a real rifle at the audience with a finger on the trigger.

  13. This probably will not pass, let alone be signed by The Donald. But who knows with the spinelessness of Team Red.

    It’s probably time to pull the trigger and get an AR. I’m thinking this lower and this upper.

    1. I’m told the Smith & Wesson M&P 15 is excellent, and is available fully assmbled for a little less than 500. I know there are cheaper options, however.

    2. I’m about there myself.

      Though I’d probably want to go the 80% route and buy everything F2F with cash.

    3. There are deal aplenty since orangeman was elected [and not the beat of Revelations]; best time ever to buy and AR, and several other types of weapons.

  14. The Twitter blue check mafia is using FDR’s gold confiscation as a precedent for unilateral gun confiscation.

    1. That doesn’t surprise me. Jesus Christ these people are stupid and evil. I am glad Twitter exists. These idiots can never resist the temptation of telling the world what they think. And Twitter has allowed them to do it in an unfiltered form and done more to discredit the media than anything in my lifetime.

  15. It didn’t work the last time it was tried, but I don’t suppose any of our so-called journalists will be rude enough to ask the good Senator about that.

  16. “We’re introducing an updated Assault Weapons Ban for one reason,” she said in a statement announcing the bill: “so that after every mass shooting with a military-style assault weapon, the American people will know that a tool to reduce these massacres is sitting in the Senate, ready for debate and a vote.”

    Now explain to me how it is even remotely constitutional to prohibit ownership of a firearm simply because it is modern technology. I was not aware that rights were subject to technological advancement.

    1. The constitutionality is not a concern of the senator.

      Reelection is.

      1. The constitution is the natural enemy of politicians. It keeps them from making your life harder.

  17. Here is something that can be done.

    “Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Department of Defense
    shall have full authority to use any and all resources at its disposal to
    keep the people of the United States safe.”

    1. That open’s pandora’s box to a fascist total state and disregards every principle this country was founded on.

      1. For people like Feinstein, that’s a feature not a bug.

    2. Posse Comitatus?

      Jesus Christ you are ignorant about the military.

  18. Also I like they always say “military-style”. I’m like: “From what fucking time period???” There was a time when the standard military firearm was a smooth-bore, muzzle-loader. A Brown Bess is a weapon of war. (a LOT of war all over the world)

  19. The only gun I own is for self-defense. I consider them an unfortunately necessary tool that I must use, and then only after an unfortunate incident and the insistence of my wife. However, I understand others have them for different reasons, some including recreational shooting, and I am all for it.

    I say this as context. Only very recently have I considered purchasing long guns. Make of that what you will.

    1. Depending on your circumstances, a long gun can be an excellent means of self defense. My plan is to never get in a gun fight or anything approaching a fair fight. So, if someone ever breaks into my house, I am waiting in my bedroom behind my bed with a gun pointed at the door. If they walk through, it will be a very bad day for them. For that, a long gun is perfect.

      1. Seems like a shotgun would be better for home defense, so you don’t end up shooting up your neighbor’s house too.

        1. Shotguns are AWESOME for home defense. Especially if you alternate rounds: “00” and then slug and then “00” and then slug. If a perp is stupid enough to hide behind a wall, you send a slug thru the wall into the perp. If you only know the general location where the perp is at night, you send ’00’ buck at him.

        2. 5.56x45mm (AR-15) fragments in the target and is thus less likely to overpenetrate than 00 buckshot.

          1. and hollow points help as well

            the military and swat teams enter dangerous rooms with long guns, not pistols..

            1. The military and swat teams shoot dogs, each other, and bystanders all the time. It’s debatable about whether they should and, IMO, relatively unquestioned that civilians, defensively, should not.

              1. OK, that’s your opinion and you’re welcome to it. But, there are credible advocates that believe an AR15 for self defense at home is a better option than a pistol or a shotgun.

              2. @ mad.casual

                We’re talking about overpenetration, not missing, friendly fire or poodle shooting.

                Hollow-points and fragmenting rounds are less likely to produce “through-and-through” hits against human targets than FMJ or buckshot. They are also more ballistically effective because they dump more of their energy into the target, creating greater cavitation and wider wound tracks. These qualities are widely acknowledged by most self-defense experts, and there is no debate regarding them. Hollow-point ammunition is universally recommended for self-defense, LEO and MIL use wherever legally allowed, and the AR-15 is rapidly and deservedly displacing the shotgun as the primary home-defense long gun in US households.

