Sen. Dianne Feinstein is no friend of gun rights. In fact, if you ask many gun owners to name the congressman or woman most likely to spearhead any effort to destroy the Second Amendment, many would answer with Feinstein’s name. There’s a good reason to assume that. It was her proposed Assault Weapon Ban that sought to take the modern sporting rifle and categorize it as an NFA weapon.
Don’t expect to see her as a guest at any Friends of the NRA banquets in the near future.
However, she made a recent confession that I found very interesting. Basically, she says she’s not sure any set of laws would have averted the massacre in Las Vegas on October 1.
Senator Diane Feinstein was on NBC’s Meet the Press this morning (click the image above for the full interview). The primary topic, as you’d expect, was the Las Vegas massacre and the senior senator from California’s legislative proposal to ban bump fire stocks. During the interview, host Chuck Todd asked her a very reasonable question . . .
Let me ask you this. Give me the slate of laws that, if you could wave your wand and have enacted, that could have prevented Vegas.
As someone who has introduced fourteen gun control bills during her time in the world’s greatest deliberative body, you’d think Di would have had a well-rehearsed, pat answer to regurgitate in response. You’d be wrong.
After a fleeting blank stare and a pause, she said . . .
I don’t know. I would have to take a good look at that and really study it. I’m not sure there is any set of laws that could have prevented it.
Funny, that’s kind of what most of us have been saying. Note that this hasn’t stopped her from trying to push through a ban on bump-fire stocks in the least, nor is it going to stop her from further attempts to regulate guns.
She knows. She knows for a fact that nothing will stop tragedies like this from happening, but that doesn’t mean a thing. She wants guns to be banned. She doesn’t believe you or I have any right to keep and bear arms, regardless of the plain text of the Second Amendment. It doesn’t matter that it won’t stop the next mass killer. No, the only thing that she cares about is her platform.
In other words, Dianne Feinstein doesn’t actually care about making Americans safer, she only cares about making it look like she cares about the safety of everyday Americans.
Frankly, there’s a nobility in being wrong but well-intentioned. While the road to hell may be paved with good intentions, it’s far better to see that than the calculating politician who knows their efforts won’t actually have the desired effect but pushes through anyway.
It’s unlikely that Feinstein just figured out that laws like her proposal would have no effect, either. She’s been involved in politics long enough that it’s highly improbable no one showed her the reality. It’s unlikely she didn’t know before now the net effect of her policy positions.
Instead, it seems she just didn’t care.