Assault Weapon Ban

Dianne Feinstein's Latest 'Assault Weapon' Bill Is Just As Illogical As All the Previous Ones

As usual, the senator and her allies want to ban guns based on arbitrary distinctions.

|

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D–Calif.) yesterday introduced an "updated" version of her proposed ban on "military-style assault weapons," invoking "domestic terrorism" as a justification. "We're now seeing a rise in domestic terrorism," she says, "and military-style assault weapons are increasingly becoming the guns of choice for these dangerous groups." Yet her bill, which so far has attracted 34 cosponsors in the Senate, makes no more sense as a response to terrorism than it does as a response to mass shootings.

The Assault Weapons Ban of 2021, like the Feinstein-sponsored 1994 ban that expired in 2004, would prohibit the manufacture and sale of numerous arbitrarily defined firearms, including some of the most popular rifles sold in the United States. It lists "205 military-style assault weapons" by name and also covers other guns with features Feinstein does not like. It would ban any semiautomatic rifle that accepts a detachable magazine and has "a pistol grip," "a forward grip," a folding or telescoping stock, "a grenade launcher," "a barrel shroud," or "a threaded barrel."

In contrast with the 1994 definition, which required two or more "military-style" features, Feinstein's new proposal, like the bills she has been sponsoring since 2013, says one is enough to make a rifle intolerable. Feinstein also continues to fiddle with her list of prohibited features. She no longer thinks we need to worry about bayonet mounts, but she is now sounding the alarm about the ominous barrel shroud, a covering that protects the shooter's hand from the heat generated by firing a rifle. And while her 2013 list included "a rocket launcher," that has since been excised, although "grenade launcher" is still there.

Crimes committed with rifle-mounted grenade launchers are about as common in the United States as crimes committed with rifle-mounted bayonets. Even if someone decided to attach a grenade launcher to his rifle, he would have a hard time finding something to launch with it, since grenades are strictly regulated as "destructive devices" under federal law. The rest of the targeted features likewise do not make a gun especially lethal: They have nothing to do with rate of fire, ammunition size, muzzle velocity, or muzzle energy.

President Joe Biden, who supports a new "assault weapon" ban, nevertheless concedes that the 1994 law had no impact on the lethality of legal firearms. The problem, according to Biden, was that manufacturers could comply with the law by "making minor modifications to their products—modifications that leave them just as deadly." The new, supposedly improved ban does not solve that problem, which is unavoidable when politicians target guns based on arbitrary distinctions.

Yet Feinstein insists that the 1994 ban worked as intended, because mass shootings declined while it was in effect, then rose afterward. Even without dissecting her post hoc, ergo propter hoc reasoning or delving into the debate about mass shooting trends, it should suffice to point out that if Biden is right about the practical impact of the ban, Feinstein must be wrong. If that law left mass shooters with plenty of equally deadly alternatives (which it did), it is hard to see how it possibly could have obstructed them. Nor would the lack of a barrel shroud or a folding stock stand in their way in the unlikely event that Feinstein's current bill is enacted.

"I'm hopeful that with the new administration and Democratic control of the Senate, we can finally pass commonsense gun reforms to remove these deadly weapons from our communities," Feinstein says. But even that goal is plainly inconsistent with the terms of her bill. Like the 1994 law, it does not prohibit possession of "assault weapons," meaning that millions of "these deadly weapons" will remain in circulation even if compliance is perfect.

That grandfather clause makes no sense if Feinstein really believes what she says. Her bill "exempts by name more than 2,200 guns for hunting, household defense or recreational purposes"—a completely gratuitous list that is supposed to show us how moderate and generous she is. But according to Feinstein, the guns she wants to ban are good for nothing but mass murder. The millions of Americans who own them for lawful purposes probably will disagree.

NEXT: The House Just Approved Two Background Check Bills That Would Make an Unfair, Irrational Gun Policy Even Worse

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.

  1. Is the “shoulder thingie that goes up” in there as well?

        1. [ PART TIME JOB FOR USA ] Making money online more than 15$ just by doing simple work from home. I have received $18376 last month. Its an easy and simple job to do and its earnings are much VXS better than regular office job and even FGRF a little child can do this and earns money. Everybody must try this job by just use the info
          on this page…..READ MORE

        2. [ PART TIME JOB FOR USA ] Making money online more than 15$ just by doing simple work from home. I have received $18376 last month. Its an easy and simple job to do and its earnings are much BGF better than regular office job and even FGRF a little child can do this and earns money. Everybody must try this job by just use the info
          on this page…..READ MORE

        3. Isn’t sad that Carlson is pretty much the only media personality left who’ll question the oligarchs.

          1. Google pays for every Person every hour online working from home job. I have received $23K in this month easily and I earns every weeks $5K to 8$K on the internet. Every sdop Person join this and working easily by open just open this website and follow instructions
            COPY This Website OPEN HERE….. Visit Here

    1. Any weapon you assault someone with is an assault weapon. That would include a rock, hammer, knife, pitchfork, baseball bat……. you could go on forever.