            2. the military and swat teams enter dangerous rooms with long guns, not pistols..

              Also, this statement is of varying levels of truth one decade and carbine model to the next.

              1. how often does the military clear houses with pistols rather than rifles?

                1. how often does the military clear houses with pistols rather than rifles?

                  Does every time a soldier slings his carbine and draws his pistol count? Domestic police officers the world over routinely clear residences with just pistols. Not to mention that you’re equating defending a held position with invading a held position.

                  A soldier who may have to exit a house and engage a target several hundred yards away is a different situation than a person who could send one round through several houses if poorly aimed. Especially if the soldier is part of an invasion force where all weapons and soldiers are relatively interchangeable and the person defending their home might require handing a weapon to someone who’s coordination may be strained by advanced tasks such as point-and-click.

                  I’m not saying you’re wrong to have a carbine or long rifle in your home or that, having it in your home, you shouldn’t use it to defend yourself. I’m just saying that as a blanket policy for all Americans everywhere *I’d prefer* shotguns. If the government started issuing them to civilians, not only would they be easier to effectively avoid or escape, they would generally be cheaper and easier to fire/maintain.

                  1. Pistol and buckshot ammunition is *more* likely to overpenetrate than 5.56 that hits the target.

                  2. Strawman to pretend that I’m suggesting soldier use carbines to clear house 100% of the time.

                    Let’s agree that a poorly aimed shot has a chance at doing unintended damage.

                    Also, there is a widespread myth that the spread of a shotgun in close range is big enough to compensate for a poorly aimed shot. What choke produces that? I’ve only used a skeet choke at a range and my conclusion with that was that you still need good aim in close quarters (in a home) to hit your target. I’d prefer a pistol over a shotgun with that choke for maneuverabilty and greater capacity.

                    1. Strawman to pretend that I’m suggesting soldier use carbines to clear house 100% of the time.

                      I asked a question. If there’s a straw man, it’s yours. Your same credible experts who say 5.56 is fine for home defense will equip themselves and their teams with 9 mm, 5.56, a shotgun or two, and maybe even 7.62. All of them will be well trained, physically capable, ready, and alert with clear goals as to whether to take a position, die holding a position, repel the enemy, or present a display of force.

                      In a perfect world, the entire issue wouldn’t exist. People wouldn’t invade homes and homeowners wouldn’t have to choose between flee or die. In this world, you get to choose whether the shotgun goes in the bug out bag for e&e or whether or not everyone gets a 9 mm or if one person gets a 5.56 and one other gets a 9 mm or whether your best shooter, after 3 beers and 3 hrs. of sleep and without his glasses should be deployed with the 5.56 or the shotgun.

                      In my neighborhood, a 100+ round shoot out is, at best, historical documentation of a bygone era. Displays of force and E&E are far higher priorities. This isn’t true everywhere and doesn’t mean a 5.56 can’t be successfully deployed, just that many of the arguments in favor of a 5.56 are being blatantly misapplied. The situation is *always* much more than just the caliber or gun.

                    2. Fuck, I failed to mention or point out that the reason fully-loaded teams use shotguns is to breach a door. It just can’t be reliably and effectively done with a rifle or handgun. As such, if you need to flee your attackers by any means necessary, the shotgun provides an obvious tool that rifles and handguns don’t.

                      Your standard cylinder choke on a full-length shotgun will provide a spread of 20″ at 30 ft. Shorter barreled shotguns firearms offer even more forgiveness. It’s certainly not the hand of God, smiting your enemies no matter which direction you point it, but this more forgiving nature of shotguns is empirically, anecdotally, and historically known. Hits, from the hip and without any training or familiarity with the weapon are far more common with shotguns than with rifles or pistols.

                    3. I’d have a hard time justifying a 30′ shot in my house. That would mean they were all the way down the hallway in the kitchen and I was at the back of my bedroom. Most likely a home defense shot is maybe 10′ on the long end, not much spread. How big are your rooms?
                      Also, barrel length has little to no effect on shot spread unless you’re talking about cutting a barrel to a few inches. The difference between a 30″ barrel and an 18″ is negligible.

                    4. Again, with the strawman argument. You are literally making up stuff that you think I believe or think and then condemning it.


        3. Seems like a shotgun would be better for home defense, so you don’t end up shooting up your neighbor’s house too.

          Not to disagree with you but, how do you know where John lives?

          There are tradeoffs. I agree that a shotgun would be preferred for in-home defense but willingly acknowledge that it doesn’t take too many targets shooting back to overcome one man with a shotgun and and that in-home and home-defense are not the same thing.

