MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Dianne Feinstein Wants Brett Kavanaugh to 'Reconcile' His Second Amendment Reasoning With 'Hundreds of School Shootings' That Never Happened

The senator is miffed that the SCOTUS nominee thinks people have a right to own the guns she wants to ban.

Senate Judiciary CommitteeSenate Judiciary CommitteeYesterday Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who wrote the federal "assault weapon" ban that expired in 2004 and in recent years has been pushing a new, broader version of that law, asked Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh to explain why he concluded that such legislation is unconstitutional. After Kavanaugh recapped his reasoning (more on that in a minute), Feinstein replied, "How do you reconcile what you've just said with the hundreds of school shootings using assault weapons that have taken place in recent history?"

Feinstein's response was striking for two reasons. First, there have been nothing like "hundreds of school shootings using assault weapons," whether you look at "recent history" or go back half a century. Second, the shootings are irrelevant to the question of whether banning so-called assault weapons is consistent with the Second Amendment.

According to a database maintained by Mother Jones, there have been 101 "indiscriminate rampages in public places resulting in four or more victims killed by the attacker" since 1982. A Washington Post tally published last October, based on the FBI's definition of mass murder, identified "154 shootings in which four or more people were killed" since 1966. Only a small share of these attacks—16 of 101 in the Mother Jones database—occurred at schools, including universities. Just six of those 16 school attacks involved "assault weapons," which account for about a quarter of the firearms used by mass shooters, most of which are handguns.

Even if Feinstein had in mind a broader definition of school shooting, it is hard to see how she could get to "hundreds" involving "assault weapons." By her own count, 385 people were killed with "assault weapons" from 2004 through 2011 (which is about 0.5 percent of gun homicides during that period), and the vast majority of those murders did not occur in schools. If we assume that something like 16 percent of them did (in line with the Mother Jones numbers), that would be 60 or so murders involving "assault weapons" at schools over eight years, and the number of separate incidents would be even lower. It is difficult to escape the conclusion that Feinstein was just making shit up when she referred to "hundreds of school shootings using assault weapons that have taken place in recent history."

In any case, the number of school shootings has nothing to do with the question Kavanaugh was answering, which was why he dissented from a 2011 D.C. Circuit decision upholding the District of Columbia's "assault weapon" ban. As he noted in that opinion, the D.C. law (like Feinstein's bill) covered a "haphazard" set of arbitrarily selected guns "with no particular explanation or rationale for why some made the list and some did not." Kavanaugh concluded that the ban was inconsistent with District of Columbia v. Heller, the 2008 case in which the Supreme Court recognized that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to armed self-defense.

As Kavanaugh explained to Feinstein, Heller says the Second Amendment protects the right to keep handguns for self-defense, while allowing that bans on "dangerous and unusual" weapons—firearms that are not "in common use" for "lawful purposes"—would be constitutional. "Most handguns are semi-automatic," Kavanaugh observed. "The question was can you distinguish, as a matter of precedent," between semi-automatic handguns and semi-automatic rifles. He noted that "semi-automatic rifles are widely possessed in the United States; there are millions and millions." To Kavanaugh, that means the guns that Feinstein wants to ban are "in common use" for "lawful purposes" such as self-defense and hunting, so possession of them is protected by the Second Amendment.

Feinstein implausibly insisted that "assault weapons are not in common use," even though Americans own more than 16 million of them, only a tiny percentage of which will ever be used to commit crimes. She also suggested that Kavanaugh needed to "reconcile" his constitutional reasoning with the fact that such guns are sometimes used in school shootings, which makes no sense. As Kavanaugh noted in his 2011 dissent, handguns are used to murder people much more often than "assault weapons" are. The Supreme Court nevertheless held in Heller that Americans have a constitutional right to own handguns.

Either Kavanaugh applied Heller correctly or he didn't. The "hundreds of school shootings using assault weapons" that Feinstein invented have no bearing on that question.

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.

  • Sevo||

    "Second, the shootings are irrelevant to the question of whether banning so-called assault weapons is consistent with the Second Amendment."

    Tony tweeted her the question; you think she comes up with those on her own?

  • Duke of url||

    I figured the Chinese spy Dianne employed came up with the retarded question.

  • Entropy Drehmaschine Void||

    "Hor do you leconcire what you've just said with the hundleds of schoor shootings using assaurt weapons that have taken prace in lecent histoly?"

  • Unicorn Abattoir||

    It's not consistent with the 2nd Amendment. It is consistent with Feinstein signaling her voter base.

  • lap83||

    Or we could stop forcing kids to be stuck defenseless together 5 days a week like fish in a barrel

  • Sevo||

    Maybe we could get those hired to guard the kids to actually do so?

  • Red Tony||

    The Supreme Court has held that there's no requirement for them to do so.

    Why?

    Because fuck you, that's why.

  • perlchpr||

    That only applies to the police. I presume Sevo was talking about private security, who could at least be held accountable if they fail at their jobs.

  • MatthewSlyfield||

    No way will public schools hire private security.

  • DarrenM||

    That money has to go to teachers' unions.

  • RoyMo||

    You are too cynical. The money doesn't have to go to a teachers' union, it can go to any government union.

  • bvandyke||

    TSA! - Put the TSA in charge of School security.

  • LarryA||

    So make private security officers eligible to join the teacher's union. It's not like you have to teach anything to be a member.

  • Entropy Drehmaschine Void||

    "Maybe we could get those hired to guard the kids to actually do so?"

    Not in Broward County you don't.

  • Sevo||

    We noticed.

  • esteve7||

    What a fucking idiot.

    Imagine saying reconcile your 4th and 5th amendment protections when that means thousands of guilty people get off free!

    JFC does she understand how freedom works. No, no she does not. Petty fascist through and through

  • Jerryskids||

    Almost as bad as Klobuchar demanding to know how Kavanaugh could possibly think the CFPB is unconstitutional when it's done so much good for so many people. And that idiot even tweeted on the issue, because I guess that's what SCOTUS is there for, to decide what's good rather than what's legal. And then when the deplorables elect somebody to do what they think is good, she wants to whine about it? Nope, you made the rules, if it's good it's legal, so suck it.

  • soldiermedic76||

    What, you don't know about the good results exemption clause in the Constitution?

  • RoyMo||

    Actually I hear this a lot, you must travel in a better crowd

  • Zeb||

    Not only are "assault weapons" in common use, but Feinstein probably had as much to do with making it that way as anyone.