      1. Any weapon you assault someone with is an assault weapon.

        While not the original definition, that’s effectively the definition they’re transforming it into. Probably because the original effective meaning of “weapons Jews aren’t allowed to own” doesn’t carry the narrative they want it to carry.

        When your argument looks stupid or evil no matter how you twist the words around, it’s probably a stupid, evil argument.

        1. A divorced mother with 4 children lost her job in the pandemic, but with an online study she found on the internet, Biden to win & gift the jobs for house Wife, she managed to stay at the top by continuously banking $ 15,000 a week. It’s easy, just follow the instructions on the home page, read carefully from beginning to end Check Details…………. Click Here

        2. ‘ the original effective meaning of “weapons Jews aren’t allowed to own”’

          Has anyone ever pointed this out to Ms. Feinstein? Preferably in a very public forum. Say, the Senate floor.

      2. If silence = violence, then bad words = assault weapons. Will Feinstein’s bill outlaw bad language?

    2. I quit working at shoprite and now I make $65-85 per/h. How? I’m working online! My hfc work didn’t exactly make me happy so I decided to take a chance on something new… after 4 years it was so hard to quit my day job but now I couldn’t be happier.

      Here’s what I do…….. Visit……….. Visit Here

    3. I am making a good salary from home $1200-$2500/week , which is amazing, under a year back I was jobless in a horrible ADt economy. I thank God oy every day I was blessed with these instructions and nonow it’s my duty to and pay it forward and share it with And Everyone, Here For MORE INFO PLEASE Just check this SITE….. READ MORE

    4. [ PART TIME JOB FOR USA ] Making money online more than 15$ just by doing simple works from home. I have received $18376 last month. Its an easy and simple job to do and its earnings are much better than regular officeFDSA job and even a little child can do this and earns money. Everybody must try this job by just use the info
      on this page…. Visit Here

    5. I am making a good salary from home $1200-$2500/week , which is amazing, under a yefdfdar back I was jobless in a horrible ADt economy. I thank God oy every day I was blessed with these instructions and now it’s my duty to and pay it forward and share it with And Everyone, Here For MORE INFO PLEASE Just check this SITE….. READ MORE

    6. I am making a good salary from home $1200-$2500/week , which is amazing, under a yedfdfdar back I was jobless in a horrible ADt economy. I thank God oy every day I was blessed with these instructions and now it’s my duty to and pay it forward and share it with And Everyone, Here For MORE INFO PLEASE Just check this SITE….. READ MORE

  2. “Crimes committed with rifle-mounted grenade launchers are about as common in the United States as crimes committed with rifle-mounted bayonets.”

    Rare, my ass. Have you not heard about what they did to Officer Sicknick during the insurrection?

    1. That was a rifle mounted fire extinguisher.

      1. No, no. You are getting it all wrong.

        After the MAGA terrorists surrounded Sicknick, they taped the highly pressured fire extinguisher to his head and fired into it, at point blank range, with a .50 caliber automatic Assault Rifle (“AR”) round from an ultra high magazine military grade mass shooter weapon system thereby causing the extinguisher to explode and completely obliterate Sicknick’s skull in the process. It was raining brain confetti for at least ten minutes afterward; they danced in the brain matter and then the guy with the horns was screaming at the sky with an American flag in his hand.

        So, yes. You can bet your sweet ass we need to ban all fully semi-automatic weapons.

        1. Gosh Geiger, that description could be deemed “descriptive gun porn” and may already be illegal.

          1. I am making 70 to 60 dollar par hour at home on laptop ,, This is make happy But now i am Working 4 hour Dailly and make 400 dollar Easily .. WEr This is enough for me to happy my family..how ?? i am making this so u can do it Easily….

            Click this link,…… Home Profit System

        2. Just a big joke to you that a police officer died.

          1. The big joke is ghouls like you trying to exploit his stroke to legitimize your authoritarian agenda.

          2. You’re the joke Dee. You’re also a squawking bird. Tell us about any other police officer killed in the line of duty you’ve ever mentioned before.

            1. He even told us we couldn’t bring up the cops killed in Dallas by the blm nut a few years back. Claimed it was whataboutism.

          3. From an unrelated illness, off duty. I hate to tell you this young fella but people often die. They aren’t always murdered by right wing LARPERs, “high on da Trump”.

          4. “Just a big joke to you that a police officer died.”

