‘You don’t have a clue’: Feinstein gets taken to gun school 101 for her proposed ‘assault weapons’ ban

(Video screenshots)

Despite years of gun experts trying to explain to her that the term is flawed, Democrat Sen. Dianne Feinstein continues nevertheless to misuse the term “assault weapons” in her relentless bid to regulate the Second Amendment into near non-existence.

Case in point: On Wednesday she and her Democrat peers in the Senate introduced an “Assault Weapons Ban of 2019” bill that would “ban the sale, transfer, manufacture and importation of military-style assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines.”

Except there’s no such thing as “military-style assault weapons.” There are however certain “cosmetic features” that grossly misinformed Democrats like Sen. Feinstein think have the power to magically transform an otherwise regular weapon into a military-styled one.

In the case of her new bill, these cosmetic traits include, as an example, “a pistol grip, a forward grip, a barrel shroud, a threaded barrel or a folding or telescoping stock.”

But as noted by actual gun experts such as National Rifle Association spokeswoman Dana Loesch, these are all cosmetic features that have no effect whatsoever on a weapon’s capabilities:

Those are all valid points. Here’s another one touted by social media:


Democrats oppose President Donald Trump’s plan to construct a wall along the southern U.S. border. Why? Because they allege that the wall would do little to curb illegal immigration.

Numerous current/former U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials and U.S. Customs and Border Protection have said otherwise, but Democrats think they know better.

What remains unclear is why the same Democrats who oppose the wall think that implementing draconian regulations on firearms would stop mass shootings and “protect our children.”

Especially given that just like with the facts surrounding the border wall, the facts pertaining to gun regulations shows that their narrative is patently false — regulations would not stop mass shootings. It’s not even clear that regulations would even reduce their occurrence.


Vivek Saxena


Latest Articles