          1. Most homes that have a typical furniture arrangement (around the wall, and some in the middle) leave combat ranges of 15 to 20 feet, often much less. Most interior walls are two layers of drywall and a bit of insulation. So unless you live alone, you really want to think through your choice of weapons. Most any firearm, including shotguns with anything over birdshot. will penetrate a wall or two.
            The point is that the constitution, democrats notwithstanding, guarantees you the right to keep and bear arms. Please do so responsibly. By that I mean first keep the bad guys out with lights and locks. Then dispatch or disable as fast as possible any who might penetrate the perimeter. Edged weapons and clubs are very effective. I know one law enforcement officer whose preferred home defense is a baseball bat. Fast, effective, does not need reloading, and can strike from any angle.
            Most discussions about the second amendment seem to restrict it to modern firearms, but it actually applies to all arms. So think outside the primer.

            1. a bat? seriously? i guess if one is trained in hand to hand combat that would make sense, but i wouldn’t want to get that close to an intruder.

              also, i’ve been at home twice during robberies. i didn’t have a gun then, but i wouldn’t hesitate to shoot now. no question about it.

            2. @ Longtobefree

              Clubs and blades require muscular energy to operate, making them dangerous for women and smaller men to have to rely upon, and require proximity to the target, which is far from desirable. Further, firearms are likely to produce a massive amount of pain much more quickly, which will incapacitate most attackers even though it will often not be lethal (with pistol calibers at least), long-guns and well-aimed handguns will usually kill much faster than a blunt-force or stabbing weapon, and guns with higher fire rates allow multiple attackers to be engaged that would overwhelm a home defender with a non-projectile weapon.

              And while it is true that any gun will penetrate drywall and timber, the human torso is another matter. FMJ rounds and buckshot of any caliber will very often exit the body and continue to travel, but fragmenting 5.56 will rarely exit the body and the fragments will do little damage if they do. It is by far the safest round for home defense as a result.

              1. God created man, Samuel Colt made them Equal.

              2. and require proximity to the target, which is far from desirable.

                A 5.56 is nothing compared to the ability to wish home invaders into the cornfield!

                Similarly, 5.56 mm vs. 9 mm. vs. shotgun is nothing compared to the element of surprise when overcoming your enemy.

                I’ll take a Bill Badger, Roger Sulzgeber, and a Joseph Zamudio without guns over a Loughner with one any day of the week.

                This isn’t an argument against guns as much as an argument that no amount of firepower can replace any given lack of situational awareness/control.

                1. too funny. i’ve been on the wrong end of the element of surprise by home invaders twice. let’s not pretend that the homeowner will have the element of surprise as a given.

                2. Who was disputing the usefulness of the element of surprise? And what about guns precludes the use of said element? Better to take an opponent by surprise from across the room than from an arm’s reach away, no?

        4. Do you have any clue what a shotgun at close range does to the human body. Yes it is a great home defense weapon, but of course, you spend the next week or so cleaning up all the tissue, blood and bone off the walls, floors and ceiling.

          1. Assuming you’re defending your home, you don’t clean up the mess. You get to spend some time in a nearby motel or relative’s house while the police decide when to let someone else clean it up and bill your insurance provider.

            Additionally, I don’t know that handgun or other rounds are inherently any better. I have wood floors and I assume they probably curl and cup after a couple hours under a pool of blood they same way they would for a pool of water. Sounds like maybe the shotgun would require a couple coats of paint and save the floors.

  20. Luckily for us, shotguns are horrible for walking into a room and going after the occupants.

    1. And an M1 Garrand is not really a “military style rifle”.

      1. Tell that to Hitler.

  21. Someone ought to read the Heller decision to her, including the part where banning weapons in “common use” is unconstitutional.

    The AR-15 is the most popular rifle in America, has been for years.

    You literally can’t ban them without an Amendment, as of now.

  22. Just more pandering and security theater.

  23. You know what else would have prevented the shooting? Locking the guy up for 10 years instead of 1 for beating his wife and infant child.

  24. I never realized you can’t hunt with an AR15.

    1. The only things about guns that these gun grabbers know is that they want to 100% ban them.

    2. For sport, nobody needs to. The problem is that these people think every hunter is a wealthy dentist on holiday, rather than farmers protecting their crops from swarms of feral hogs and javelina, or poor rural families taking raccoon for meat and keeping pariah dogs from their chicken coops.

