As we all expected, the mass shooting that took place a little over a week ago in Las Vegas has led to many on the left foaming at the mouth with the possibility of getting more restrictive gun control passed in America.

Their ultimate goal is a permanent ban on all firearms and a confiscation that would leave citizens completely without protection, which is precisely what the government wants.

I mean, if a population is unarmed with the government having a military force at their disposal, how could we ever resist any measure, no matter how oppressive, they put out? The short answer is, we couldn’t.

However, what most liberals refuse to admit, particularly with the Las Vegas incident, is that gun laws that were already in place failed miserably. No laws would’ve prevented the attack.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein finally admitted as much on CBS’s show “Face The Nation,” yet, despite that fact, she’s still pushing for gun control. Makes total sense to pass useless legislation that won’t actually solve the problem, right?

Via CBS News:

“No, he passed background checks registering for handguns and other weapons on multiple occasions,” said Feinstein, who noted Paddock didn’t display any of the signs one might look for in a potential shooter like a criminal record or mental illness.

But Feinstein doesn’t believe that means Congress should do nothing on gun control.

She has introduced a bill to ban “bump stocks,” the device law enforcement say allowed Paddock used to transform semi-automatic guns to fire like automatic guns. The legislation currently has 38 Democratic sponsors and no Republican sponsors, although Feinstein said some Republicans have shown interest. Last week, White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee said President Trump is “open” to conversations about bump stocks.

Feinstein said banning bump stocks is “one small thing” that Congress can do to take these weapon transformers out of circulation, and rejected the notion that the bill will lead to banning semi-automatic weapons or seriously restricting gun access in some other way. The bump stock ban was a part of broader assault weapons legislation many Democrats supported in 2013. That bill failed.[…]

The California senator did criticize a concealed-carry reciprocity bill currently in the Senate. That legislation would allow people who have concealed carry permits in one state to use that permit in any other state.

“Well, my opinion of that bill is it’s terrible,” she said. “We want every American to feel comfortable packing a concealed weapon around the country? I represent 40 million Californians, and I can say without hesitation Californians do not want concealed carry.”

Either Feinstein has a complete and total misunderstanding of the Second Amendment, or she simply doesn’t care about the rights of Americans to protect themselves, their families, and their property.

The whole point of the right to bear arms is so the citizenry can have the means of protecting themselves against tyranny, which men in power are prone to as we’ve seen countless times throughout history.

Some might say sure, but that doesn’t mean a person should have an assault rifle, as the Second Amendment was created during a time when muskets were the main firearm available. Leftists argue that the Founding Fathers never envisioned horrible weapons like machine guns and assault rifles being covered under this amendment.

Wrong.

Ever heard of the puckle gun? It was a machine gun type of weapon invented in the early 1700s, before the Constitution. Yes, the Founding Fathers did intend to include advanced weaponry in the Second Amendment. They knew an army would possess such weapons, therefore, the people have the right to them as well.

If only liberals actually knew their history.

 

Join the Discussion

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.