            Just a big joke that TDS-addled assholes like you keep waving that (false) bloody shirt and ignoring the un-armed woman shot in the face.
            You ARE a pile of shit, and I certainly hope those who know you in meat-space understand how big a pile of shit you are.

          5. Dee, you bitch!

    2. Officer Sicknick? You mean the cop who had a stroke and had no signs of blunt force trauma as would be associated with being struck with – well, anything really.

      1. Yeah, TDS-addled shit has erotic fantasies of strokes caused a day later from exposure to pepper spray.

    3. Took a grenade to the head, showed up at HQ for his next shift, then collapsed and died of his wounds. After he texted his brother about the pepper spray.

      1. Must have been a nerf grenade to have not caused any blunt-force trauma.

  3. Just wrote my fucking worthless douche bag of a senator, if that even matters.

    1. Keep in mind that “principled conservative” Adam Kinziger voted for universal background checks because “the majority of Americans want them.”

      And here I thought “principles” was supposed to mean “taking a stance irrespective of whether it was popular or not.”

      1. We have another such principled “conservative” Fred Upton…(RINO) Michigan’s 6th congressional district, who voted for dumpy old Feinstein’s bill.
        In Michigan! Where half the population owns guns and hunts. Where I live probably everyone owns guns.
        Upton fortunately, does not represent my district.
        How old is that old hag anyway? She and Piglosi need to be retired to an old folks home, preferably one in the state of New York.

        1. We’d be happy if NY took them off CA’s hands. But somehow, I don’t think that is going to happen.

          They’re afraid that Cuomo will be hitting on them.

        2. He’s probably retiring, so he doesn’t need to pretend he agrees with his constituents anymore. It’s a long standing problem: Once a member of Congress decides they’re not running for reelection, they feel free to betray their constituents, because there’s nothing the voters can do to them anymore.

      2. Requiring “universal” background checks will have barely more effect on the number of guns sold without one as requiring a prescription for the sale of heroin, crack, and meth would have on the sale of street drugs.

        They’d probably save more lives by having the FDA establish labeling requirements on dealers to inform junkies when they’re actually being sold fentanyl instead of heroin.

    2. You always get a chain letter back and then you will get non-stop campaign donation material. I like it, it keeps me knee deep in fire kindle for free.

      1. More truth in this post than I care to admit.

        Any contact with any pol just makes them think you are paying attention. Best to fly under the radar.

      2. Where do you live?

        You can actually have fires in your fireplace?

    3. The crypt keeper in the photo is one of my useless Senators, and the other one makes palaptine seem like a 3%-er by comparison.

  4. It is almost like one should be quite embarrassed for not realizing these open assaults on freedom prior to the election.

    1. The attempted violent overthrow of the government by a gaggle of unarmed Trump supporters made it clear that “moderate” Joe Biden was always the right choice for libertarians. The government literally almost collapsed and some would even say, quite rightly, that January 6th was worse than Pearl Harbor and 9-11 combined.

      1. We all almost died on Jan 6th. Should be a national holiday.

        1. More likely a National Day Of Remembrance, possibly morphing into a day of mandatory volunteerism to strengthen our democracy.

          1. Fortify. We fortify our democracy.

          2. White Knight wants an American Guy Fawkes Night.

          3. And mandatory vaxx.

          4. Maybe they can erect a monument to the stolen lectern somewhere on the National Mall, with a prominent placement of the actual item in the Smithsonian.

        2. if we all pull together next 1/6 we can meet. in small groups

          1. Like terrorist cells? Probably won’t help their fear, Dillinger.

            1. Like stem cells. That should give us cover.

          2. But only in your backyard.

      2. The “shot heard round the world” in 1775 brought a revolution.
        The “shot heard round the world” in 2020 ended one.

      3. Remember, remember the 6th of January
        The Trumpista treason and plot!
        I know of no reason
        The Trumpista treason
        Should ever be forgot

      4. Unarmed? Perhaps.

        But the bomber planting his little surprises the night before was not. Had those bombs gone off during the MAGA visit, rather than been found out at the time, the clockwork would had minced out a much different story. As it stood, I doubt police in duty kept it off their mind as they confronted MAGA splinter group.

    2. Well stopping mean tweets is WAY more important that assaults on freedom, according to the “libertarians” at Reason.

      1. *than

        Sigh no edit button.

      2. Trump probably wins re-election if he hadn’t spent four years doing “mean tweets.”

        1. That had nothing to do with why he lost.

          Only people who care about mean tweets are a tiny minority who are only on Twitter. The rest of the world didn’t.

          1. One has to admit that, the tweets once published, added haters to the growing mob who found him to be rather infantile and uncouth.