  • perlchpr||

    Barack Obama was one hell of a firearms salesman.

  • Presskh||

    Agree - I often wondered if he had either stock or call options in firearms companies.

  • Naaman Brown||

    ArmaLite AR-style rifles
    Production
    Years: Numbers
    1990-2008: 2,100,000
    2009-2016: 9,300,000
    source: TheFirearmsBlog (who do keep a finger on the pulse of the industry)
    AR sales kinda stagnated 2017-

  • IamNotEvil||

    If you count each individual bullet as a school shooting then you might get to hundreds.

    Or she's gone completely insane and started to actually believe the twisted stories and deliberate misdirection that they've been screeching about for the last couple of decades.

  • Red Tony||

    Insanity...apathy towards the truth...what's the difference?

  • LarryA||

    No, you don't count the bullets. Count something that makes a big difference, like news reports flashing the killer's picture. She could have counted thousands of those.

  • Just Say'n||

    Diane Feinstein is that weird aunt that never got married or is married, but you're pretty sure she's celibate and then you find out that she's just a terrible person. And then it all makes sense.

  • DiegoF||

    I would totally watch a documentary on her political career. She herself is not super interesting--just a run of the mill political opportunist and survivor (in California terms both then and now, she--quite rarely for that state--has never been considered "right" or "left" but just kind of sui generis doing her own thing) whose only consistent and generally held principle is authoritarianism. But she's been around for everything, right in the middle of it all. You could tell the political story of California over the past half century by telling hers.

  • John||

    Wasn't she associated with Jim Jones back in the day?

  • Brandybuck||

    Yes. And she also showed up in Bond film. Not as a Bond girl though. Ewww.

  • Dillinger||

    Pussy Ga-NO.

  • DiegoF||

    Yes. Pretty much every San Francisco liberal was. Deeply. Her association was not nearly as deep, shameless, or zealous as Milk and Moscone's, though, who were in it up to their elbows even by SF liberal standards. (To take just two examples: When those parents were trying to get their little boy back from Jones, Milk wrote Jimmy Carter a letter personally urging him not to do so, that Jones was a wonderful and gentle person and the parents showed signs of mental derangement and were a danger to their child. As for Moscone, again just one example you might say he would still be alive today if not for Jim Jones...because he would never have been elected mayor without massive vote fraud from the People's Temple, bussing in folks from their (pre-Guyana) compound.)

    Feinstein herself owes her career to the fact that the other candidates for Board of Supervisors President dropped out when she swore if they did she would not run for Mayor next election. We all know how that went. (The deal was quarterbacked by Dan White, with help from Milk and Moscone; the three were actually City Hall friends and allies, and Milk and Moscone's later treachery and humiliation of the mentally unstable White was the reason they were murdered.) There's more details to this interesting and juicy saga but I'll stop there.

  • DiegoF||

    *little boy back from Jones when he went to Guyana. His little body was among those found.

  • RoyMo||

    It isa story so baroque and strange that it will never be properly told in a popular way, and centuries later will be regarded like "The Secret History" of Procopius as scurrilous myth.

  • Sevo||

    DiegoF|9.6.18 @ 4:04PM|#
    "Yes. Pretty much every San Francisco liberal was...."

    Willie is getting to shake a bit now, so he doesn't work the rooms like he used to, but you could easily get him to leave you alone at your table when he approached by asking him "How about some Jim Jones stories, Willie?"
    Seems someone was calling him across the room.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    It says a lot about our ClownWorld society that Milk is considered a martyr for gay rights rather than getting killed just for being an ordinary corrupt politician.

  • BILKER||

    "whose only consistent and generally held principle" is passing legislation which enhances her spouses many and varied businesses with very profitable government no bid contracts.

  • The Last American Hero||

    So she's the Forrest Gump of the Senate?

  • TxJack 112||

    What is actually scary is she has been married three times. Three different men, in spite of all the other women in the world, decide that is who they wanted to sleep with more than once. """shudder"""

  • Harvard||

    You've never met Tony, have you?

  • perlchpr||

    I think even Tony has better taste than that.

  • wingnutx||

    I bet he tastes terrible.

  • perlchpr||

    And yet still better than Feinstein.

  • markm23||

    Or perhaps she was a beard three times...

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    And how does feinstein reconcile Roe with the millions of murdered children? That's how this game is played, isn't it?

  • DrZ||

    It's ok to murder children as long as you do not let the mothers who decide not to abort to chose their child's school. I mean giving choice to people can only go so far before everyone wants a choice.

    Can't herd a country if everyone wants to make their own choices.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    I would respond that maybe Feinstein could reconcile her 1st amendment beliefs with dozens of animated gifs posted on Facebook by Russians, but then I realized she is reconciling that right now.

  • DiegoF||

    The Republicans should make the clip of Feinstein's "hundreds of school shootings" the most famous clip in America. They should go around waving it contemptuously in every Democrat or gun demagogue's face the moment he goes off on gun control or lends his support to the current histrionic atmosphere.

    But they will not, of course, because they are a bunch of dumb pussies. They would think it distasteful and disrespectful of the victims of gun violence, and would think it extremely unwise politically. They will not confront, head on and in its totality, the narrative being pushed by the Left. They do not have the balls to challenge its underlying assumptions, to denounce the whole "mass shooting" thing as a moral panic. Thus they will continue to be put on the defensive with every mass shooting that they attempt to quietly and sheepishly wait out--hmm, will one happen close to election day?--and will continue to slowly lose this fight.

  • Marcus Aurelius||

    The media has made this irrelevant for to circulating those same faulty stats. Ask your liberal neighbor, they'll tell you a hundred school shootings *this year*. Which is what the FBI data says, though they know there were reporting errors.

  • soldiermedic76||

    It is like an ex friend of mine who insisted that it was not disingenuous to include suicide statistics in gun violence numbers after I pointed out when he claimed 30,000 gun homicides that that number included suicides or when he claimed that Wyoming or Montana had more gun violence than New York. And I pointed out that was a disingenuous statistics because the cast majority were suicides.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Feinstein implausibly insisted that "assault weapons are not in common use," even though Americans own more than 16 million of them

    And they're in the trunk of pretty much every cop car in the nation. You cunty bitch.

