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.”
Americans across the nation are asking Congress to reinstate the federal ban on military-style assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. If we’re going to put a stop to mass shootings and protect our children, we need to get these weapons of war off our streets.
— Sen Dianne Feinstein (@SenFeinstein) January 9, 2019
That’s why I’m proud to introduce the Assault Weapons Ban of 2019. This bill bans the sale, manufacture, transfer and importation of 205 military-style assault weapons by name.
— Sen Dianne Feinstein (@SenFeinstein) January 9, 2019
It also bans any assault weapon that accepts a detachable magazine and has one or more military characteristics including a pistol grip, a forward grip, a barrel shroud, a threaded barrel or a folding or telescoping stock.
— Sen Dianne Feinstein (@SenFeinstein) January 9, 2019
And it bans magazines and other ammunition feeding devices that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition, which allow shooters to quickly fire many rounds without needing to reload. Information on all of the bill’s provisions can be found here: https://t.co/2sMmdPeSpJ
— Sen Dianne Feinstein (@SenFeinstein) January 9, 2019
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:
What classifies something as an “assault weapon” is none of the things described here. More accurately, it would be any rifle that has select fire capability, meaning a rifle that switches between semi-auto, 3 round burst, or full auto. You description is purely cosmetic. https://t.co/8QS5KGnvAP
— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) January 10, 2019
If we are banning cosmetic features, may I suggest this one pic.twitter.com/V1tITfsIU8
— Teflon Gone (@TeflonGone) January 10, 2019
You realize that a cosmetic feature like a grip or threaded barrel has no effect to the action of the firing pin stricking the rounds causing the internal combustion to propel the bullet? But I guess leave rules about guns to people who don’t know a thing about them ?
— Kyle (@KyleFails) January 10, 2019
You don’t have a clue what any of those features mean or do to a firearm. If you did, you’d know that a Ruger Mini-14 and a Colt AR – 15 which both fire .223 ammunition are identical, minus cosmetic features on the Colt. Yet, you’d ban the Colt but not the Ruger.
— DJ Esq. (@jmdeejays) January 10, 2019
Could you explain how any of those features make a firearm inherently more lethal? They’re arbitrary cosmetic and ergonomic features that don’t actually affect the lethality of the firearm.
— AA (@AlecA82475839) January 10, 2019
You’ll want to ban cosmetic features, like the last time? Also, what does “military style” mean? Do you or your staffers know anything about firearms?
— Matthew Gallagher (@MattGall5) January 10, 2019
OK, quick, define “assault weapon” without naming any purely cosmetic markers.
— Ed Dudzinski (@ecdski) January 10, 2019
Anyone who believes mere cosmetic such as a pistol grip or a telescoping stock increase the deadlines of a weapon has no business being in the Senate or any other position in government.
— José Antonio Primo de Rivera (@JosAntonioPrim4) January 10, 2019
Those are all valid points. Here’s another one touted by social media:
Same lawmakers who don’t think a building a wall will reduce illegal immigration think banning guns will make them disappear. https://t.co/GZ5uEBdmFX
— Cam Edwards (@CamEdwards) January 10, 2019
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.
As most rational people would agree your stupid laws will do nothing to stop any mass shootings or save any lives for that matter. I would love to see ANY proof that one of these laws will help. Clearly it’s a sad attempt by your party to disarm the citizens. NEVER! #MolonLabe
— Taurus (@Taurus5019) January 10, 2019
Hey DiFi, why don’t you simply admit that gun bans have nothing to do with crime prevention and that your true goal is to disarm the civil population, making them easier to rule over. It would save everyone a lot of time and headaches.
— Chris Backley (@GrinderCB) January 10, 2019
An assault weapons ban would do nothing to stem the majority of murders that occur with handguns. Per your own logic, you should not support banning handguns.
— Conservative Democrat (@paul12304) January 9, 2019
This still won’t stop kids on antidepressants from killing each other I wish you actually would address the root of the problem not the tool being used. Common sense isn’t common among lawmakers
— JJ Ballestero (@JJBallestero) January 10, 2019
DONATE TO BIZPAC REVIEW
Please help us! If you are fed up with letting radical big tech execs, phony fact-checkers, tyrannical liberals and a lying mainstream media have unprecedented power over your news please consider making a donation to BPR to help us fight them. Now is the time. Truth has never been more critical!
[email protected]
V. Saxena is a staff writer for BizPac Review with a decade of experience as a professional writer, and a lifetime of experience as an avid news junkie. He holds a degree in computer technology from Purdue University.
- Jen Psaki panics, asks where’s the Republican ‘bed-wetting’ over Trump being likely nominee - October 1, 2023
- Shocking number of French back limiting air travel, but climate zealots set a CRAZY limit - October 1, 2023
- Former ABC journalist gets just 6 years for child porn – videos included infant being raped - October 1, 2023
Comment
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please click the ∨ icon below and to the right of that comment. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.