            They certainly didn’t help push back against the press and political machine that was out to get him at any cost.

        2. Because the media and establishment started after him only after the tweets… fbi opened an illegal FISA investigation over tweets…

          1. Since FBI presented “corrected” emails as evidence and hid from the FISA court that the Steele Dossier was obtained from paid political oppo research (from sources that the FBI and CIA both questioned the veracity of), it seems like they might well have contrived some other reason to launch that FISA investigation if it helped toward the objective of stopping trump from being elected in 2016.

            No way to know for sure, but it does seem credible that they were more waiting for an excuse to do what they did than following up on something that really set off a new alarm.

        3. He improved by almost 20%, dumbass

          1. Improves by almost 20% but still somehow manages to lose. That’s never happened before in US history. What a strange election.
            Good thing it was the fairest ever and we’re not allowed to talk about it and the troops in the capitol are just there to keep everyone safe.

        4. Trump probably wins re-election if he could have STFU for 5 minutes during the debate. Biden was wandering around several time ready to expose his senility for all to see but Trump kept interrupting Biden. Biden had basically poured gasoline over his head and was trying to light a match, but Trump kept blowing it out with his bloviating hot air. If Trump had STFU after the election, the Georgia senate races could easily have gone the other way, but NO! He tells people in Georgia to NOT VOTE because that would feed the machine that robbed him.

    3. Reason writers only care about mean tweets. They’re shallow and they’re ok being useful tools of totalitarianism.

  5. Well now two bills presented in the Senate and the House. So yeah I fully expect them to try this. And I am convinced they will get all 50 dem senators on board, plus a few squishy RINOs.

    But yeah us conservatives should sidle up libertarians because that’s a winning solution when they aren’t reliable enough to vote for the GOP.

    1. Romney and Murkowski are on board, no question about it.

      1. Libertarians VOTED for Romney in 2012, we haven’t had a sane GOP candidate since then.

        1. No, Libertarians wrote in Ron Paul.

          -jcr

      2. Not so sure about Murkowski. Thing is peeps in Alaska really like their guns.

        1. Ditto Utah. But maybe Romney can move back to MA for his second term.

        2. Replace her with Sarah Palin in the 2022 primary. Hilarity will ensue.

  6. Cap and ball firearms kept Diane Feinstein safe all through the Civil War, and by gum that should be good enough for the lot of you.

    1. Gosh darn it, if the Kentucky Longrifle was good enough for her son to carry in the Revolutionary War, it’s good enough for you.

  7. If the bill truly is irrational, isn’t the bigger story that 34 other Senators are co-sponsoring it?!

    1. I don’t think that the expected default of people in the Senate is “they are rational”.

      If they were, the original 1994 “Assault” Weapon Ban wouldn’t have seen the light of day.

  8. “But according to Feinstein, the guns she wants to ban are good for nothing but mass murder.”

    Incidentally, this paranoid projection should provide anyone paying attention with a prescient insight as to what the Democrats intend to do once they have confiscated all the firearms.

    Sure, firearms can be used for mass murder — but mass murder should be something reserved exclusively for the government.

    1. Any Democrat saying “we’re not coming for your guns” has no credibility. At least Beta O’Dork was honest that he wanted to disarm the populace.

      1. Well, technically, I suppose they are not coming for the guns. They have enough guns of their own. The objective, at the end of the day, is to come for the people. The guns are just an impediment.

    2. “Feinstein is one of just five Democrats still in the Senate who voted in 2002 for the resolution authorizing the Iraq war”.

      She was “all in” for us to commit mass murder in Iraq with those very weapons. This war criminal should be sent to the Hague.

      1. In her eyes, Iraqis aren’t really white enough, so no big deal.

    3. yeah, that’s sort of the point. a revolver or a shotgun will protect you from a burglar. sometimes there are bigger threats — gangs, rampaging mobs, totalitarian governments, etc.

    4. So what does that make Cuomo? After all he murdered thousands of elderly people. That makes him a mass murderer.

    5. If they are “good for nothing but mass murder”, then why are any of our civil police forces armed with them? Is “mass murder” part of the FBI’s functions?

  9. I supported Trump because he was a bulwark against these infringments on freedom. Now they will continue to come in rapidly. It’s wishful thinking to believe they will inspire a libertarian backlash. Most people will meekly accede to them. The solution isn’t to demand ideological purity here in your safe space echo chamber, but to get out into the real world and fight like I do. The war today is online not in the streets or at the capitol.