  • soldiermedic76||

    When I pushed my lefty cousin he admitted he is for banning all semi-automatic guns. This is right after he said no one wants to take my hunting guns and I pointed out that semi-automatic shotguns (including my shotgun) are extremely popular for hunting. Right after he got pissed when I asked him what semi-automatic meant.

  • perlchpr||

    Yeah. It's fucking painful. These jackasses are like "I want to ban X!"

    And I ask "Do you know what that means?"

    And they yell, "You're just being all technical!"

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    I'm told they call it "gunsplaining." As when you correct their erroneous assumptions, you're just missing the whole point.

  • LarryA||

    Ran into one such recently who claimed the world was a much better place when she was growing up, before semiautomatic weapons were made. I told her she looked awful young to be 150.

  • ||

    No, when police have them they are "patrol rifles" which are completely different.

  • D-Pizzle||

    Exchanges like this emphasize the fact that leftists view the courts as unelected "super-legislatures" rather than actual courts of law.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    They do indeed.

  • Bubba Jones||

    Much like the super delegates that got Hillary nominated.

  • Aloysious||

    Jacob. you have earned combat pay for having to look at that creature every day.

  • Velvet Thunder||

    Does anyone know at what time in the linked hearing recording this interaction occurred?

  • Zeb||

    "With all due respect, Senator, that is the dumbest question I've been asked all week"

  • Hamster of Doom||

    "Is there a polite way to rephrase 'go fuck yourself' that I haven't used within the last hour?"

  • ||

    "You're saying the numbers determine common use?"

    I'm kinda surprised a woman like yourself has to ask that question Senator.

  • DiegoF||

    Admiral Robert Willard: Jesus Christ, Kavanaugh, you got one hell of a sense of self-composure!

  • Unicorn Abattoir||

    "With all due respect, Judge Kavanaugh, Senator Booker hasn't questioned you yet."

  • damikesc||

    Hey, I favor the First Amendment in spite of idiots like Feinstein exercising it so relentlessly.

  • ||

    "You're saying the numbers determine common use?" Ms. Feinstein quizzed the nominee.

    Too bad Kavanaugh's effectively interviewing for his job. I would've loved to see anyone with half a brain call her out on this bit of absolute retardedness.

  • perlchpr||

    "How else would you determine it, you ignorant cow?"

  • BadLib||

    "Anyone who is functionally literate would believe so. I, however, have no way of knowing if you believe so."

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    This is an example of why I don't believe we can have an honest debate about gun control.

    They claim to be reasonable, but then say crap like this.

    Of course I think they know they can't win an honest debate on gun control, so go for sensationalism.

  • perlchpr||

    It is remarkable difficult to have an honest debate with someone who constantly lies.

  • perlchpr||

    s/remarkable/remarkably/

  • UnrepentantCurmudgeon||

    Or an honest debate with someone who does not really want an honest debate

  • John||

    Today's compromise is tomorrow's loophole that needs to be closed. There is no compromising or debating with these people. If you could somehow enact legislation that would settle the issue put an end to these people forever trying to further control guns, even I would consider signing onto such a compromise. But you can't. So there is no point in trying. The only response to gun controllers is "fuck you". That is it.

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    That is because compromise is only verbiage with them, as it sounds better than concession.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    They claimed they wanted reasonable gun control, then went nuts when the Heller decision overturned the most draconian gun law in the entire country. That tells you what they think is reasonable: A total ban.

  • Naaman Brown||

    The gun controllers went whole hog defending the DC ban on (a) handguns since 1975 and (b) having an operational gun in the home for available for self-defense.
    The ban overturned by Heller '08 which decided that the Second Amendment protected an individual right to to keep and bear arms for all traditional lawful purposes, including handguns in the home for self defense.

    The gun controllers went whole hog defending the Chicago ban on handguns.
    The ban overturned by McDonald '10 which incorporated the Second Amendment.

    The Amicus Curiae of the gun controllers in the cases of Heller and McDonald supporting the DC and Chicago bans are a paper trail showing their beliefs.

    Hillary Clinton stated during the 2016 campaign that she thought Heller and McDonald decisions were wrong and would work to over turn them, reinstate the 1994-2004 Assault Weapon Ban with amplifications, and look at implementing an Australian style "Turn'em in" order once "assault weapons" were contraband.

    Gun control became a national issue in 1924 after the progressive uplifters got their prohibition of alcohol and looked for the next thing to ban to improve society, and chose handguns, as pointed out by H.L. Mencken.

    To prohibitionists reasonable control is prohibition.

  • TxJack 112||

    You are 100% correct. This IS an example of why we cannot have a serious debate about gun control. When one side begins every discussion with lies, distortions and outright hysteria, why would the other side waste their time? The other issue that no one will address is why are guns the only legally sold item in the US where the push is to punish the people who have never misused one because of the few who have? Drunk Drivers kill almost as many people as guns, yet no one demands that every person who wants to purchase a car prove they have never been arrested or convicted of drunk driving? No one demands that every car have a Breathalyzer to make sure you cannot drive drunk. No one demands that the certain types of high alcohol liquor be banned because it gets you drunk faster than beer or wine. Alcoholics are still allowed to buy booze even though doing so puts them and others in danger. No one has ever attempted to put limits on how much or how often you are allowed to by booze. No one demands that special tracking info be put on every bottle or can of alcohol so who sold it can be tracked and punished if the user gets arrested for drunk driving.

  • perlchpr||

    No one demands that every car have a Breathalyzer to make sure you cannot drive drunk.

    This is not a true statement.

    Unfortunately.

  • The Last American Hero||

    Ever hear of prohibition? Pretty sure that was an attempt to put limits on how much/often you buy booze.

  • Naaman Brown||

    The campaign that led to the Prohibition Amendment and the Volstead Act was about Demon Rum and John Barleycorn (distilled beverages) led by anti-saloon league crusaders.

    A lot of people who disapproved of "intoxicating liquors" and whiskey bars were surprised that their wine and beer over 3.2% were prohibited too.

  • Enjoy Every Sandwich||

    I sometimes wonder if the proponents of the "living Constitution" shit have thought it all the way through.

    Sure, insisting that the Bill of Rights doesn't actually mean anything will make it easier to take away rights they don't like. But has it ever crossed their minds that the same doctrine applies to rights they do care about?

    Right to an abortion? Gay marriage? What right? None according to the Living Constitution!

    Maybe going "Living Constitution" is not a good idea during a Trump administration.