    3. Many farmers use the AR15 for pest like gophers and coyotes, anything bigger use the AR10 which is the 30 caliber version of the AR15 and then you can hunt almost anything even bears

    4. They only say this because feral hogs are not a problem in NY or California. ARs are used almost exclusively to hunt hogs here in Texas. When you have a 400lb boar with 4 in tusks charging you, the last thing you want to use is a bolt action rifle. I have seen hogs shot 5-8 times and still keep charging. What amazes me is people sworn to uphold and protect the Constitution have no clue why it contains the articles and amendments it does. All you have to do is read the words of Noah Webster, George Mason and even Federalist #29, and the intent behind the 2nd amendment is crystal clear. ” The most effective way to enslave a people is to disarm them” – Noah Webster. ” For a standing army to rule, the people must first be disarmed” – George Mason. ” The only guaranteed check on the power of government is maintaining the right of the people to keep and bear arms.” – Federalist #29. The 2nd amendment is not about hunting, the term “militia” does not refer to the National Guard and it is not about our right to have muskets. It is about our right to have firearms comparable to that of the standing US military to allow us to defend ourselves if the government decides to use that army against us.

  25. “American people will know that a tool to reduce these massacres is sitting in the Senate, ready for debate and a vote.”

    FTFY, Diane Feinstein.

    1. a tool

      Just one?

      Surely there are at least 90 tools in the Senate.

      1. This was a quote from Feinstein and she is but one. But otherwise, I agree 100% with you.

        1. I know

          I guess I was just point out that you didn’t fully fix it.

  26. Feinstein admits as much.

    Fuck dat bee-yotch.

  27. “Although the documentation is incomplete, about 1,700 Letters of Marque, issued on a per-voyage basis, were granted during the American Revolution. Nearly 800 vessels were commissioned as privateers and are credited with capturing or destroying about 600 British ships.

    Vessels of every size and description were pressed into service as privateers. At the upper end of the scale was the 600-ton, 26-gun ship Caesar of Boston. At the other end was the 8-ton boat Defense of Falmouth, Massachusetts. Crews ranged from a few men in a whaleboat to more than 200 aboard a large, fully equipped privateer. Two-masted schooners and brigantines were most often used in privateering, reflecting the kind of vessels available to American seamen.”

    Do they even history, bro?

  28. Privately owned ships helped break the British blockade, but now you’ve got idiots babbling about how the proles aren’t worthy of owning a personal weapon. FFS, when will someone actually stand up and defend the Constitution with a little history and knowledge??

  29. The Wizened Socialist Temperance Union senator cannot rest until the Second Amendment is gone. That Amendment bars socialist politician infiltrators from signing arms control treaties with looter dictatorships. The Physics Today debate is online and the basic legal argument is up at Petr Beckmann’s old bulletin board:
    That Reagan-era debate wrecked Soviet plans to wheedle geezer politicians into making us surrender. Feinstein’ll never forgive that even though there’s hardly an Altrurian dictatorship left to surrender to!

  30. When only cops have guns, only cops and criminals will have guns. la-me-ln-police-weapons-stolen-20171106-story.html

    Two firearms, ammunition and a bulletproof vest were stolen in San Francisco on Friday night from a San Mateo County sheriff’s deputy’s vehicle, authorities said.

    The weapons, which included a shotgun and rifle, were taken from an unmarked vehicle that belonged to an “outside police agency” shortly before 10 p.m. on Jones Street in the Tenderloin District, according to a statement issued by the San Francisco Police Department.

    The issue of law enforcement weapons being stolen from parked vehicles looms large in the Bay Area. A firearm stolen from a car belonging to a Bureau of Land Management ranger was used in the 2015 shooting death of Kathryn Steinle in San Francisco.

    Her slaying became a cornerstone of the national debate over immigration enforcement after an immigrant in the country illegally with a lengthy criminal history was arrested and charged with murdering her.

  31. There is just one problem with your analysis, a recent study by Professor Adam Lankford of the University of Alabama seems to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the more guns a country owns, the more gun deaths and mass shootings it will experience. He eliminated mental health issues by comparing the spending on mental health care in the various developed countries and found them similar. America is not a more violent or a more crime prone country than others. He found a person is as likely to be mugged in Britain as in the US but is 54 times more likely to be killed in the US. It isn’t crime but guns that is behind these numbers. Ergo, anything which reduces the number of guns on the street, makes us all safer.