    1. The thought of putting all the top progs in GitMo warms my heart.

  10. Can we ban politicians with assault faces? She makes me feel unsafe.

    1. Here’s a wonderful pic of the c#nt sweeping down a group of reporters with an AK, finger on the trigger. I guess no one taught her the first rule of firearms. Classic.

      https://www.tonyrogers.com/humor/feinstein.htm

      Plus dig the pic of Chuckie’s grip technique

      1. “Dianne Feinstein holds one of the rare California Concealed Carry Permits.”, WTF? Never heard this tidbit before.

        1. Pelosi too, IIRC. LOL at you or me getting one in SF County.

  11. So does this mean ANY firearm ever used currently? or in the past by the military?

    1. Naah. Just the ones ‘styled’ without tail-fins.

  12. But remember – don’t work with the GOP or Trump supporters because *they’re* anti-freedom.

  13. Dianne Feinstein starts every gun banning initiative with a glass of Harvey Milk.

    1. It’s better than the Kool-Aid one hapless staffer made for refreshments in her San Francisco office suite.

    2. Imagine being a proud Seaman on the USS Harvey Milk stationed in Frisco.

      1. It’s a sealift ship – USNS, not USS.

        That being said, I imagine it’s like being a fire controlman on the USS Gabby Giffords.

      2. I imagine they regularly deposit seamen on the poop deck while Harvey Milk is inside Frisco.

    3. She put her fingers in it.

  14. Barrel shrouds? C’mon, man. all the other stuff is silly, but that’s just ridiculous.

    1. No, they want firearms to be less safe. I can only understand the logic being that the shooter has to burn their hand depending on how they hold the weapon. Granted that means that any defender would also severely burn their hands in any attempt to deflect the shots and wrestle control of the firearm.

      On a side note the whole oddity of a second vertical grip on a handgun would define it as an NFA AOW (Any Other Weapon) along with the associated tax stamp, registration, etc. but then again it’s more about bluster that reality.

      1. Oh, vertical foregrip on a handgun makes it an AOW. A vertical foregrip on a rifle is a hindrance that most people don’t need and only the tacti-cool people use. Kinda like the bump-stock silliness. That said, vertical foregrips on an “other” can be quite handy.

      2. Thing is – other guns simply extend the stock under the barrel so you can hold it there.

        You don’t *need* that barrel shroud.

        1. You don’t need socks, underwear, or combs either. Protecting your hand from being burned by the barrel goes back before 1898 Mausers but somehow it’s all scary these days.

      3. The US Government has a long history of making small arms less safe. Even the gun grabbing lefties in the EU and Oz allow suppressors (which the idiot libs call silencers) to protect the hearing of peeps when a gun is fired. In EU you can buy a quality suppressor for a double sawbuck; in the US you have to pay a couple of hundred bucks and wait months or more for a permit before you can even purchase one at inflated prices.

        Silly thing is you can buy a five dollar oil filter and an adapter at the hardware store for twenty bucks and wind up with a better suppressor than you can buy from a maker in the US.

        1. Silly thing is you can buy a five dollar oil filter and an adapter at the hardware store for twenty bucks and wind up with a better suppressor than you can buy from a maker in the US.

          I love gun mufflers, but I’m going to need to see the proof on that claim.

          One thing OTC suppressors would allow is the option of buying the ‘Harbor Freight’ version. For say, someone who’s only going to shoot that rifle 10 times a year tops.

          1. First one that came up in my youtube search

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RhQr-auTGA

            1. Not just oil filters but fuel filters also; but while running about $US40 and made in China they would likely be what the peeps that sit at the cool kids table use.

              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rKRjaT9PVGo

              1. Yeah, but you said “wind up with a better suppressor.” I know the oil filter will work; I’m just questioning that it attenuates sound better than a modern commercial suppressor. Even for the first shot.

          2. As bad as the bills may be this is even worse in my opinion.

            This guy is a legit hot rod guy who uses oil filters in big trucks to make them go faster. He ordered a bunch of high end oil filters (not the smaller cheaper car oil filters) and LEOs from two different agencies showed up at his door to question him about his ordering suppressors. He showed the LEOs his home garage where he works on trucks but is still concerned that the LEOs were not fully convinced he was not also making suppressors. One of the LEOs also said next time the EPA will visit to make sure your trucks are not violating pollution regs.

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=270sLN5WL2I

            1. “One of the LEOs also said next time the EPA will visit to make sure your trucks are not violating pollution regs.”

              AIUI, the EPA has a serious hard-on for fucking over automotive performance tuners these days, particularly in the diesel engine area.

              “OK, Redcoat,” indeed.

              1. You wouldn’t know it from this online newsletter I regularly receive.

                https://www.dieselarmy.com/

                And I live in CA no less!

        2. “suppressors (which the idiot libs call silencers)”

          You can thank the movie industry for that.

          Just watched an old movie the other night where the perp screwed a “silencer” onto the end of his pistol before firing it into the sleeping victim. Of course, the soundtrack had those little “zip, zip” sounds. Nothing loud enough to wake up the household.