  • Eddy||

    Without the "living constitution," where *do* you get the right to abortion and gay marriage?

  • Enjoy Every Sandwich||

    That is where it comes from, but note that the proponents of those rights now insist that they're set in stone. But if the Constitution is "living" or "flexible", they aren't set in stone or even well-packed sand.

  • Mickey Rat||

    They want a "living constitution" and "dead precedent". Well, at least precedent that they like. I am sure they don't consider Heller set in stone, or Citizens United.

    Look, they just want what they want. Don't expect any internal consistency in what they argue for from issue to issue. Their reasoning is all situational.

  • John||

    Exactly Mickey. They are all about the reference of previous law when it comes to something they want. But they have no respect at all for any ruling they don't like. The whole thing always boils down to "I Want".

  • Shirley Knott||

    Trivial.
    Regulating pregnancy is not an enumerated power.
    Regulating marriage is not an enumerated power.
    So thFeds can butt out.

  • TxJack 112||

    Abortion was legalized by a very liberal interpretation of the 14th amendment that created a right to privacy that does not actually exist. That is why the issue remains unsettled after almost 50 years. As for gay marriage, the decision written by Kennedy was actually stupid because in that case the 14th amendment did actually make it obvious that same sex marriage had to be legal. The Federal, state and local governments give specific rights in regard to taxes, transferring property and protections to a heterosexual, married couples. Since the 14th amendment guarantees equal protection under the law, the government cannot deny a same sex couple who wishes to enter the same type of relationship those same rights and protections simply because members of said government have a moral objection to the lifestyle choice. The government is suppose to only deal with the legal aspects of marriage, not the moral aspects. Morality is the domain of the Church which is protect by the 1st amendment.

  • Bubba Jones||

    Not really. States tried to offer civil unions but that just became an excuse to mandate marriage.

  • perlchpr||

    "Separate but equal" got tossed out quite a few years ago.

    It was bullshit to begin with, but it was really fucked by the fact that they only did the "separate" part, and punted on the "equal" part.

  • TxJack 112||

    But that was from gay community not the states

  • Robert Crim||

    There is no obligation in the Fourteenth Amendment or elsewhere to treat two things as equal when they are not the same. Marriage traditionally has been a contract between a man and a woman in which the rights and obligations of the parties are (1) asymmetric, and (2) sex specific. The problem with same-sex marriage is that it makes no legal sense and, for that, simply is a nullity.

    Furthermore, justices don't get to choose which laws they don't like. Assuming your claim of "specific rights" is well grounded, why would not those laws (rather than restrictions on who can marry) be the unconstitutional laws? The Constitution has in it specific language guaranteeing the obligations of contracts. One can argue against the perceived "unfairness" of the asymmetry in marriage contracts if he or she wants. What is not subject to dispute is that, in the past -- and up to the very recent past -- that is what a "marriage" was and was at the time the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified. Kennedy's claims rest on sand (recall he reversed hundreds of years of precedent when he overruled Bowers v. Hardwick solely upon his gut feelings); I predict they will not survive a decade (and certainly not if Mr. Trump is deciding who next will sit on the Supreme Court).

    And, remember: You read it here first.

  • Naaman Brown||

    What comes from the "living constitution" can go away as easily as anything else the living constitutionalists want to do away with.

  • TxJack 112||

    The notion of a "living Constitution" is nothing more than a catch phrase that actually means allowing the government to revise the scope of individual rights as it deems necessary. It means amending the Constitution without the consent of the governed. It is a ploy by Statists to strip away our Constitutional protections without most people realizing it until it is too late. The Constitution is a static document like a mortgage, business contract or any other legal document.

  • The Iconoclast||

    ^ this

  • Nardz||

    The progressive mindset is explicitly totalitarian.
    They don't worry about the consequences of a "living constitution" because they don't envision themselves not being in power. Further, progressives are the only faction that includes both Ds AND Rs.
    On the off chance that they might not have power at some future fleeting moment, the very philosophy of their opposition - conservatives, founded in the American principles of individual liberty and restricted government - will protect those very same totalitarians (progressives) from significant setbacks/damage.
    Progressivism must be shown for what it is - Socialism, Communism, Nazism, Social Democracy - relentlessly, because the only way to restrain it is to meet it with overwhelming opposition.

  • General_Tso||

    Where does Kavanaugh stand on the possible overburdening and capsizing of the Island of Guam?!?

    Inquiring minds want to know!

  • Enjoy Every Sandwich||

    Feinstein implausibly insisted that "assault weapons are not in common use," even though Americans own more than 16 million of them, only a tiny percentage of which will ever be used to commit crimes.

    In a way Feinstein is correct, although not in the way she intends. There is actually no such fucking thing as an "assault weapon" except in her addled imagination.

  • Zeb||

    Lots of other people's imaginations too.

  • Brian||

    The dishonesty in the gun debate is ridiculous.

    To the degree the phrase "assault rifle" has any meaning outside of politics is the military use, which vaguely refers to rifles with selective fire and detachable magazines.

    As such, none of the assault weapon bans are assault rifle bans, since they use different criteria.

    It's just a way of scaring people, so they use it.

  • UnrepentantCurmudgeon||

    If I have a pet rock and throw it at someone, do I now have an assault rock?

  • TxJack 112||

    Exactly!!! wouldn't anything used to attack (assault) another person be an assault weapon?

  • drisco304||

    We should have a Constitutional amendment setting out 65 as the maximum age for a Senator, Congressman, or Judge.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    And 66 as the minimum age.

  • Duke of url||

    Nicely done.

  • Dillinger||

    court would find a loophole

  • AlmightyJB||

    We lose Burt Reynolds and this old bat is still screwing us.

  • WJack||

    FBI numbers 2016

    Total U.S. firearms related deaths 37,200
    Suicides - 23,800
    Homicides 13,400

    Of the total about 60% are suicides, of the total homicides about 15% involved law enforcement, about 3% were accidental, criminals and the mentally ill account for about 17%. Four cities whose inner city citizens are subject to very strict "gun control" (Chicago, Baltimore, Detroit, and Washington D.C.) account for about 25 % of all criminal homicide.

  • John||

    of the total homicides about 15% involved law enforcement,

    Do you mean that 15% of all homicides are cops killing someone? I am not saying that isn't true, but holy cow is that a disturbing statistic.

  • perlchpr||

    The thing I find hardest to believe about it is that they'd be counted as "homicides".