    1. did the study take into account the number of guns available to the population, legal and otherwise? if not, then it’s haplessly flawed.

      moreover, if the argument is that guns can be removed effectively from the population, then let’s hear how that’s going to happen in a way that criminals won’t maintain access to them.

      iow, this type of analysis is like saying the US is safer than Kenya when it comes to lion attacks. yes, of course it is because there are no wild lions in the US. what’s the best way to defend against lion attacks in kenya? stay away from them and when you go into their territory, you take a gun. that’s what all the guides have….


      Yeah, no shit it’ll have more mass *shootings* and gun *suicides* than other countries, so the fuck what? It’ll have fewer vehicle rammings and hangings to go along with it, with only a slight, not-worth-the-cost reduction. And we do have fewer of both of those latter types.

      And the idea that your study proves guns are deadlier than knives in mugging is just a *little* bit undermined by the assertion that they’re FIFTY-FOUR times deadlier. Even assuming that that was a typo and you meant 5.4 or something, which is that it is INARGUABLE that America is a more violent country than the UK. Observe:

      UK murder rate: 1.5, ish
      USA gun murder rate: 3.7, ish
      USA NON-GUN murder rate: 1.7, ish

      We have more murders without guns than the UK *even though they are only 30% of overall deaths*. Add in at least another 1.0 of former gun murders turned knife murders under a theoretical gun prohibition, and our “base” rate is at *least* twice theirs. So: no, we are NOT comparable to them.

      So what’s a better explanation? Simple: maybe, rather than having “the same base mugging attempts with added lethality”, we instead have “a higher base mugging rate that is suppressed by concealed carry, with only the deadlier inner-city gangbangers in CC-free zones left over”. Because one thing’s for sure: whether the latter is true or just guessing on my part, the former is bullshit.

    3. Yeah, but a problem with your/Lankford’s analysis is that within the US, gun deaths do not neatly correlate with ownership rates when analyzed by state or county, especially when filtering out suicides.

    4. Fuck off Merkel.

    5. Freedom is diametrically opposed to safety. I can accept the few gun deaths caused by negligent users (and they’ll still be at fault for those deaths, not me) and criminals (same deal) if it means the vast majority gets to peaceably own and use firearms.

      My goal is not maximum safety. If it was we would all be fenced in cattle trusting the revolving door of ranch owners not to slaughter us when it became preferable or profitable to do so.

    6. “…Ergo, anything which reduces the number of guns on the street, makes us all safer….”

      Holy cow! If only we had known!
      Pretty sure that throwing everybody but me in jail would make me safer, too. Chew on that a bit, Angela. I’m sure you thought you were presenting brand new data that no one here ever thought of. You’re wrong; that claim is old news, pal.

  32. YouTube algorithm fail:
    I get a ‘Subscribe’ invitation for Colbert, starting with an episode on gun control.
    No, I have no idea what’s in it; it didn’t pass.

    1. actually, that’s probably considered an algorithm success by google.

  33. As lefties continue to ramp up their street violence, and the politicians keep trying to take our guns, remember we are exactly one cycle from becoming venezuela or argentina.

    The Civil War is already upon us. They are attacking our politicians and trying to disarm us. The Left has already declared war.

  34. For all their bitching about being against fascism, the Left sure loves the key elements of the fascist playbook: jobs programs, speech limitations, and seizing the guns.

    Do we have to be in camps before we realize what they are doing?

  35. Re: “The simple fact of the matter is that no amount of new laws will stop mass shootings.”

    I agree. But stop thinking “mass shootings.”

    See “Gun Control and Mass Killers” at

  36. Here we go again, lets ban firearms to protect the country even though what we propose will have no impact whatsoever. Last time, the ban stopped the sale of new rifles but did nothing about the sale of parts for the rifles. The only part you could not by was a lower receiver. Democrats want to ban tactical rifles because they think they have duped the public into believing these are military weapons The only people they have duped are those who already support them.

  37. Read the bill and basically the only people protected and permitted to own “assault rifles” are those in government. In short, the people are disarmed and the government remains armed. This ban also covers all parts including hand guards. A hand guard (called a barrel shroud in bill) is now something that makes a rifle more dangerous. This bill only proves the real danger lies not with the people with guns but in the government that seeks to disarm them.

    1. Notice how those who push for the most radical gun control laws are also the most soft on crime. So what the government wants is for you to be scared shitless while they live behind moats with armed patrols and the criminals, like in A Clockwork Orange, take over your neighborhood. BTW, the Left is also not too sure they like your gated community either. How would you like to see your rights to arms go along with gated communities—all while the lawmakers live behind moats with an armed security patrol.