          This prompted me to ask my wife, who has only fired a gun once or twice in her entire 70 years of existence, if she knew what that was and why that depiction was ridiculously false.

          She said with a broad smile, “Yeah, it’s a silencer”.

          Hollyweird 1
          Individual intelligence 0

          This kind of ignorance makes me wonder if my late father was right; that we should have compulsory military service. At least then, the average adult might have a basic understanding of guns and ammo. Plus, what blind obedience to authority can lead to.

  15. From the bill:
    The term ‘large capacity ammunition feeding device (A) means a magazine, belt, drum, feed strip,19or similar device, including any such device joined or coupled with another in any manner, that has an overall capacity of, or that can be readily restored, changed, or converted to accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition

    It seems the science and engineering deniers of team blue are going all in. I think they’re going to need to define “10 rounds of ammunition” in order to avoid this being unconstitutionally vague.

    Magazines are, in essence, a box. The capacity of a box depends greatly on what you put in the box so unless they’re going to ban all ammunition larger than a particular diameter it going to be difficult to say it isn’t vague. A 10 round .450 BM magazine probably holds between 17 and 22 .223 Remington rounds. It’s basically math, how many you get out of it depends on the diameter of what you put into it. Just more STEM deficient congressional idiots.

    1. Yeah all my mags are for .458 SOCOM. They hold exactly 10 rounds.

    2. But its not just a box this time!

      If you tape a box to another box then it now counts as a single bigger box.

      Like, you know that triple connector for Ruger 10-22 magazines? That would be illegal.

    3. Where I live, there are two, very large former Naval weapons bases. They contain literally hundreds of “magazines” that could probably store all the small arms ammo in the entire U.S.

      My old, 12 gauge Remington holds four rounds in the magazine. But, I have to keep a plug in the magazine when I hunt to limit capacity to two rounds. (Total of 3 because we assume one in the chamber.)

      Yes. Definitions matter.

      As does the ability to count. Just ask Harry Callahan.

  16. Can we get an Assault Senator ban on politicians who want to dismantle what’s left of the Bill of Rights? Or at least some common sense restrictions on electing people who are actively working to undermine the republic?

    1. I believe Jefferson and a few others amongst the founders provided the foresight as to what we must do.

      But, if you mention that in the wrong places, you will soon be taken into custody.

  17. Canada, Oz, and NZ all had legislation that banned common small arms and the citizens were required to turn them in. Given estimates of how many “outlawed” small arms were in those countries and how many were turned in compliance was between five and ten percent.

    Not the first time I have posted one of the first things they stressed in the US Army’s Leadership Preparation Course is ‘never give an order you know will not be obeyed’.

    As an extra credit assignment google ‘tragic boating accident’.

    1. I am acquainted with people from all three of those counties. And, they are all very supportive of the bans believing they’ve accomplished a great deal towards reducing murders. They are all aghast at our “lax” gun laws.

      What all these individuals have in common is not unlike the divide here. They are all urbanites.

      And yet, vast swaths of those countries are not urbanized at all.

      It’s time we start electing farmers rather than big city attorneys! 🙂

  18. “Polls show 79% of Americans support Commonsense Gun Reforms™”
    Of course they do, and 87% support world peace too.

    1. Keep your finger off the trigger until the muzzle is pointed at the target. Common sense and I support it.

    2. Well of course Feinstein et al will point out that these are not mutually exclusive.

  19. How old is that old hag anyway? Time for her and nasty Nancy, the wicked witch of the West to retire to an old folks home in New York state. Better yet,Portland.
    You know how it going to end up…… first they came for the guns, then they shut down free speech, then the re-education camps(gulags). Of course, they/communists, are already shutting down free speech so they’ve gotten ahead of themselves.
    Will there be any freedom and liberty left by the time this administration is over? Assuming it will only last four years.
    America has descended into madness and idiocracy.

  20. “in the unlikely event that Feinstein’s current bill is enacted”

    Unlikely like the outcome of GA runoffs? Why is it unlikely? Do you think Joe Mannequin is gonna save the day?!

    1. Filibuster applies to non-budget bills. Without ten Republicans, the bill can’t pass. So after Murkowski, Collins, and Romney, you still need another seven.

      1. Check comment below. We all know how the filibuster works.

  21. The arbitrary and even silly nature of their bans may be intentional. While we that know at least a little about guns are busy laughing at their being morons about guns; Feinstein is trying to establish the precedent that they can ban guns with any specified feature, and Trump has already established the precedent that they can ban any specific accessory per his bump-stock ban.