  • John||

    "Homicide" just means an intentional killing. It doesn't mean it was necessarily unlawful.

  • perlchpr||

    Hunh.

    Wikipedia agrees with you, Google Dictionary does not.

    i.e.: bareword search for "homicide" on Google and it gives the following definition: "the deliberate and unlawful killing of one person by another; murder"

    But reading the etymology "homo" + "cide" = "to kill a man" makes the less charged definition make sense.

    Google Dictionary does list that definition as specifically a "North American" one, so maybe I have a connotation of "murder" that y'all don't for some unknown reason, maybe it's not as widespread as all of "North America"?

  • Harvard||

    Not sure about your state but in mine the death certificates are given only three choices:natural; suicide; homicide

  • perlchpr||

    To be fair, I dunno about my state either. :D

  • The Last American Hero||

    So if you made a "furtive gesture" or had the misfortune of going to bed in your own apartment in Dallas and were killed by a cop, the cause is "natural".

  • UnrepentantCurmudgeon||

    No, actually "homicide" means "the death of a human being caused by another".

  • Zeb||

    Justified killings are homicides. It just means one person killed another.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Zebulon is correct.

  • TxJack 112||

    it isn't police involved shootings account for about 2% of all shootings annually. Only if you include every time an officer discharges his/her weapon regardless of reason is how you get to 15%.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    FACT: The CDC categorizes suicides by firearm under "gun violence".

  • Placeholder Name||

    Can you provide a cite to your homicide breakdown? I believe I heard those numbers from Colion Noir on a podcast, but before I use them in an argument, I want to be sure of the original source.

  • Naaman Brown||

    FBI UCR Crime in the US 2016
    Expanded Homicide Data Table 4, Murder Victims by Weapon, 2012–2016
    2016
    Total Homicides 15,070
    Firearms Homicides 11,004

    I suppose the difference in 2016 FBI stats between 13,400 and 11,004 depends on the definition of Homicide vs Criminal Homicide (murder).

  • Antilles||

    This is the same woman who until relatively recently had a concealed carry permit--something that's almost impossible for regular Californian's without connections to get. When asked about it she said she had a right to defend herself. But she clearly doesn't believe that any of us peons have that same right. Cunt.

  • pro bonobo||

    If you want a concealed carry permit as a Californian, you may just need to move to a different county. One with fewer jobs.

    In my county (I'll not say which), they are common (the permits, not jobs).

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    DIANNE FOUND MOSCONE AND MILK. SHE'S EARNED THE RIGHT TO MAKE UP HER OWN GUN FACTS.

  • perlchpr||

    It's a pity she didn't show up in time for the full show.

  • Kazinski||

    It be pretty hard to find them both, because they were each killed in their own offices which weren't particularly close together.

    I was going I don't know why she's got the thing about assault rifles because Dan White used a handgun, but we know why, because handguns are further down the list.

  • Michael Cook||

    California has gifted us such living monuments of intelligent womanhood. Nancy Pelosi is on the cover of Time this week. She should be remembered for one of the FBI agents who was tried and convicted of profiting from his position assisting a House committee investigating IPO's. He used insider info and profited, then got caught!

    As it turned out, Nancy Pelosi was doing exactly the same thing! However, members of Congress had thoughtfully exempted themselves from prosecution in such matters. She was in no trouble at all at the time. I do not know if this has been changed or not.

  • ||

    Wonder what the response she would have got if she brought up the thousands of shootings in Chicago instead.

  • Mark22||

    Don't be too hard on Feinstein: she's just an Art History major who married into wealth; she just doesn't know any better.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    "Second, the shootings are irrelevant to the question of whether banning so-called assault weapons is consistent with the Second Amendment."

    From a modern 'liberal' standpoint, grammar and history are irrelevant to the question of what a provision of the Constitution means. The relevant consideration is what advances 'liberal' policy.

    That's the whole point of 'living constitutionalism': The Constitution means what you need it to mean, not what it says, or the authors intended.

  • John||

    It is too bad Kavanaugh isn't a real 2nd Amendment absolutist. It would be priceless to see the look on Feinstein's face if Kavanaugh had told her that the 2nd Amendment protects the right to own any arm that can be carried by an individual up to and including automatic weapons and that the purpose of the amendment is to ensure a well-armed public in case of emergency or insurrection and thus the ownership of "assault weapons" is more in line with the purpose of the amendment than even the ownership of handguns.

  • perlchpr||

    Agree.

    "Shall. Not. Be. Infringed."

  • TxJack 112||

    It has never meant we are allowed to own anything. Individuals could not own cannons after the revolution. What is really funny however is you always see in these bans items like grenade launchers or RPGs as one of the features which are not permitted even tough they are already banned except under very special circumstances to very specific people. However, it is also funny when anti gun zealots try to use this same notion as why the 2nd amendment should be repealed. As stated in Heller, we are limited to "common use firearms" and what pisses of morons like Feinstein is common use if defined by common owned. Since rifles using the AR platform are the most popular firearms sold, there is no weapon that better defines common use.

  • Morbo||

    Individuals could not own cannons after the revolution.

    Eh? They sure as fuck could. Hell, you still can today. A muzzle-loading black powder cannon doesn't even require a background check.

    Even a modern, breech loaded cannon isn't off limits, if you fill out the right forms with the ATF and pass a background check.

  • TxJack 112||

    Fill out the right forms and pass a background check yes but if you dont you are barred. As for blackpoweder cannons they are considered antique weapons and not regulated by Feds just like all firearms manufactured before 1899. The point I was trying to make was the distinction about common use weapons. Never cease to amaze me how someone always has to pull of some obsure example to argue that is totally irrelvant to the point being made. Can you go to your local gun shop and buy a howitzer? No, but you can buy an AR without special licenses, fees and background checks because it is a common use weapon. The fact you have to have a Class III license, pay additional registration and other fees and well as go through an exahustive ATF background check demonstrates owning a modern piece of artillery is NOT common use. Common use means ANYONE can own it easily.

  • soldiermedic76||

    Uhm might want to study your history again. Many people, especially merchant shippers owned their own cannons. In fact the Navy was completely disbanded for nearly a decade until Adams got us in a shooting war with France (Quasi-wae 1798-1800, an extension of the French Revolution). Adams had to rely on armed merchant ships (armed at the owners expense) to conduct Naval operations while the government scrambled to build a handful of frigates (the most famous being the USS Constitution).
    Roosevelt purchased artillery pieces privately for the Rough Riders, also. That was in 1891, a bit after the Revolution.

