Tag: Feinstein

In the wake of the Las Vegas shootings people are asking “what could have been done?”. The answer might be unsettling.

The solution to a problem, of course, depends on the root cause of that problem. If your transmission is having a problem, fixing the brakes won’t help. To find a potential solution in this case, we need to understand the root causes of the event.

Some people are suggesting that background checks on gun purchases are the answer. But, the shooter passed background check after background check. So that’s not the solution.

Perhaps he was, as ISIS claims, a radicalized Muslim. If that’s the case, then better surveillance of fringe Muslim groups might be the answer. But there’s no evidence that he converted to Islam, so that’s not the answer.

He had a lot of guns. Could limiting purchases to one per month have stopped this? He seems to have purchased the guns over a long period of time. So that’s not the answer either.

Magazine size limits? He had dozens of guns. He could have, and did, switched guns as easily as magazines. No answer there.

Better monitoring of the mentally ill? There’s nothing to suggest that he was diagnosed with mental illness. Was he a member of an extremist group like Antifa? Nope. Past episodes of suicidal behavior? None. Anything in his online presence? Not a thing.

In short, there was nothing in the guy’s background that provided a clue as to what he was very carefully planning. No law, either currently on the books or proposed, could have stopped him. So says California Senator Dianne Feinstein. Even she says that there is no legislative solution that would have prevented this killer from doing what he wanted. (But don’t think that’s stopping her from proposing more gun laws!)

The unsettling answer is that there are no right answers here.


Are you also reminded of the underpants gnomes when you listen to the anti-gun types? They both have equally nebulous business plans. For the anti-gun left, the plan is…

  • Phase 1: Pass laws.
  • Phase 2:         ?
  • Phase 3: No more guns!

The 2nd phase of the underpants gnomes’ plan is a complete mystery. There is no conceivable Phase 2 that could actually link “Collect underpants” to “Profit”. No one, not even Cartman, could tell us what Phase 2 could possibly be.

The 2nd phase of the anti-gun plan, however, is actually quite obvious: Gun owners cooperate and surrender their arms. What’s not clear is whether or not the average anti-gun leftist is aware that our cooperation is a necessary ingredient for the plan’s success. As we’ve mentioned before, Americans are remarkably uncooperative when it comes to obeying gun laws. Thus a plan that requires the active participation of its victims is not one with a promising future.

The “senior partners” in the movement are likely aware of the missing and unobtainable component of their plan. They probably know that the goal they claim to support cannot be achieved. In short, they’re lying to their followers about ridding the US of its guns. While they know that the movement is seeking the impossible, there’s real profit to be made. For them, that is. They raise money by tricking the rubes into thinking that there’s really a way to disarm the American people. Better still for them, their “investors” are people who reward intentions rather than results.

This November, Gavin Newsom is banking on that habit of rewarding intentions over results. His “Safety for All” initiative doesn’t actually have to win in November. Nor does it actually have to work if it does win. What matters to California Democrats is that “his heart’s in the right place” and that “he means well”. So when it comes to his 2018 gubernatorial bid, “Safety for All” is already paying dividends. Even if Prop 63 turns into an election day disaster, (i.e. turning out millions of screaming mad gun owners who flip the State for Donald Trump!) Gavin Newsom will still reap a tidy profit from his investment. So while his business plan isn’t anything close to the anti-gun business plan, Newsom does have a plausible Phase 2: “Trick them again”.


I think I’ve asked that question before.

Thanks to a President and his Party  who’ve made their dislike of American gun owners quite clear, gun sales are booming. This past “Black Friday” saw guns flying out of gun stores at a rate of  at least 3 per second

The staggering number of checks — an average of almost three per second, nearly three times the daily average — falls on the shoulders of 600 FBI and contract call center employees who will endure 17-hour workdays in an attempt to complete the background reviews in three business days, as required by law, FBI spokesman Stephen Fischer said.

Mind you, that’s 3 checks per second. In places that aren’t called “California”, each check could have had more than one firearm involved. Allegedly, the “gun boom” is winding down, but you can’t tell it from sales stats like these.