  38. I have read the bill and the depth of stupidity it contains is amazing. The bill bans AR-15s because they have magazines that can accept more than 10 rounds. We all know Feinstein and the other gun hating progressives love to call tactical rifles “military weapons of war”. What makes the bill hilarious is it does not ban Browning BAR (Browning Automatic Rifle). It lists this as a weapon not banned. Ironically, this is one of the not banned guns which IS a military weapon of war. So Democrats want to ban weapons that are not military weapons and keep legal weapons that are. The text of the bill makes it crystal clear this proposal is not about gun safety, crime reduction or any other claim made by Democrats. It is intended to begin the disarming of the American people. It bans not only semi auto rifles, but semi-auto shotguns and pistols, such as the CZ scorpion. We all know the bill has no chance of passage and Democrats have said openly they want it to be an issue in 2018. We all need to be prepared to respond when their selective use of facts begins in the near future.

  39. Diane Frakenstein wants to revive the the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban that was a spectacular failure. Like other brain-dead Democrats, she validates Einstein’s definition of insanity:

    “Trying the same thing over and over again and expecting different results”

    Ted Cruz owned you every which way but Sunday in his debate with you on gun control but that hasn’t stopped you from lying to the rest of America.

    The Democrats think that the 2nd Amendment gives us the right to own guns for hunting and not guns “meant for war” proving once again that Democrats are totally clueless about our Constitution and how this nation was founded. These clowns should never be allowed to hold public office.

  40. If all weapons of the type used by the Vegas shooter and the church shooter had been banned and confiscated back 20 years ago we would have these 50 plus people alive.

    The cost of their lives. Millions of gun enthusiasts couldn’t buy or own or sell guns calibers with 5.56 ammo or 7.62 or any other weapon with a high muzzle velocity / with any detachable magazines (if you allowed higher velocity rounds then load it one bullet at a time. No magazines permitted.

    The loss of a cool hobby by millions is not worth one life unnecessarily cut short by legal purchasers of these weapons by angry men.

    Your hobby or your fellow citizens lives?

    Scalias majority opinion in Heller would allow this aggressive approach in gun control. Plenty of other weapons for self defense remain. Revolvers aplenty.

    1. Didn’t bother reading the above before posting, did you prohie-bot?

      No lives would be saved by a confiscation. Compliance would be 10% at best, thousands would die resisting arrest, semi- and full-autos would be smuggled in from Mexico and homemade submachine guns would proliferate. More importantly, vehicle rammings and IEDs would replace whatever shootings were prevented; a bag of pipe bombs on 5-second egg timers would have killed as many people in Sutherland Springs as any gun could’ve.

      And it is NOT a “hobby”, you arrogant statist zombie. Again, don’t read before posting, do you? Feral pigs, coyotes, pariah dogs, bobcats and various varmints do more than a billion $ in crop damage every year, as well as “smaller” damage to countless poverty line families that can’t afford to take a hit. Semi-auto rapid fire isn’t essential, but it does *count*: fewer ruined crops, fewer empty chicken coops, meaning fewer opioid ODs, cancer and cirrhosis deaths, suicide attempts, etc.

      And revolvers are inferior to semi-auto pistols due to their heavy triggers, which are an inescapable feature of a non-self-loading design and greatly reduce accuracy. Lives would be lost, and women would be raped, that otherwise wouldn’t be. And neither mass killers nor gangbangers would be denied access to them via the black market of smuggled and illicitly manufactured weapons.

    2. “If all weapons of the type used by the Vegas shooter and the church shooter had been banned and confiscated back 20 years ago we would have these 50 plus people alive.”

      The arrogance of this statement is astounding. Even after the Bataclan, Hebdo, Breivik and Brussels attacks, you people still manage to convince yourselves that getting rid of semi/full-autos is easy; and worse, even after Nice, Barcelona, Berlin and Manchester, you still convince yourselves that *successfully* getting rid of semi/full-auto guns will be all that’s needed to make these kinds of mass-caj attacks go away.

      You are not smart. You are not scientific. The evidence is in no way on your side. And yet you have absolutely convinced yourselves that having the NYT and Seth Meyers on your side automatically makes you right. But no amount of sneering condescension will overcome your confirmation bias, your intellectual insularity, and the cognitive poverty of your credential-based educations. You are wrong, utterly, and history will condemn you to ignominy.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.