    Might not these worst of authoritarian politicians have nagging fears of less arbitrary features and less silly accessories, like being chambered for long-range cartridges and range compensating scopes, for which such precedents could be used to next ban?

    1. The bill also includes a federal ban on 10 rd mags. They’re going forward full steam and I have no idea how any responsible gun owner can be content at this time. Also no idea why Jacob Gollum says it’s unlikely to be enacted.

      1. 10+ rd mags that is

    2. But at least no mean tweets, right BigGiveNotBigGov? You might have voted for mean tweets, but instead, you got what you deserve.

      1. Let me add:
        Fuck off and die.

  22. My understanding is the claim passing these bills is unlikely is they can’t pass with 50 votes and the VP; they would need 60 votes.

    Of course if the Senate changes it’s rules all bets are off.

    1. I think if they think they can get away with attacking the Filibuster, they will try.

      1. They would, sure, but Sinema and Manchin are both pro-filibuster. You can’t nuke the filibuster 48-52.

        1. Maaan, I think believing in Hoe Manchin is the best measure of precaution since the invention of the condom. It literally cannot fail. I mean what could go wrong with highly principled individuals like that in the Senate? 😀

  23. I’m guessing that Feinstein is trying to make up for being Dan White’s Twinkie supplier. No more boxes that can hold more than 10 Twinkies!

  24. “…her proposed ban on “military-style assault weapons,”…”

    So if they have tail fins, they’re exempt?
    That woman has a grasp of reality similar to that of slobberin’ Joe; time to let Andy find a place in a nursing home for you.

  25. These are the people you effectively chose Sullum. This “we never saw it coming” schtick has gone way passed it’s sell by date. And it will be the same nonsense with open borders.

    Once the Democrats have successfully imported enough of an underclass to ensure their political dominance does anyone think they will start allowing everyone else in?

    No, it will be just another exercise in one man, one vote, one time. Having gotten what they wanted border security will again become an issue.

    And again some writer here (cannot really call you authors, given the root meaning of the term) will trot out an article about just how misguided it all is.

  26. I wonder if Diane Feinstein was related to Larry Feinstein aka Larry Fine of the Three Stooges?
    Probably.
    Notice the resemblance, especially with regards to intellect.
    What bothers me is the shortage of not only firearms but you can’t even buy any ammo and won;t for the foreseeable future …at least for the next 18 months according to one manufacturer.
    I need some 12 ga and 30-30 but it’s so expensive and hard to get and 30-30 is non existent. At least I have plenty of 22LR.

    1. “I wonder if Diane Feinstein was related to Larry Feinstein aka Larry Fine of the Three Stooges?”

      Unlikely, The Stooges were comedic geniuses. DiFi is not funny at all. She may be a stooge but she is no Stooge.

    2. Larry Fine’s real name was Louis Feinberg, not Feinstein.

      That said, while his character may have shared some intellectual similarities with Diane Feinstein, the actor, in real life, absolutely did not

  27. I keep a photo of a Ruger Precision Rimfire bolt-action rifle that I tore out of a magazine. When the occasion presents itself, I show it to a gun-control advocate and ask them if this rifle should be banned as an “assault weapon”. I’ve not had a single one say no.

    It’s a bolt-action .22LR. Bolt-action… .22LR…

    Granted, it looks a lot like the scary black guns, but, again, it’s a BOLT-ACTION rifle…in .22LR…

    But they all want to ban it…

    1. Is it a machine designed to efficiently end human life?

      Sounds like the first thing we should ban, regardless of what nickname you give it.

      1. “…a machine designed to efficiently end human life…”

        You mean like a suction abortion cannula?

        Ban those?

      2. You don’t want to ban guns, you just want the government to have all of them, you mendacious, bootlicking asshole.

        -jcr

      3. It’s not designed to efficiently end human life. The exact opposite by pretty much every metric. The bullet was designed for recreational shooting, to be cheap and easy to produce, to fire more rounds without killing anything. The long cartridge was supposed to make the cartridge more effective at hunting game much smaller than humans. Probably the least efficient human killing round in history.

        Cars are more efficient human killing machines by just about every metric and they weren’t designed to do so any more than the 22lr was.

      4. Not a single one of my firearms has ever harmed a person. Not single one of the thousands of bullets or shell fired from those has ever harmed or was meant to harm a person.

        They are machines designed to propel a bullet at what they are aimed at. And actually, the firearm in question is just about the last firearm I would select if I was set on killing a person, as it is certainly not designed for that purpose.

        Literally billions of rounds are fired in the US every year. About 8B rounds. Yes, some 40,000 people are killed by firearms every year, and the large majority of those (60%+) are suicides. But 99.9999995% of all uses of firearms are not intended to “efficiently end human life”, so if that is the design goal, most people are using them “off-label”.