  • soldiermedic76||

    And Roosevelt purchased aforesaid artillery prior to the US Army officially accepting his US Volunteers into it's ranks.

  • TxJack 112||

    Geez you wanna debate automatic vs repeating rifles as well? Some of you are as bad as the anti gun crowd my entire point was simply defining common use weapons as defined in Heller which Feinstein wants to eliminate. By the way I know history well but did not think discussing ever obscure instance was the point of the discussion. I thought we we discussing firearms TODAY. Sorry for using a reference from history to make a point. Okay is a nuclear missle common use, jerkweed? Geez....

  • soldiermedic76||

    Bullshit. You stated, historically inaccurately, that cannons were banned after the Revolution. I provided a couple examples why you were completely wrong. Then you decided to move the goalposts and state "I thought we were talking about modern firearms". You full of shit.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    All Arms are protected. Ships, tanks, cannons, machine guns, rifles, swords, knives, hrenades, bombs, pistols, and any other Arm developed in the future.

  • TxJack 112||

    Really? You think you have a right to a nuke? Gee seems people have been imprisioned for attempting to obtain them. Idiot...

  • AFSlade||

    (1) Do you know what Letters of Marque are Jack? They're in the Constitution. Give some thought to why that is.
    (2) Do you think without an express prohibition on something that somehow people will start having those things (i.e. nukes) in their basement?

    I'll tell you what, I'll give you and every single one of your idiot friends from now until eternity to make a nuclear weapon. Go ahead. Start now. Let me know when you get your first centrifuge built.

    You're assuming what you have to prove, Jack.

    Weapons are "uncommon" specifically because of the ultra vires regulations that have been passed in contravention to people's 2A rights. That's the point you're missing.

  • Robert Crim||

    The Supreme Court of Oregon has addressed these contentions specifically. "Militia weapons" are weapons appropriate to common militia service and would not include cannon, which were special armaments maintained by states in state armories such as those Connecticut once had.

    As for "letters of marque," (1) by international convention, they're no longer lawful to issue, and (2) when they were lawful, they did have to be issued by Congress (so there was an element of public oversight and control in their allowance).

    That, of course, really is the ultimate issue here: Modern militias (like Switzerland's) commonly not only allow but require citizens to own and maintain tools of war, even armor, but that is done in connection with regulated state functions....

  • Robert Crim||

    As for federal functions, what's also in the Constitution is that CONGRESS has the plenary power to arm, equip, and discipline the militia as well as raise its own troops. The Second Amendment was ratified primarily to prevent Congress from abusing these powers -- from, e.g., giving its forces combat aircraft while limiting the militia to slings and arrows. I don't have a problem with a private citizen owning a combat aircraft as part of a state guard and under appropriate state supervision. But, that is not the same thing as allowing anyone who wants one to go buy an F-16. If you're going to take such a claim into a federal court, good luck, but don't expect me to be shocked when you lose. Owning any weapon always will be accompanied by an inquiry into just what the owner (or would-be owner) intends to do with it. It is silly to claim one can own a nuclear weapon for "self defense"; and a similar objection will attach to anyone trying so to justify buying the U.S.S. Missouri. That is not to say that no one ever would be allowed to buy the Wisconsin and turn it into a cruise ship, but again, not just anyone will be allowed to do that.

  • Brian||

    I would appreciate all of this freaking out about Trump's SCOTUS picks, if someone from the opposition could bring up a challenge that's at least somewhat related to an actual issue interpreting the constitution.

    Something a little more substantial than all this "let's bash you for insensitivity" BS.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    "" if someone from the opposition could bring up a challenge that's at least somewhat related to an actual issue interpreting the constitution.""

    But that takes the fun out of an opportunity to virtue signal using rage.

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    "an opportunity to virtue signal using rage" = political theater. It's just an opportunity for people like Booker to take the stage without spending any of their own money.

  • clarkcountycriminalcops||

    "I would appreciate all of this freaking out ...if someone from the opposition could bring up a challenge that's at least somewhat related to an actual issue interpreting the constitution."

    Are you suggesting that Kavanaugh's conclusion that the Federal assault weapons ban was unconstitutional is not an issue based in his interpretation of the Constitution?

    Because if you think determining the constitutionality of a law doesn't involve "interpreting the constitution," you would be wrong.

    Whether or not you agree with him, whether or not you agree with Feinstein, doesn't change the fact her question was not just "related to," but entirely about "an actual issue interpreting the constitution."

  • Alcibiades||

    Burt Reynolds, RIP

  • Dillinger||

    yeah. Eastbound & Down was on yesterday and I was laughing w/a buddy about how Smokey and the Bandit laid the foundation for my libertarianarchist leanings. Long live the Bandit.

  • Alcibiades||

    His movies made the world a funner place to be in unlike the blathering authoritarian windbag under discussion here.

  • John||

    The Longest Yard was on cable the other day. I had not seen it in years. It is a really good movie. The remake was such a joke. It is amazing how dark the original is. They would never make a big Hollywood movie that dark today.

  • Dillinger||

    agreed - not enough chix would go. i liked him in Boogie Nights too.

  • John||

    He was perfect in Boogie Nights.

  • Dillinger||

    heather graham yum also.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Roll her ass in here.

  • Alcibiades||

    He could do the darker stuff as well as comedy.
    Deliverance is a great movie too.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    The original is almost a serious movie.

  • TxJack 112||

    I wonder if God would be willing to trade Burt for Hillary?

  • ||

    Motion to commemorate him as inventor of the high five.

  • Dillinger||

    the continuance is still pending.

  • Dillinger||

    so if I reply to sriwawa up there ^^ does a new universe open or something?

  • DarrenM||

    Feinstein should have said "thousands" of school shootings. If you're going to lie, go big.

  • John||

    Millions and millions!!

  • TxJack 112||

    hundreds of millions!!!!

  • I am the 0.000000013%||

    I think it is telling that in my rush to get through the article so that my brain wouldn't be totally melted by the time I got a chance to comment, I read.

    Yesterday Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who ... expired in 2004

    And I didn't find that assertion unlikely.

  • Dillinger||

    fear the walking senator.

  • perlchpr||

    If someone asserted that she was a lich, I wouldn't argue.

  • bvandyke||

    be nice, you're insulting liches.