Which leads me to the President and his anti-gun pals. For a bunch of people who want to reduce gun ownership, they certainly have done a lot to promote it. The more they threaten to ban this or that, the more the dreaded items become coveted by the American People. Before the passage of the Roberti-Roos gun ban in California, or the Clinton gun ban in Washington D.C., AR-15 and AK-47 style rifles weren’t all that common. In fact, “Black guns” in general weren’t all that common. But tell an American that he can’t have something, and he’ll instantly want it. Now the AR-15 is “America’s Gun”. For all the howling DiFi or Chucky Schumer do about guns in America, there are few who haven’t done more to promote gun ownership than these people have.

This writer saw evidence of this at a recent Toys-for-Tots fun shoot hosted by NRA Members’ Councils of Orange County. There were three things at the range that day that must terrify people like this President. The first was all of the “Black guns” on display. Nearly everyone had brought an AR or AK platform rifle to shoot. These have become commonplace firearms; despite the best efforts of the gun banners. The next terrifying thing for the gun banners: There were lots of new shooters there that day. We had a lot of first timers there and they really enjoyed shooting. They may or may not become gun owners, but they won’t accept the Media’s lies about gun owners anymore.

The final, and probably most horrifying thing that was there that day, horrifying to Bloomberg and his mommies, that is: Children. There were families there, all shooting, and all teaching their children about guns and gun safety. The long game for the anti-gun side is to change the American culture. In 1994, Dr. Mark Rosenberg, the head of the CDC’s National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, told the New York Times:

“We need to revolutionize the way we look at guns, like what we did with cigarettes… it used to be that smoking was a glamour symbol, cool, sexy, macho. Now it is dirty, deadly and banned.”

While his world view is incorrect, Dr. Rosenberg was correct about one thing: The only way to disarm the American People is to change their culture; to make them stop being Americans. But since he uttered those words, Dr. Rosenberg’s side has been losing their battle. Guns are more common, not less. Black guns are more common, not less. There are more younger shooters. There are more female shooters. There are more minority shooters. They were waiting for all of us old, White guys to die off, but we’re being replaced by a new generation of gun owners.

For all of their efforts, all they’ve done is to ensure that Americans will always be armed.

So who’s side are they on?!

News Shooting sports

Like Joe Biden, Sen. Dianne Feinstein recommends a shotgun for self-defense. Unlike Ol’ Joe, she doesn’t recommend randomly discharging it through doors or off the balcony and at the neighbors.

News Self-defense

You ever hear that joke about the bear hunter?

From the LA Times

WASHINGTON — In a final appeal to her colleagues to reinstate an assault weapons ban, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) displayed on the Senate floor Wednesday a New York Daily News front page from the day after her ban was pulled from a broader gun control bill: It shows the photos of the 20 first-graders shot to death at Sandy Hook Elementary Schoolwith the headline: “Shame on U.S.”

And then, Feinstein told her colleagues, “Show some guts.”

But her attempt to attach the ban to the gun bill failed, drawing just 40 votes, with 60 senators voting against it.

That was fewer than the 52 votes she received in 2004 in her unsuccessful effort to renew the now-lapsed 1994 ban.

dianne_feinstein Nelson_Ha-Ha

Anti-gun Federal Legislation News

No, not that ConLaw prof. I’m talking about one who actually teaches and not the guest-lecturer-in-chief.

This ConLaw professor is UCLA’s Adam Winkler. Professor Winkler is a nationally recognized legal scholar. More specifically, he knows quite a bit about the 2nd Amendment. His book on the subject Gunfight: The Battle over the Right to Bear Arms in America, has been called an even handed treatment of the gun control debate in the US.

Winkler’s latest on gun control can be found at The Daily Beast: Did the Assault-Weapons Ban Kill Gun Control? In it, Winkler points out that the gun grabbers may have overplayed their hand with DiFi’s AW ban; so much so that they may have torpedoed other gun control efforts. DiFi and Obama have sucked the oxygen out of the room and more “moderate” proposals, like a magazine ban or background checks, could fail as well.

Even if enacted, Feinstein’s proposal would be the most likely of all the major gun reforms being considered in Washington today to be overturned on Second Amendment grounds. The Supreme Court has held that the Second Amendment protects arms that are “in common use” for lawful purposes, like self-defense. There seems little doubt that assault weapons are in common use, given the millions of them in circulation. Of course, the courts might still have upheld the ban; a federal appeals court recently said that outlawing this one category of firearm didn’t substantially interfere with anyone’s self-defense. Strangely, the best thing an assault-weapons ban would have going for it is its loopholes. Because you could buy the exact same gun without the pistol grip, you weren’t really denied the right to have a semiautomatic rifle to defend yourself.