      5. Dang, revisited this thread a little too late. Well at least that means I have other things to do.

        Anyways, Tony, I thought the same thing as John C. Randolph when reading your comment. Are you for banning these weapons for all, or only for civilians? Because my thinking is, if the Government has such firepower, why should the people not be allowed to have it? There is a reason the 2nd Amendment is so popular (even among blue voters these days). It is so that the Government can’t become a tyrant against an unarmed public. Problem is, if we banned it for everyone within the US, we would become internationally disarmed. So what’s your stance here? I think it’s good that the public has access to deterrents, even like ARs, because then a tyrannical govt. will think twice before turning against it’s own people.

        I might take you up on this, because I am genuinely curious to read what you have to say about this. I am silently accepting the premise that they are devices optimized to end human life (I do not agree with that, but for the sake of this discussion, let’s see what the outcome would be if it were true).

    2. Just my two cents but the RPR should be banned. For the price there are much better options like the discontinued CZ455 or the newer CZ457 or the Bergara BXR; not to mention the TikkaT1.

    3. Well you know?

      If it looks like a duck………………..

      Which applies even if I can’t tell a duck from an elephant.

  28. Most distinctions are arbitrary. Terms are imprecise. The real measure of a law is how much it reduces the body count.

    How many bodies are you willing to pile up while you debate how to classify one human-killing machine vs. another?

    It’s the maximum number of bodies isn’t it? For freedom.

    1. There are simple ways to reduce the body count but they don’t fit your world view. Look at the FBI statistics on where most peeps are killed and what weapons are used to kill them.

      Of course you won’t like the implications.

    2. As long as its white liberal bodies piling up, then yes.

    3. Since 60%+ of firearm deaths are from suicide, what we could do to reduce firearm deaths is to make suicide by firearm *really* severely punished. I figure the death penalty would not be too harsh for misusing a firearm like that!

      1. Excellent!

        It’s that kind of non-logic that got us here in the first place.

        It’s a shame that so many can’t see it.

  29. Still nothing on HR 1.

  30. It’s only “illogical” if you take her pretext for enacting it seriously.

    It’s perfectly logical if you accept that they want to accomplish 2 things:

    1. Establish precedent that they CAN ban guns, and arbitrarily.

    2. Harrass gun owners so as to reduce their numbers.

    It would be an illogical bill if they were trying to reduce murder, or something nice like that. As a step in attacking a civil liberty?

    Perfectly logical.

  31. Amen, you have to look at it from what the Democrats are trying to accomplish, the Socialist Dictatorship of the left. I agree, then the bill is perfectly logical. Reason can’t see past the end of it’s woke nose. Oh and isn’t Feinstein now a discredited racist”

    “The committee that selected the names included Feinstein on the list because as mayor in 1984 she replaced a vandalized Confederate flag that was part of a long-standing flag display in front of City Hall. When the flag was pulled down a second time, she did not replace it.”
    CBS news San Fransisco. January 27, 2021 / 10:10 PM / AP

    Just another racist old white woman trying to disarm minorities?

  32. Amen, you have to look at it from what the Democrats are trying to accomplish, the Socialist Dictatorship of the left. I agree, then the bill is perfectly logical. Reason can’t see past the end of it’s woke nose. Oh and isn’t Feinstein now a discredited racist”

    “The committee that selected the names included Feinstein on the list because as mayor in 1984 she replaced a vandalized Confederate flag that was part of a long-standing flag display in front of City Hall.”
    CBS news San Fransisco. January 27, 2021 / 10:10 PM / AP

    Just another racist old white woman trying to disarm minorities?

  33. I love what the blog is about for more information, and any writing service on blogs you can reach us through https://toptutor4me.com/

    1. Amen, you have to look at it from what the Democrats are trying to accomplish, the Socialist Dictatorship of the left. I agree, then the bill is perfectly logical. Reason can’t see past the end of it’s woke nose. Oh and isn’t Feinstein now a discredited racist”

      “The committee that selected the names included Feinstein on the list because as mayor in 1984 she replaced a vandalized Confederate flag that was part of a long-standing flag display in front of City Hall.”
      CBS news San Fransisco. January 27, 2021 / 10:10 PM / AP

      Just another racist old white woman trying to disarm minorities?

    2. It’s only “illogical” if you take her pretext for enacting it seriously.

      It’s perfectly logical if you accept that they want to accomplish 2 things:

      1. Establish precedent that they CAN ban guns, and arbitrarily.

      2. Harrass gun owners so as to reduce their numbers.

      It would be an illogical bill if they were trying to reduce murder, or something nice like that. As a step in attacking a civil liberty?

      Perfectly logical.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.