  • creech||

    What this line of questioning is relevant to is producing an attack ad that says "The Republicans and Trump nominated a Supreme Court justice who is fine with your kids being killed in school shootings" (or words to that effect.)

  • BILKER||

    isn't booker the same lame brain that thought the island of Guam would capsize and sink?

    Creech is your husband still beating you?

  • Rob Misek||

    Making lying a crime would shut the bitch up.

    Instead her BS resonates with the ill informed who, like it or not, have a right to vote.

  • Unicorn Abattoir||

    Yeah, fuck the first amendment, right?

  • Rob Misek||

    I thought libertarians recognized lying as the initiation of coercion. The purpose of lying is to cause people to make decisions they wouldn't if they knew the truth. That's initiation.

    Why do you advocate lying?

  • Unicorn Abattoir||

    Because I favor the guidelines put forth in the first 5 words of the First Amendment.

  • Rob Misek||

    If the second amendment supports lying, what makes you believe it to be true?

  • Rob Misek||

    First amendment

  • Unicorn Abattoir||

    Much like "shall not be infringed" means something, so does "Congress shall pass no law".

    As far as your silly little paradox goes, don't waste my time with it.

  • Rob Misek||

    There's nothing silly about your paradox, not mine.

    If the constitution supported lying, it could not support truth. They are mutually exclusive.

    You can't have it both ways.

  • Hank Phillips||

    Bravo! A conservative infiltrator with the guts to openly push plank 23 of Hitler's 25-plank platform.

  • Rob Misek||

    So according to you, recognizing that lying is the initiation of coercion makes someone a Nazi.

    Are all libertarians Nazis?

  • Unicorn Abattoir||

    If I bluff while playing poker, have I initiated coercion? Should it be punishable under law?

  • Rob Misek||

    Poker is entertainment, and it is presumed by everyone playing that everyone is lying.

    For responsible people, life is not a game.

    Are you suggesting living our lives assuming everyone is always lying is healthier for society?

    We may as well stop all communication. When you don't value the truth, there is nothing you can say that anyone needs to hear.

  • Rob Misek||

    Or you could "call" and go "all in" then renege after you see the cards, and see how that goes over.

  • Unicorn Abattoir||

    Poker is entertainment, and it is presumed by everyone playing that everyone is lying.

    Honest people can play poker too.

    For responsible people, life is not a game.

    Politics most certainly is. Or if you prefer to compare it to something more life and death, remember that all war is deception.

    Are you suggesting living our lives assuming everyone is always lying is healthier for society?

    No. I'm saying the first amendment permits it. It doesn't matter how you feel about it. What other civil rights would you like to do away with?

    We may as well stop all communication. When you don't value the truth, there is nothing you can say that anyone needs to hear.

    I do value the truth. When dealing with children, cops, bosses, and various others, I also value lies. Contrary to what you (don't) believe, honesty is not always the best policy.

  • Rob Misek||

    By supporting lying, you're opposing truth.

    I'll agree that in a corrupt environment, honesty may not be the best policy in the short term.

    But the constitution wasn't defining a corrupt environment was it? It is a "long term" policy is it not?

    The moment you lie, you are corrupt. We have a corrupt environment because people lie. Until it is criminalized, the corruption will continue.

    If the founding fathers didn't specifically identify this truth, it's because they missed it. They too were human and fallible and they couldn't imagine the technology we have today to eliminate lying.

    We have to hope that we can always do better, progress.

  • Harvey Mosley||

    You propose to end lying by making it illegal. How's that war on drugs working out?

  • Rob Misek||

    Better if lying were also criminalized.

    Imagine if everyone had the human right to digitally record everything we witness everywhere we go. The data immediately stored to the cloud.

    At some point every corruption will be caught and stored. Someone has to be the first to tell you to stop recording. That would violate your rights and initiate an audit.

    All this only to capture truth in response to the threat of a lie, the initiation of coercion.

    Tough to deny audio video evidence of any crime.

  • Rockabilly||

    Fuck you Feinstein, you're a commie piece of shit.

    I wouldn't piss on you if you were on fire.

  • HANSENWT||

    She would have been better off exposing something besides her ignorance and that is saying something.

  • TxJack 112||

    Assault weapons are not common use weapons because an assault rifle is a selective fire rifle capable of automatic fire and those have been banned since 1986. Only people who have a Class III FFL can purchase an automatic rifle and it must have been manufactured before 1986. The rifles that Feinstein and others love to call assault weapons are semi auto rifles that look scary to the grossly uninformed and exceptionally stupid. Regardless, her claim about hundreds of school shootings where "assault weapons" were the weapon of choice is beyond insane. There have not been hundreds of school shootings and the majority of the ones that have occurred, the shooter used a handgun. Feinstein is like every other progressive and her goal is to use the courts to impose laws that Democrats cannot get through Congress.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    You can get automatic weapons, explosives, silencers, grenades, and any other Arm.

  • Naaman Brown||

    Especially if you go gray or black market.
    The Bureau of Justice, Firearms Use by Offenders, prison inmate survey of offenders who possessed or used a firearm in their last offense:
    1991 Retail sources 21%, other 79%
    2004 Retail sources 12%. other 88%
    The other include the felon's friend or family, burglar, thief, drug dealer, street dealer, fence, etc.

  • Harvey Mosley||

    You are wrong about automatic weapons.

  • Robert Crim||

    All of the above are relatively easy to make. Or effectively can be duplicated with a little inventive technology. Furthermore, someone who knew what he was doing could get rid of the machine-gun ban simply by properly framing a Second Amendment case in a proper state (hint: Florida is on the list).

  • Grifhunter||

    "In common use" is undermined by government bans. How many folks would have full auto firearms if the ability to purchase them weren't so expensive or onerous due to government regs?

    If legislative bans are allowed to determine whats in "common use", the government can in perpetuity hold citizens to the technology of the 1920's.

    And another thing: wasn't the "common use" comment by Scalia mere dicta? Sad to see this throwaway phrase become the linchpin of 2nd Amendment jurisprudence. The standard in Miller as to what type of weapon is protected is somewhat closer to the original intent: suitable for use in militia service. It also allows for the advancement of small arms technology into the future.

  • Uncle Jay||

    Senator Feinstein should "reconcile" to Mr. Kavanaugh about all her armed body guards.

  • Unicorn Abattoir||

    Well if they could enact some "common sense" gun legislation and ban the private ownership of firearms, she wouldn't need those armed guards.