There was one certain impact of proposing to ban the sale of assault weapons: it was guaranteed to stir gun-rights proponents to action. Ever since Obama was elected, they’ve been claiming that he wanted to ban guns. Gun-control advocates mocked this claim—then proposed to ban a gun. Not only that, the gun they were trying to ban happened to be the most popular rifle in America. It’s one thing to ban machine guns, which few law-abiding people ever wanted or used. It’s another thing entirely to ban a gun that millions of American gun enthusiasts love to shoot.

But it’s his discussion of one of the “moderate” gun control proposals that needs some attention. Winkler correctly points out that Chuck Schumer’s background check bill would have been as easier sell, and that his pal DiFi may have just shot the bill in the head, but he incorrectly accepts at face value the claim that such checks would “primarily burden criminals and the mentally ill trying to buy guns”. That isn’t the case at all.

In fact, criminals and the mentally ill wouldn’t be burdened at all. Only mentally healthy, law abiding citizens would be affected. Criminals and the mentally ill are already barred from possessing firearms. To do so for them is a federal felony. So for them, filling out the paperwork for a background check would be a self-incriminating act. And per the 5th Amendment, a law like Schumer’s cannot compel a person to incriminate himself. And practically speaking, it’s just ridiculous to think that criminals or the insane would actually follow the law in the first place and only purchase firearms after completing a background check. So the only one who will be burdened by such a law is you. You’re the one who cannot claim a 5th Amendment privilege to keep from being compelled to go through a background check. You’re the one who Big Sis will have her beady eyes on.

And they say crime doesn’t pay! Apparently crazy pays off too.

So I hope that Professor Winkler takes a second look at what he’s calling “moderate”” and accepting as effective. “Universal” background checks are anything but universal and can only serve to let the government spy on law abiding gun owners.

Anti-gun Federal Legislation News

Anthony Canales takes a look at where disappointed gun grabbers might go next…

Gunowners and firearms activists were greeted with good news this morning that the Feinstein bill to ban modern sporting rifles and high capacity magazines was being stripped out of the Senate Gun Control Bill by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.

To keep peace in the Senate, however, Senator Reid is going to allow Senator Feinstein to present her bill as an amendment on the floor. Prospects for the ban are not good, with Senator Reid’s whip count coming up some 15 Democrats or more short in his latest survey.

Still, that does not mean that gungrabbers like Feinstein and Schumer are done at the Federal Level. Firearms rights activists are going to have to remain vigilant well until the eve of the 2014 Election, if the 103rd Congress that DiFi is so fond of reminding us all about is of any indication.

But there are signs that the argument is devolving into a discussion of expanding the definitions of what is a prohibited person, and how gun bans can be increased de facto through broader and broader classifications of derogatory misdemeanors and issues related to mental health treatment.

This argument is as old as North American politics. Whether it was Tammany Hall’s way of using the Gangs of New York to control the vote, Jim Crow, or even Liberal politics to implement Federal and State gun control in the 1960′s, it is the ruling elites that generally have a problem with an armed citizenry. If anything, any armed individual is a threat to the Ruling Class, if their own Animal Farm methodologies are to be analyzed thoroughly.

The Observation Post


Breitbart.com’ s Elizabeth Sheld is reporting that California’s antediluvian Sen. Dianne Feinstein has been told that Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) will not be bringing her “assault weapons” ban to the floor of the Senate for a vote.

Now tell me: Does this quote sound like it was delivered through gritted teeth or what?!

“My understanding is it will not be [part of the base bill],” Feinstein said. “It will be separate.”

Asked if she were concerned about the decision, Feinstein paused and said, “Sure. I would like to [see the bill moved], but the leader has decided not to do it.”

“You will have to ask him [Reid],” she said, when asked why the decision was made.

Schadenfreude baby!

Breitbart is also reporting that Democrat insiders are telling them that Chuck Schumer’s (D-NY) “universal” background check bill will get buried in a shallow next to DiFi’s AW ban.


Anti-gun Federal Legislation News

Anti-gun Federal Legislation News

Anti-gun Federal Legislation News