    Of course she'd still keep them.

  • dave b.||

    "Take the guns first, go through due process second" - President Twitter Fingers

  • Entropy Drehmaschine Void||

    That "Shoulder Thingie That Goes Up" sure has killed a lot of kids ...

  • Hank Phillips||

    Sullum is good at citing facts. Unfortunately, those have no bearing on what Kleptocracy politicians push. The Second Amendment makes it possible for folks to resist looters on asset-forfeiture rampages. That plus a constituency too cowardly to vote other than from within a "consensus" mob both bear weightily on the issue.

  • DWB||

    Wonder how she reconciles all those women keeping those rosaries off their ovaries and yet still getting pregnant "unplanned."

    Can we get a little common-sense vagina control please?

  • josh||

    He should've given her a confused look, and then asked her to explain what an "assault weapon" is.

  • perlchpr||

    Holy god, that would have been hilarious.

  • Mark22||

    That picture... I'm going to have nightmares.

  • clarkcountycriminalcops||

    Feinstein implausibly insisted that "assault weapons are not in common use," even though Americans own more than 16 million of them, only a tiny percentage of which will ever be used to commit crimes.

    Of course assault weapons are in common use. We know this because of the more than 16 million in America we can only document "a tiny percentage" of them are actually ever used.

  • Michael Cook||

    High on my wish list as I close in on the near-$4,000 it is going to lighten my wallet is a Springfield M1A Super Match in Marine Corps Green. It doesn't look anything like an AR-15 or an AK-47, but in any gunfight beyond 500 yds it eats them for lunch and spits out metal toothpicks.

    I am buying it because it is a close (actually, much improved) version of my 1970 boot camp rifle. America has a lot of veterans and they tend to want to own something they know they can depend on in a bad situation.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Most veterans alive today know about bad situations . . . such as not winning a war in 75 years, settling instead for a series of vague draws against ragtag irregulars across the globe despite staggering taxpayer-provided resource advantages.

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    Now back to Feinstein's mendacity....

  • Mark22||

    settling instead for a series of vague draws

    Gosh, I wonder who might be responsible for that!

  • Sevo||

    My goodness, folks!
    A thread on guns and not a bit of Hihnfection, nor a visit from that annoying asshole!
    Wonderful evening!

  • perlchpr||

    Y'know, I hadn't marked it, but you're right. I should count blessings when they appear.

    *fistbump*

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    Other than the asshole who posted just above you. They tend to lie quiet when someone from their side is so obviously lying.

  • John C. Randolph||

    I wish the man had the balls to just say:

    "Senator, with all due respect, (which is to say none whatsoever), you should stop pretending that your fantasy of universal victim disarmament can possibly be consistent with the constitution. Self defense is the paramount human right, and only totalitarian scumbags like you would ever try to deny it to the public.

    As for the children killed in school shootings, shame on you for using their deaths to try to exacerbate the problem. These crimes occur in places where the attackers have reason to expect that no-one present will have the means to stop them. FUCK YOU for helping them, you disingenuous twat."

    -jcr

  • Jenny Mathew||

    Nice Post.....

  • VinniUSMC||

    It is difficult to escape the conclusion that Feinstein was just making shit up

    So, business as usual for the senator from California. That's her forte.

  • mferguson||

    I'm both dismayed and angry with Feinstein's constituents/voters, for they must be out-to-lunch and unintelligent or just afraid to vote for anyone other than the status quo. They definitely deserve the kind of government they're getting in her area, tho... sad

  • UnrepentantCurmudgeon||

    The problem is that she is U.S. Senator, so her supporters are imposing their kind of government on the whole country

  • Mark22||

    Feinstein is elected by an ultra-wealthy government-connected elite, and she certainly brings home the bacon for them: massive government spending on what is in their interest.

  • Hell Hound||

    I'm pretty sure she over exaggerated the back alley abortion deaths b4 Roe too

  • UnrepentantCurmudgeon||

    Feinstein is an idiot. A majority of Californians keep electing her. Therefore, a majority of Californians are idiots. QED

  • Mark22||

    It's rational self-interest: she actually delivers what California voters want in the short term, destructive as that may be. It's all about power and money.

  • snowhawk||

    A majority of the Out of Staters (The sexual perverts, Drug addicts, and generational Welfare recipients unwanted by their own families) the Commiecrats have lured to California with promises of a Paradise, free stuff, and real Mexicans making the taco's have kept the RATS in office here. Even a transit can vote.

  • operagost||

    Ms. Feinstein, how do you reconcile your support of the 1st amendment with the hundreds of violent protests?

  • FarfalleAlfredo||

    So she wants a ban on all "assault weapons"? Could she be any more vague? By basic rules of English that includes any weapon used in an assault. I throw a rock and hit you in the head, the rock was an assault weapon. I hit you over the head with a bottle, the bottle is an assault weapon. Choke with a shoelace, the lace is an assault weapon. So, does she want to ban rocks, bottles, and shoelaces or just what she thinks are big bad scary guns? (I wonder...are her bodyguards unarmed?)

    We definitely need to get these liberals out of office and into a mental health facility for treatment.

  • snowhawk||

    What a stinking hypocrite!!! Dianne Feinstein has carried a small loaded revolver upon her person since Democrat Dan White murdered Democrats Moscone-Milk within San Francisco's City Hall on 27/11/ 78 leaving Dianne to become Mayor of the American Communist shit hole.
    I'm always amazed by the hypocrisy of the Elite with security details following them around that fear the rest of us protecting ourselves.

  • Rob Misek||

    The rest of us won't be able to afford personal google killer robots.

    When the second amendment was written, the government (elites) had muskets and cannon. Today they have drones, yes killer robots and spy on every aspect of our lives.

    The second amendment was never more necessary.

    Personal defence and the ability to form disciplined militias requires assault rifles, at least until bigger things can be obtained.

  • Robert Crim||

    Diane Whinestein, who is allied with Nancy Pigosi and Kamala "Mad Dog" Harris -- Think of what San Francisco has contributed to our nation!

  • Alan@.4||

    Easy and truthful answer. The lady Senator from California lies like the proverbial Persian rug.

  • AD-RtR/OS!||

    DiSpy is delusional, and has been for a decade or more.

  • BunkerBill||

    Is that guy in back on Feinstein sending White Power hand signals?!?!

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online